Student Work Analysis Protocol

Subject Area: _________English___________________ Grade Level: _______12________

Formative or Performance Task: __________Timed Writing - Book Review ______________

A. Reaching Consensus about Proficiency Read the assessment prompt and/or rubric and
explain:
● What are the students expected to do?
○ Students are expected to write either a book review on the text Frankenstein, or
write how a review that they have found on Frankenstein aligns or disagrees with
their reading. They have 45 minutes to do this.
● Which standards (CCSS or content standards) or curriculum expectations are being
assessed?
○ 12.2.1 a. Analyze how an author’s choice concerning how to structure specific
parts of text contribute to its overall structure and meaning as well as its aesthetic
impact.
○ 12.3.3 b. Deliberately manipulate the conventions of standard English for stylistic
effect appropriate to the needs of a particular audience and purpose.

● What do you consider to be a proficient response on this assessment?

○ A proficient response contains both analysis and summary of the text, without
revealing too much about the plot. Contains at least two direct references
(Personal Review: Two from the text) (Found Review: One from found review,
and another from the text), minimal grammatical errors, unpacks some of the
major themes discussed in this unit, and contains a clear sense of voice from the
writer. It also contains a balance between formal and informal language.
● Exactly what do students need to say or write for you to consider their work proficient?
○ A proficient response shows the writer, and their personal reading of Mary
Shelley’s Frankenstein.
● Did the assessment give students a good opportunity to demonstrate what they know?
○ The students were able to
B. Diagnosing Student Strengths and Needs After reaching consensus, read student work and
without scoring, do a “quick sort” of students’ work by the general degree of the objectives met,
partially met, not met. You may need a “not sure” pile. After sorting, any papers in the “not sure”
pile should be matched with the typical papers in one of the other existing piles. Student names
should be recorded in the columns in order to monitor progress over time.
*To maintain student privacy, I will be using only last names
HIGH EXPECTED LOW
(Objectives met) (Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)

Castle Chaffe Capasso

Smithbaker Ciraula Lucero
Gosar Kling McEndaffer
Hadel Noble Young
May Quadrel
 Novelli Thrash
Shuster
Siclair
Radcliff
Strother
Towne
Troutman
Wright
Zafarana
Slotter

57% OF CLASS 23% OF CLASS 15% OF CLASS

C. Choose a few samples to review from each level (low, expected, high) and discuss and
identify the prerequisite knowledge that students demonstrated that they knew.
HIGH EXPECTED LOW
(Objectives met) (Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)

Castle Chaffee Young

High:
● Students not only understood the content in which they were writing about, but they were
able to demonstrate that knowledge through the medium of a book review eloquently.
These students were able to hit all of the criteria in the highest column, thereby
demonstrating their ability to not only follow directions, but execute them in a timely, and
efficient fashion.
Expected:
● Students were able to demonstrate their knowledge of the content by sharing their
thoughts, and performing a mini analysis within their review. They struggled a little with a
balance between formal and informal language, meaning that their writing came across
more formal, or informal than a mix of both.
Low:
● Students either demonstrated that they did not understand the assignment, or it was
clear that they did not read the text. In writing, they either summarized the entire book, or
misrepresented characters, and their positions within the plot of the text.

D. Using the reviewed samples from each level, discuss and identify the misconceptions, wrong
information, and what students did not demonstrate that was expected
 HIGH EXPECTED LOW
(Objectives met) (Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)

Some students were not able
to demonstrate perfect
grammar, and syntactic style.
However these errors did not
interfere with the overall
fluency of the writing.
These students were able to
complete the assignment to
the fullest, however they were
not able to do so to the level
of the higher level students.
They struggled had minor
struggles with fluency, style,
and grammatical
conventions.
These students either
demonstrated that they knew
little of the material, did not
follow directions, or their
writing showed poor
execution the assignment.
These students struggled
frequently with fluency,
subject, style, length, ideas,
and grammatical
conventions.

E.Identifying Instructional Next Steps

● After diagnosing what the student knows and still needs to learn, discuss as a team the
learning needs for the students in each level considering the following questions:
○ Based on the team’s diagnosis of the student’s performance: What patterns or
trends are noted for the whole class?
■ 45 minutes was a reasonable amount of time for the students to complete
their task. Many of the struggling students were having difficulty
discerning the difference between a book review, and a book summary.
Those who did extremely well, all achieved the level of writing I was
looking for, meaning they must be challenged from here on. Those who
did as expected, can be pushed to do a little more in terms of their writing.
○ What instructional strategies will be beneficial for the whole class?
■ Repeating directions, by reading directly off of the assignment sheet.
Providing more time for students to process their writing: Checking for
errors in syntax, conventions, etc. Giving a longer introduction to the
conventions of writing book reviews, and writing the rubric for the
assignment together.
○ Based on the team’s diagnosis of student responses at the high, expected, and
low levels, what instructional strategies will students at each level benefit from?

HIGH EXPECTED LOW

(Objectives met) (Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)

Students in this level can
benefit from advanced writing
assignments that challenge
their ability to write at a
higher level.
Students in this category, can
benefit from writing
assignments that both
challenge, but also feel
attainable. They are
assignments that are not
Students in this category can
benefit from clearer
expectations that are stated
explicitly and often. They can
benefit from assignments that
still challenge their ability, but
 meant to discourage, but to are also designed to
push students who have encourage them as writers.
potential further in their For some, it is a change in
writing. the state of mind, others, are
discouraged by their struggle
with writing. These are things
that must be considered
moving forward.
High:
● Having the students get creative with their presentation of knowledge, perhaps allowing
them the freedom to create a magazine spread project on a text of study (Multi Genre
Research Project style). Including a book review, poetry, mini biography on the author,
interpretive image, etc.
Expected:
● Work to place other aspects of the lesson (exploring conventions, creating a rubric,
introduction to the concepts) in earlier class periods, to enable time for students to do a
quick proofing of their writing and ease some anxiety.
Low:
● Introducing smaller and more frequent writing assignments to the curriculum to help
ease any anxiety or tension that students may feel surrounding writing.