Running Head: ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK

Analysis of Student Work (ASW)

Allison Simons

EDEL 311 - 1002

University of Nevada Las Vegas

Kalea is 7 ½ years old. She is in the second grade. Kalea enjoys reading, especially
books about Moana. She also likes to play sports, specifically basketball and softball. At home,
 Analysis of Student Work 1

Kalea does her homework, watches tv and jumps on the trampoline. She has a big family that
says are all of her favorite people, even though her sisters bother her sometimes. When she is
older, Kalea would like to be a “nice, smarter, helpful and careful” type of person.
Kalea was referred to me by her direct teacher as a student who would benefit from extra
reading assessments. According to her answers on the ‘Elementary Reading Inventory’, Kalea
seems to have a positive view of reading, with the exceptions of reading during class, on summer
vacation and while in school. It is understandable that Kalea would score “reading during class”
and “in school” lower, since according to her teacher, she is struggling and therefore most likely
not able to reach the comprehension or enjoyment level of the text that the class is reading. I
often walk around the class to observe the student’s work during English Language Arts, and
have noticed that Kalea’s paper is often blank, only becoming filled in when the teacher reviews
with the class ande writes answers to the questions on the board. I asked the teacher why Kalea
seemed to be struggling and if there were any indicators of a certain area specifically. Her
teacher told me that she had just transferred to the school and was struggling with all subjects,
but especially reading.
Some of the expectations for this grade are for students to understand key details of text
that they read, such as being able to ask and answer questions about who, what, when, where,
why and how, recount stories, and to be able to describe how characters in a story respond to
major challenges.
It seems that Kalea has not yet reached the comprehension level of understanding key
details due to a slight weakness in reading, in comparison with her peers. Specific Common Core
State Standards that were taken into account during the Analysis of Student Work were:
1. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.2.9: Compare and contrast two or more versions of
the same story (e.g., Cinderella stories) by different authors or from different
cultures.
2. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.2.5: Describe the overall structure of a story,
including describing how the beginning introduces the story and the ending
concludes the action.
3. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.2.6: Acknowledge differences in the points of view
of characters, including by speaking in a different voice for each character when
reading dialogue aloud.
 Analysis of Student Work 2

We also had a Social Studies lesson that fulfilled the standards of:
1. E9.2.3 Identify producers in your neighborhood and community.
2. E9.2.2 Identify consumers and where they make purchases.
However for the purpose of this project we focused on the reading and writing elements of the
social studies lesson, such as answering questions to the formative assessment through writing
and reading and comprehending new terms and definitions.
After each lesson, the students were given a formative assessment that I used to check for
understanding of the lesson. The assessments I used for this project were that of Kaleas.

Lesson 1
The first lesson that I taught was a comparison of Folktales from different countries. We
read Lon Po Po and Little Red Riding Hood. The students were to compare key details of the
story and form an opinion of which story they preferred while providing an explanation for their
preference. asons to support her answer once she understood the question.

(Compare and Contrast Key Details from Lesson 1)

The original strategy that I used to teach this lesson for the entire class was a Reading
Rockets “Comprehension strategy” (Texas Education Agency, 2017), which was “To correspond
with a typical reading lesson, comprehension strategy instruction can be organized into a three-
part framework, with specific activities used before, during, and after reading.” The strategy
from this article that I used specifically was the “Retelling”, in which “students engage in
ordering and summarizing information and in making inferences. The teacher can use retelling as
a way to assess how well students comprehend a story, then use this information to help students
 Analysis of Student Work 3

develop a deeper understanding of what they have read.” We used retelling specifically in Part 2
of this lesson plan. I had the students place the story in chronological order. To do this each
student had a part from the story taped underneath their desk. They were to read the part, share
and interact with other students and to place the parts of the story in order to summarize the two
stories that we read. This provided students with a review of the information that they had
learned in part 1 of the lesson and served as a tool for them to use when answering questions
about the formative assessment. Overall, the way in which I delivered this strategy as an activity
was a success. The students were excited to find a surprise under their desk, even if what still
classwork. It was a new activity for them that helped them in engage in the lesson, pay attention
to their classmates and the material and use the product of their engagement in their formative
assessments.

(Chronological Order Activity)

 Analysis of Student Work 4

Kalea did well on the assessment as to remembering key details of the story. However,
when asked to provide her opinion on whether she believes it is important to not to read stories
from other countries, she did not provide any supportive sentences to support her main idea. I
decided to use this as the focal point for our first mini lesson.
 Analysis of Student Work 5

(Lesson 1, Formative Assessment 1)

 Analysis of Student Work 6

As stated prior, I decided that writing out one's opinion along with supporting sentences
would be our objective for the mini lesson. This mini lesson would fulfill the CCSS.ELA-
LITERACY.W.2.1, which states, “Write opinion pieces in which they introduce the topic or
book they are writing about, state an opinion, supply reasons that support the opinion, use linking
words (e.g., because, and, also) to connect opinion and reasons, and provide a concluding
statement or section” (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of
Chief State School Officers, 2010).
Three strategies that I could use to reteach Kalea would be:
1. Paired Reading: “students (or mentor and student) read together side by side, with
one gently “pushing” the other along.” (Raskinki)
2. “Begin a lesson with a short review of previous learning” (Rosenshine, 2012)
3. Demonstration: “A method that involves modeling and explaining along with
demonstrating the thinking that occurs while reading and writing” (Arlington and
Cunningham, 2012)
The first strategy that Kalea and I used was paired reading. I had assumed that perhaps
she had not read through the questions completely, since reading has been one of the targeted
areas of improvement for my instruction with her. From previous assessments, I have seen that
she rushes through assignments not reading the entire question. I thought that paired reading
would make her read, listen and interpret what is being asked of her. Before using this strategy, I
did use the , “Begin a lesson with a short review of previous learning” (Rosenshine, 2012). I
decided to use both, because it had been 1-2 weeks, since the original lesson was taught. I felt
that it was necessary to review the lesson in order to help her be successful. According to Barak
Rosenshine , “The review of previous learning can help us recall words, concepts, and
procedures effortlessly and automatically when we need this material to solve problems or to
understand new material”.
After reviewing the key details of the previous lesson and stating our objective, Kalea
and I reviewed her answer to the question. After talking about her reasoning, it became evident
that she did not understand the question. I spent about 5 minutes trying to explain what, “Why or
why not?” means. After about 5 minutes of explanation, it was clear that she was still not
grasping what I was asking her, so I changed my strategy to “Demonstration” (Allington &
Cunningham, 2017).
 Analysis of Student Work 7

“Demonstration is teacher talk about the mental activities that occur during the reading
and writing processes. Demonstration usually involves modeling and explaining along with
demonstrating the thinking that occurs while reading and writing.” (Arlington and Cunningham,
2017). I felt that demonstration was the best strategy to change to because it also incorporates
modeling and explaining. Within Arlington and Cunningham's article it reads, “Children can
define the main idea, for instance, but they still cannot construct an adequate summary reflecting
the important information in a text”, in regards to a teacher just explaining an idea. It was evident
that explaining what the question was asking was not enough. Using the demonstration strategy
allowed me to incorporate multiple strategies, while allowing Kalea to see how one can use the
knowledge gained from the lesson in a assessment.
I told Kalea my opinion and my reasons for having that opinion. Then I pulled out a
supplemental worksheet and showed her that I would use my opinion as the main topic for the
question and my reasons for supportive sentences. We then looked at the “concluding” sentence
and I explained to her that to conclude is to restate our main idea while summarizing my
supportive sentences. I explained to her that the supportive sentences are the “why or why not”
of the question. This was our “Aha” moment. She said that understood now, but originally did
not understand the question, which is why she didn’t add supporting sentences. She asked if she
could change her answer to the question now that she understood. I told her that she could as
long as she could support her new answer. After that, Kalea and I read through the each question
and she verbally answered it, then wrote down her answer.
 Analysis of Student Work 8

(Lesson 1, Formative Assessment 2)

I used the demonstration strategy, because my original hypothesis about Kalea being
unable to read the question was incorrect. She was able to read the question but could not
understand what was being asked of her. After attempting to explain it, I realized that
demonstration would be the best strategy to use, because my words were not enough.
Demonstration provided Kalea an example of how the question might be answered, which
allowed her to reevaluate what was being asked. Once I demonstrated how someone might
answer that question, the lightbulb turned on and she realized that she had misinterpreted what
she had read.
 Analysis of Student Work 9

The results of using this strategy was that Kalea was able to better understand the
question, review her answer in regards to the question and change her answer. Once she had
done each of those things we were able to easily accomplish our objective of writing out one’s
opinion while using supporting sentences. It also taught me not to assume that because a student
struggles in one area academically, that that is the root cause for why a student performs poorly
on an assignment.

Lesson 2: Social Studies

The second lesson that I taught was a Social Studies lesson about “Producers and
Consumers”. This lesson fulfilled the CCSS Three strategies that I considered using to teach this
lesson were:
1. Segment Chart- Teacher delivers each group of students a circle that has a
question written within it. The students answer the question in an allocated space
and continue on to the next one until each question is answered. Each groups
circle will then be cut into sections. Teacher reforms circles, placing all of the
same questions and accompanying answers together so that it forms one, new
circle.
2. No Opt Out -” A sequence that begins with a student unwilling or unable to
answer a question ends with that student giving the right answer as often as
possible even if they only repeat it.” (Lemov, 2015)
3. Imagine This - “Imagine this games permit children to take off on flights of fancy
that require them to retrieve information from memory, compare and contrast
ideas, and make connections between disparate bits of information.” (Honing,
n.d.)

I wanted to incorporate a strategy that would be fun for the students. As I was writing the
lesson plan and creating a powerpoint, I had the idea to take an “Imaginary field trip” to different
places where we could identify producers, consumers, goods and services. Upon further research,
I found the “Just Imagine” strategy. “I found this strategy to be very successful and one of my
favorites yet. The students used the information from the lesson that I taught through direct
instruction of new vocabulary terms and definition and used that knowledge in different contexts.
 Analysis of Student Work 10

Although settings were different on our “imaginary field trip”, students were able to use the
terms from the lesson to identify key concepts, which showed comprehension of the new
vocabulary.
Kalea’s results on the formative assessment were discouraging. For one portion of the
assessment she was asked to match the vocabulary term with the correct definition. She did not
match any term to the correct definition. However the second portion of the assessment asked her
to identify producers and consumers within her home and what goods or services are provided by
that producer. She did exceptionally well at the second portion of the assignment. Her answer
showed that she understood not only the question, the new vocabulary terms learned from the
lesson, but also that she was engaging in Bloom’s “Analyze” level.

(Lesson 2, Formative Assessment 1)

 Analysis of Student Work 11

(Lesson 2, Formative Assessment 1)

In comparison to to the first lesson and assessment, Kalea did the opposite. She
answered the written portion extremely well this time, supporting her answer with supportive
sentences (as we had worked on), but did not do well on showing comprehension of key terms. I
found that to be very interesting. However, I was pleased that she provided evidence for her
answer in the written portion.
Because Kalea did well on the written portion and showed comprehension of the
vocabulary, I believed that the main issue was that Kalea was rushing through the assignment or
was unable to read the vocabulary and definitions independently. Due to this the three strategies
that I considered reusing were:
1. “Board= Paper” (Lemov, 2015- Have students take notes.
2. Manipulatives (Nash, nd.) - Teacher provides examples that the students can see
and touch to learn new concepts.
3. “Verbatim” (Lemov, 2015) - When repeating a question be sure to ask it the exact
same way as previously
For the reteaching of this lesson, I decided to use manipulatives. According to Nash,
“Using physical objects while teaching in language arts is not common, but it provides a hands-
on way for students to interact with new information while creating understandings of the
manner in which the concepts work.” I had previously had students engage in the lesson through
auditory and visual modalities while using the “Imagine this” strategy as the main activity. I felt
that doing the opposite, showing her tangible items where she did not have to fully rely on her
imagination would engage another part of her thinking and force her to be more present in the
lesson.
I began the miniature lesson by pulling items out of a shopping bag and telling Kalea, “I
brought some items with me, some I bought from the store and others I made.” I then pulled out
a variety of items one by one. I then handed her a blank worksheet from the original assessment
and asked her, “What term would you use to describe me? I did not make the items. I bought
them.” Originally she said “Producer” to which I showed her her written portion of the previous
assessment and said, “Using this as an example, you described your parents as a producer,
because they provided you with food and shelter. Am I providing anyone anything?” Kalea then
 Analysis of Student Work 12

said, “Oh wait I mean you are a consumer.” I asked her why and she said because I am “using it,
not making it”. We continued this activity for each of the items. I then gave her a worksheet that
asked her to identify producers and consumers. I used this to check for comprehension of the
terms “producers” and “consumers”

(Producers & Consumers Practice Worksheet)

Once Kalea had showed an understanding of whether I was a “producer” or “consumer”
in regards to each item, I returned our focus to the manipulatives that I brought and began to
expand my questioning. For example, I showed her the apple that I bought (as a consumer), and
 Analysis of Student Work 13

said, “I bought this apple. I did not make it. However someone had to make it in order for me to
be able to buy it. That person would be a farmer. Is the farmer a producer or consumer?”
“Producer”, she said. “Correct. The apple that the farmer made is a good, because it can be
bought. The gardening that he did to make the apple is a service.” We then reviewed goods and
services using the same method.
Once Kalea showed comprehension of all the terms- goods, services, producers
and consumers. I showed her, her assessment from the original lesson. I asked her whether she
believed she matched each term to the correct definition. She reviewed it and told me that she
had not. I gave her a new worksheet and asked her to do it again. She got 100% this time.

(Lesson Plan 2, Formative Assessment 2)

I believe the manipulative strategy worked because it gave her something to look at and
focus on. Sometimes she seems like she is daydreaming in class or when conducting
assignments. By having manipulatives in front of her, I could check her eye sight to see where
she was focusing on rather than assuming she was paying attention. Also, through literacy
assessments, I had discovered that Kalea’s word recognition is below grade level and that she
will often substitute or omit a word then identify new ones. I believe that this translates into her
class participation and comprehension of her lessons. If Kalea does not know a word, she doesn’t
ask for clarification of the meaning, she just goes on, ignoring the unknown word causing a lack
of comprehension. By having tangible items in front of her, she could see and touch the words I
was using and know what I was talking about.

Lesson 3: English Language Arts

 Analysis of Student Work 14

For our third lesson, I decided to teach another English Language Arts lesson plan. The
objectives I chose to focus on for this lesson were;
1. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.2.5
Describe the overall structure of a story, including describing how the beginning
introduces the story and the ending concludes the action.
2. CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.2.6
Acknowledge differences in the points of view of characters, including by speaking in a
different voice for each character when reading dialogue aloud.

Three strategies that I considered using for this lesson were:

1. Character High, Narrator Low: “In passages that contain dialog, raise the pitch of your
voice for spoken parts (the dialog), lower the pitch for attributions (the "He saids and She
saids) and other text by the narrator.” (Peha, S. 1995)
2. Graphic Organizers- Use an organizer to differentiate or explain key details of a story
3. Exit ticket: Students have to complete a worksheet or closure task before they can be
released at the end of the day.

Since I was reading “Pig the Star” by Aaron Blabey,I really wanted to emphasize the
humor of the story that stems from radically different characters. I believed that by using the
“Character High, Narrator Low” strategy, students would be engaged and be able to differentiate
the dialogue of the characters from the narrator. Steve Penha used this strategy and credits it and
other expressive reading strategies to higher comprehension rates. Penha said, “Expression is
such a powerful comprehension strategy because it instantly increases your access to meaning as
you read.” The students really enjoyed hearing the unique voice of Pig the Pug and timid Trevor
the dachsund; it helped promote a lot of laughter when learning.
I have heard a lot peers praise the “Exit Ticket” strategy as a way of formative
assessment. I feel that I unknowingly use a variation of this strategy to w2rap up my lessons and
check for assessment with some sort of worksheet or assessment, which is why I decided to not
use this strategy. A graphic organizer would have been a great way for me to have the students
differentiate between the characters Pig and Trevor. It also would have accompanied the
objective of this lesson nicely. I used a graphic organizer in our previous lesson about
 Analysis of Student Work 15

differentiating folk tales and since I want to try many teaching strategies and activities, I decided
not use this strategy. Instead of using the graphic organizer as a strategy or an accompanying
activity, I decided that it would be more enjoyable to have the students play a game. I created a
matching game that had either quotes, descriptions taken directly out of the text, or a
characteristic of the main character and pictures of the characters from throughout the story. The
students were to match one of the character illustrations to an appropriate quote, description or
characteristic by randomly flipping over two cards. The students really enjoyed this. It also
caused them to have to reflect on the story we just read and draw on information from the story
to decide whether their classmates had a match or not.
Unfortunately for me, Kalea left during the read aloud to attend an awards ceremony, so
she was not able to hear the entire story read aloud or complete the formative assessment. Rather
than give her the assessment a week later and hope that she remembered the story, then give it
again. I decided to use the “1:1” strategy with Kalea to finish the read aloud and complete the
worksheet.
Other strategies that I could have used were:
1. Cooperative strategy by partnering her with another student and having the student help
teach her the elements of the lesson that she had missed
2. Independent study- Have the student complete the worksheet on their own using the
worksheet as a guide for focusing on what to study
I decided to use the 1:1 strategy, because it would allow me to reteach parts of the lesson that
Kalea might have missed out on and differentiate instruction for her.
The week before I had taught this lesson, I completed the Morris Informal Reading
Inventory (IRI) with Kalea. Morris’ IRI consists of multiple assessments that assist the teacher in
understanding at what grade levels a student is reading and whether they are reading at the
“Frustrational”, “Independent” or “Instructional” level. The IRI also checks for student’s
comprehension of what they read.
The results of conducting multiple assessments with Kalea to complete the Morris IRI
(Informal Reading Inventory) is that Kalea can read independently at the Primer-1st Grade level.
Her instructional level is between 1st and 2nd grade. Her frustrational level is at 2nd grade.
Kalea’s scores were very interesting, especially in regards to comprehension. She scored
above 90% for 1st grade comprehension. However for the Primer level she scored 50% and for
 Analysis of Student Work 16

2nd grade she scored 58%, based upon these low levels of comprehension I decided to stop the
assessments at 2nd grade.
Multiple times throughout the assessment Kalea would substitute known words for words
that were not in the passage, but that had the same letters as the beginning of the word she was
attempting to read. In order to complete the Case Summary Sheet for Morris Beginning Reading
Inventory, I also conducted Alphabet Recognition and Writing assessment, Concept of word
assessment, Spelling 1 & 2 Assessment and the Word Recognition assessment. This was
beneficial to better understanding Kalea’s reading abilities. Especially in regards to what I had
noticed about her frequent word substitutions. Her word recognition was 66 out of 90 words.
During the Word Recognition assessment, she also frequently substituted words or omitted them
if she did not recognize the word or take the time to sound it out.
With this insight of her lack of strength in reading new or unfamiliar words, I believe that
this plays an intrical part in why some of her comprehension scores were low. Because she is
substituting words that she knows for the actual words in the passage, the sentences she reads are
not making sense, which leaves her having a difficult time comprehending what she had read.
For example, one sentence from the Second Grade passage said, “Then he trotted away feeling
quite pleased with himself.” Kalea read this sentence as, “Then he trolled away feeling quick
pleased with himself.” It is understandable why she did not understand what she had read, as the
sentence she read aloud did not make sense.
Having just learned about Kalea’s reading levels, comprehension rates, and previously
teaching her strategies to assist her in overcoming this difficulty, I felt that it would be most
beneficial to myself and Kalea to use the 1:1 strategy, which has the teacher teach the content to
a student independently, like a tutor. As stated previously, this strategy allows the teacher to
differentiate teaching as it best suits the student. It also would let me observe different facets of
Kalea’s literacy learning and see if/ when she uses different strategies that we have used
throughout the school year.
To begin with this mini lesson, I asked Kalea if she was able to stay for the entire read
aloud. She said she had, so I handed her the worksheet and told her that we were going to
complete it together. I also told her that if there was anything that she didn't understand to let me
know. I had her read aloud each of the questions as I followed along or read with her. If one
looks at the “Pig the Star” worksheet, one will see lines separating different words throughout
 Analysis of Student Work 17

the worksheet, such as “photographer”, “respectfully’ and “costume”. These lines are a strategy
that I had taught Kalea previously to sound out unknown words. This was a really proud and
fulfilling moment for myself. When Kalea and I were reading the answers to question 1 together,
she looked at the word “photographer” and could not sound it out. On her own, she got out a
pencil and began dividing the word. This was so fulfilling, because it showed me that she had
been listening and was making use of one of the strategies that I had taught her. The reasoning
for the line between words, was because I had told Kalea to divide words up into either smaller
words or sounds (phoneme) that she knew for certain and then to focus her attention on the
unknown to decipher the sound it made and to try to put the word back together by sounding it
out to discover what the word was and what it meant. She successfully used this method
throughout the worksheet and when she sounded out the word correctly, I would repeat it back to
her and define it as needed.
 Analysis of Student Work 18

(Lesson 3, Formative Assessment 1- Pg. 1)

 Analysis of Student Work 19

(Lesson 3, Formative Assessment 1- Pg. 2)

One of the most frustrational parts of this lesson and throughout my semester was when
we reached question 3, which said, “What caused Pig to change the way he treated Trevor?” As
previously mentioned, Kalea will often try to substitute or omit unknown words from her reading
if she does not want to sound it or read it. WHen we were reading this question, she initially
skipped it, so I had her go back and reread it. She then replaced it with an unknown word, so I
had stopped her and said read it again. She tried to replace it again, instead of sounding it out. I
asked her to break the word down like she had been doing for previous unknown words.
I have determined from previous lessons and assessments that Kalea has a lack of
phonemic awareness. This weakness was very prevalent when trying to break down the word
 Analysis of Student Work 20

“caused”. She read it as “cased”. First we separated the phoneme /c/ then /s/ then /ed/. She
continued to read /au/ as the short /a/ sound. I asked her what sound does /au/ make when paired
together? To which responded with the short a sound again. I asked Kalea, have you ever seen
anything similar to the spelling of this word? Perhaps in another word? She answered “no”. So
then I flipped the worksheet over and wrote out the word “because” and asked her, “What word
is this?” “Because”, she said. “Good,” I responded, “so if I take away the ‘be-’ what word would
it be?” I wrote out “cause” and asked her to read it. She kept saying, “because”. I kept having to
redirect her to “cause” and eventually covered up the previously written “because”, because she
kept fixating her attention on it, not focusing on what was being asked. Eventually she said
“cause”.
Then I asked her, “What sound would these letters make if I took away the ‘-c’ and wrote
“ause’?’ This took a few attempts as well, but eventually she read “ause”. Lastly I did the same
as before and wrote out “au” and asked her to read the sound those letters make. This took about
5 minutes for just the /-au/ sound. She kept reverting to the short ‘a’ sound. I reminded her of the
word we started out with (‘because’) and kept showing her how the sounds of the middle of the
word remained the same even when we took away letters. She kept trying to guess and would
even answer with other phonemes of the word, such as /se/ or “use”. In hindsight, as I write this,
I think that she might have thought that I would eventually just tell her and we would move on
with the lesson, but since this was a rare moment where I could teach her independently and
focus on one of her main difficulties in literacy I was not going to simply give her the answer. I
kept redirecting her attention back to the letters, reminding her of the sounds we started out with
and how the sounding of the word did not change when we subtracted letters. I could see her
mouth forming the sounds of the /-au/ sound as she read. I told her “I can literally see your
mouth forming the correct sound. You just have to say it.” It took about another minute, but
eventually she did say “au” and we were both very relieved. I think she was getting frustrated
and I know I was, but I could see her forming the correct sound and did not want us to give up
when we were a few seconds away from success.
The strategy that I used along with the 1:1 strategy was Lemov “No Opt Out” (2015).
The “No Opt Out” strategy is used when a student does not know or will not answer a question.
THe teacher (or other students) provide clues to the answer and then re-asks the question. My
 Analysis of Student Work 21

clues to the answer were using the sounding out of “because”, “cause’’ and “ause” to determine
the sound of /au/. Although it was frustrational for both myself and Kalea, it worked.
After that part of the worksheet we continued on and Kalea did really well on the
assessment. She also truly tried to sound out each unknown word, because she knew that I was
not going to just give her the answer. I also think that she did not want to have another 10-15
minutes devoted to one sound.
The final question on the worksheet asked Kalea to write a rhyme using elements
from the story that we had just read. I had noticed during my original delivery of the lesson that
the students seemed to struggle most with rhyming. It was a topic that they had been studying the
week before. With this knowledge I reviewed what a rhyme was with Kalea and how the ending
sounds of a word are what make lines in a poem rhyme. She said she understood and created a
rhyme very quickly.
The results of using the 1:1 strategy along with “No Opt Out” were successful, albeit
frustrational for the teacher and the student. The 1:1 strategy allowed me to review information
with the student and check for understanding of the objective through dialogue. It also allowed
me to change and customize teaching methods for the needs of the student. I think that the “No
Opt Out” strategy was a bit of an eye opener for Kalea. It forced her to engage in the lesson and
listen to the clues I was giving her, because we were not going to move on with the lesson until
she was able to answer what I was asking her. I think that although it was frustrating, it was
beneficial because it showed Kalea that she is capable of finding the correct answer, even when
she does not think she is or want to.

ASW Use in Future Classrooms

I will use the Analysis of Student Work (ASW) process in my future teaching of K-6
classrooms. The ASW process for myself, consisted of, first researching different learning
strategies for different objectives of my lesson then choosing one that I felt would be best for the
students of my class. I often chose strategies that I felt would engage the students in the lesson
and make learning more enjoyable. After choosing a teaching strategy, I would use it in the
original delivery of my lesson. I would use a formative assessment to review whether this
strategy was successful in accomplishing my goal of having students meet the lessons objectives.
After reviewing the strategy, I would review a student’s assessment and consider the original
 Analysis of Student Work 22

teaching method with that student solely in mind and ask myself questions, such as “Why was
this strategy not successful for this student?” “Did it address their areas of learning difficulties?”
“what would be a better strategy to use when reteaching?” THen I would ponder and research
new strategies that I could use to re teach this lesson with that one student in mind. The next step
would be for me to reteach using the determined strategy. This was the most interesting part of
the ASW process for me, because I often I would think that one strategy would be the best, but I
would soon discover while interacting with the student that another was better suited and change
strategies. The last step in the ASW process was to review the different strategies used when
reteaching.
I think that in order to be successful in using the ASW process in teaching, there is a
certain amount of flexibility required. The requirements of this study asked me to focus on one
specific strategy, but often times I found that I could not do so if I wanted a student to
successfully reach the objectives. It could be because I misdiagnosed the reasons for error or that
multiple strategies are needed as the lesson progresses. THe research of multiple strategies was
similar to the extension portion of the lesson plan, in which I plan extra activities in case they are
needed. By having multiple strategies researched and prepared, I am “overplanning” and
providing my student and myself with extra tools to accomplish our goals. I think that
“overplanning” or in this case “overreaching” was a key a key feature of this project for myself
and would definitely be something that I would want to bring to my future classes. One does not
expect a person to build an entire house with a hammer alone, so I don’t think a teacher should
be expected to teach an entire lesson or class with one strategy, but rather bring a full toolbox
that can meet the different needs of different lessons and students.
I will use this ASW process in future classrooms through reevaluations of my lesson,
objectives, strategies and students. Overall the ASW provide me with a greater understanding of
differentiating learning and I feel more comfortable doing that now, whether for one student or
an entire class. I now know that in order to be successful in my teaching, I need to consider how
my students learn and what engages them in the material when I plan out a lesson.

My Philosophy of Teach, Check, Reteach, Recheck

“Teach, check, reteach, recheck” is a concept and practice that is essential to student
success. A teacher who does not evaluate and evaluate the success of their teaching strategies
 Analysis of Student Work 23

with their students in mind does not truly care about their students success. Each student is like a
snowflake- no two are the same.. What works for Billy, might not work for Suzy. It is my job to
notice the differences in my students and accomodate them to the best of my abilities.
Unfortunately, I cannot always teach a student 1:1 like I did with Kalea for our third lesson
reteach. However, if I create my lesson plans and pick a strategy to teach this lesson with my
students in mind, I can decide upon a strategy that I believe will work for the majority and plan
for differentiated instruction for students that I am aware of need it. Checking the outcomes of m
teaching through formative assessment, allows me to review whether the teaching method I
decided upon was a good choice or if there might be a better one for next time or when I reteach.
By not checking the results of a lesson, whether the strategies or assessments, I am failing my
students, which is something I never want to do. Reteach allows me to correct any mistakes that I
might have made with my first lesson, such as choosing a teaching strategy that was not the best
fit. It also allows me provide differentiated instruction for students that I might not have
anticipated needing it. Reteach allows me to use the new information I gained from the “Check”
stage of the process and put it into action.
“Recheck” is my opportunity to once again review the success of a lesson plan or
strategy, to review the pros and cons of such and to plan future lessons accordingly.
To summarize “Teach, Check, Reteach, Recheck”, to me is a process that contributes to
the success of my students and myself as a teacher. It is important to student achievement
because it shows that I am evaluating all aspects of my teaching and making adjustments that I
believe are best suited for my students and their success. Not every student learns the same, so I
should not expect them to. By using “Teach,Check, Reteach, Recheck” I can better understand
how my students learn as an individual and a class and conduct initial lessons as well as reteach
according to those understandings.

References:

Strategies that Promote Comprehension. (2017, August 23). Retrieved from

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/strategies-promote-comprehension

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of Instruction. American Educator, 36(1), 13. Retrieved March
9, 2018, from https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Rosenshine.pdf.
 Analysis of Student Work 24

Implementing Assisted Reading. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/implementing-assisted-reading/

Allington, R., & Cunningham, P. (2010, July 20). Children Benefit from Modeling,
Demonstration, and Explanation. Retrieved from
https://www.education.com/reference/article/children-benefit-modeling-demonstration/

How to Promote Creative Thinking. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/how-promote-creative-thinking/

Segment chart. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2018, from http://ssol.tki.org.nz/Social-studies-years-1-

10/Teaching-and-learning/effective_teaching_in_social_studies/Teaching-
strategies/cooperative_learning/Segment-chart

Peha, S. (1995). Expression equals Comprehension. Retrieved from

https://www.ttms.org/say_about_a_book/expression_equals_comprehension.htm
Nash, J. (n.d.). Using Hands-On Manipulatives. Retrieved from
https://www.languagemagazine.com/using-hands-on-manipulatives/

Kaye, P. (2008). Teaching one to one. Retrieved from

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teaching-one-one