Post-Assessment

Post-Assessment: Depth of Analysis Scores

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Depth of Analysis
1

3.5

This chart shows that zero students received a score of a 1 when analyzing how a
character in To Kill a Mockingbird has been developed. Three students received a
score of 2 when analyzing how a character develops because they may have only
slightly elaborated on very surface-level ideas when attempting to analyze how
their character has developed. A total of 8 students received a score of 3 when
analyzing how a character has been developed because these students were able to
fully explain how their character was developed, by may not have identified why, or
the larger implications of their characters development on the central message or
authors purpose of the novel. This category turned out the second highest amount
of students. The amount of students who scored in 3 category improved from the
pre-assessment because only 9 students received a 3 on depth of analysis during
the pre-assessment. Now, 11 students have received a 3 or 3.5 on depth of
analysis. In addition, a total of 14 students received the highest possible score when
it comes to depth of analysis. This is a major improvement from the 6 who received
this score on the pre-assessment. Conceptually speaking, students were able to
elaborate on how and why as well as speaking to the larger implications their
analysis raises.

Post-Assessment

Comparision of Analysis Scores from Pre to Post Assessment

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

3.5

Post-Assessment

Post-Assessment Results for all Rubric Categories

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Thesis Statement

Introduction of Evidence Quality of Evidence

1

3.5

Depth of Analysis

The Student at the lowest performing level was able to achieve a score of a 3 in
regards to depth of analysis. Although he does not specifically identify whether he
is analyzing point of view or dialogue as an indicator of character development, he
says that, [the narrators] descriptions of [the character] change. Thus, I see that
the student is choosing to analyze how the narrators point of view of the character
develops. The student then presents a quotation to illustrate the development and
explains why this shows his characters development by saying, Jem becomes a
leader of Dill, Scout, and himself. This statement shows that the student recognizes
Jems character has developed to becoming more of a leader. The student then
makes an inference that explains why he thinks this change has happened.
However, after the short explanation of why, the student fails to relate this to a
larger purpose of the author, and the central message of the text. The student
received a 3 because he was able to explain how and why the character developed
but does not speak to the larger implications of the characters development on our
understanding of the central message of the text. This is an improvement from his
performance on the pre-assessment, however. During the pre-assessment this
student was able to choose a piece of evidence with great potential to propel
analysis. In fact, this student interpreted the quotation into his words, showing me
his understanding of it. However, he was unable to speak to the main task of the
assignment, to state how his evidence showed prejudice and the implications of this
prejudice on other characters in the text. Thus, when asked to analyze, this student
went from merely interpreting a piece of evidence to interpreting a piece of
evidence, stating how that evidence showed character development, and why that
characters development was important. I consider this a huge accomplishment for
a student who represents the lowest reading level in the class, those who barely
meet Grade 8.

Post-Assessment
The student at the middle performing level also received a 3 for his analysis of how
his character was developed through point of view. This student chooses to provide
two quotes; one from the beginning of the novel, and one from the end of the novel,
both showing how Jems point of view or perception of the world around him has
developed. So, although this student provided a bit more evidence than the student
representing the level below him, he failed to adequately explain that evidence and
the implications. The student states that, Jem is developed . . . by growing into
someone understands the concerns of the world is better and is less inclined to play
childish games. This explanation shows that the student is able to discern a
characters development from one point in the novel to a one later on, showing me
understanding of the nature of character development. Also, this student is able to
identify how development occurs, by the character, starting to really understand
the importance [of a situation]. However, according to the assignment rubric, this
explanation [does] not provide deep enough analysis because it does not elaborate
on the implications on central message or overall story of racism being told.
This student stayed the same from his performance on the pre-assessment to his
performance on the post-assessment.

The student representing the highest understanding of analysis followed a clear

structure in his paragraphs which established clarity and sophistication. During his
analysis of how his chosen character is effected by racism this student wrote, Even
as a secluded member of the country, she fully expressed her racism to the children
to demonstrate how unforgiving and persistent stereotypes may be. This indicates
to me that the student has contemplated the authors purpose for characterizing a
minor character in such a way. In fact, this student argues that although the
character he chose to analyze only appeared briefly in the novel, the impact she
leaves on the central message of the text is not to be missed because the
characters development in the text speaks to the nature of both stereotypes and
ingrained racism. On the other hand, this students depth of analysis during the preassessment hinted at the larger implications of prejudice within the text, he does
not attempt to explain the authors purpose for mentioning the specific example of
prejudice he chose to analyze. This showed me that the student was able to
elaborate on his ideas, he was unable to discern the larger reason or connection to
our society. However, now this student has showed me that he is able to connect a
concept of the text to real-life purposes an author could have in showing readers
the effects of racism on peoples everyday lives.

Changes made to rubric categories:

Depth of Analysis
(Pre- Assessment)
Level 4 - Student re-states quote then
explains why evidence is an example of

Depth of Analysis
(Post-Assessment)
Level 4 - Student re-states quote then
explains the significance of it, using it to

Post-Assessment
prejudice, how it accomplished by HL
and what the implications to characters
are.

propel deep analysis. Student deeply

analyzes how their chosen character has
been developed; providing reasoning and
stating implications of their characters
development on the central message of the
text and the authors purpose. Student
deeply analyzes how their character has
been effected by racism, stating how it
lends to the overall purpose the text,
careful not to rely on plot summary.

Changes in the assessment of depth of analysis were made because I found that
students in the class needed to be challenged in their thinking. The initial
assessment was meant to determine how students perceive and perform writing
literary analysis. Once I collected the data and saw that students performed the
worst in this category, I decided to address the aspects of analysis and scaffold
instruction in order to help students to think and write about the text in a deeper
way. The aspects of analysis I taught them and helped them to improve on are listed
within the post-assessment rubric. This category of the rubric shows how I defined
analysis for students, within the context of our class and when reading texts outside
of the English classroom as well.