The above data tracker was completed after students took the unit one written summative assessment—also shown above. Each question on the assessment was directly linked to a learning target covered in class. Student mastery for each question was assessed on a scale of one through four. When multiple questions were used to address a single learning target, student scores were averaged before being placed in the tracker.

 

Through an analysis of this specific data tracker, it can be determined this unit was fairly successful overall. The big goal for my class is to have 80% of chemistry students in the SMART SLC pass the course with a grade of “C” or better. In order to get a “C” in a core class at my school a student has to score a 65% or better. According to this data 78% of students in this class have obtained a mastery that will earn them at least a “C.” Students displayed a mastery of above 80% on nearly all of the early learning targets. The biggest issues came from the final two learning targets, which had 69.9% and 68.5% mastery respectively. 

​

While these learning targets have been covered during a lesson, they will also come up again next unit. These learning targets will be retaught to ensure all students obtain mastery. I will make note of this gap in understanding when I am planning for the following unit. In the video “ Differentiation: Proficiency and Accountability: Late Work,” Rick Wormeli discusses how a factory model of education where there is one method of instruction and all students are supposed to get to the same destination in the same timeframe does not work (Wormeli, 2010). For this reason, students will have the ability to improve their mastery level for these learning targets.

​

Another insight that can be drawn from analysis of the tracker is the importance of attendance. There are two students in this class with a mastery level of 35%. Both of these students have significant issues with attendance—I am lucky if I see them once every month. These percentages drag down the class average because the two students have not been in class to participate in activities or learn the material. 

 

When looking back on the lesson plan where the final two learning targets were covered, I am not surprised there is a low level of mastery. During the lesson, we rushed through a short set of guided notes in order to begin review for the exam. Also, the lesson occurred directly before a long weekend. The new topics were introduced, and then I did not see the students for chemistry again for a week. The class period was also shortened because of a school-wide assembly so we had to cut out parts of the lesson. This was unexpected so the daily formative assessment—the exit ticket—was the activity to be cut. Frequent formative assessment is the single greatest way a teacher can improve student academic performance (Heritage, 2010). I unintentionally did my students a huge disservice by rushing through the topic and not embedding frequent formative assessment. Moving forward, I will need to fix this during a re-teaching lesson next unit. 

​

According to “Challenging Student to Think Critically,” in order to reach a big goal you should not take bigger steps. Instead you should use small steps at a steady pace and increase the number of steps you take depending on the size of a goal (Lemov, 2010). A tracker, such as this one, is a critical tool in tracking student progress through this process. 

​

Furthermore, it is necessary to share data with students. In my classroom, students self-assess their mastery for each learning target on their learning target logs daily—samples shown in “Investing Students in Their Growth.” This type of more formal data tracker from assessment data allows students to compare how they felt they were mastering the data, based on their learning target log scores, with how well they were mastering targets for assessment purposes. This will allow them to grow in their self-analysis and goal setting skills and guide their decisions with how to approach our next unit. I print out my data tracker and give students their scores broken down by learning target. We then take some time to compare their self-reflection scores with their mastery level from the tracker. In a one-on-one meeting, we identify any discrepancies and brainstorm why these may have arisen. One goal for my class is to build self-reflection and analysis skills in my students. By having students compare their self-reflection learning target log scores with the scores from the mastery tracker they will hopefully be able to identify issues and improve this skill set. I also post copies of this data tracker—with students names redacted—for each class so students can see where they are as a class compared to my other sections. This fosters a sense of healthy competition between students and their peers in other classes. Overall, this mastery tracker is a key tool I use in my classroom to monitor student growth as well as guide both my decision making and students’ decision making during each unit. 

​

Finally, I use this mastery tracker to determine which students require targeted intervention and additional support moving forward. The Big Goal for my class is to have at least 85% of students finish chemistry with a grade of C or higher. Out of the 24 students in class period shown in the mastery tracker above seven have an overall mastery of below a 70%. The seven students whom did not pass the exam were given the opportunity to sign up for additional support and reteach sessions during nutrition break, lunch or after school. Four of the seven students came to these reteach sessions. During reteach sessions, we started by going through each student’s binder and looking to see if there are any missing guided notes. Not taking notes during class or being absent and not making up missing work is one of the primary factors that contribute to low scores in my class. Students are given a new set of guided notes and they can look at my binder—which contains filled out copies—to go through the material and ask me questions as needed. I then go through my grade book with each student to determine any missing work they may have. Students are allowed to make up any work for partial credit. Once all missing work has been turned in students are given the opportunity to retake an alternate version of the summative assessment. Out of the four students who started this reteach process two completed all of their missing work and retook the exam. Both of these students raised their score to passing on their second attempt.