Health Education Finalized Goal Progress

Checking for Learning

Glenbrook Middle School 6th Grade
Miss. Powell

6th Grade Checking for Learning for 14 Activators

98 98 98 99 96 98 99 100 98 96 96 98 98 100 100100 100 100 98 98 100
100 92 96 92 88 92 91 94 93 91 93 94 96
89
85 86
Final Grade for 14 Activators

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Madeline

Layla

Natalie

Michael
Greta

Catherine
Christopher F.

Jasmine

Henry

Maya
Joseph

Eli
Brooklynn

Olivia

Andrew
Clifton

Shyla

August

Colin

Rowan
Chloe

Amanda

Brennan
Parker

Regan

Christopher

Sawyer

Sophia
Anna

Marin
Caroline

Elizabeth

Taylor
Letha

William

Angelina
6th Grade Students

Final Grade
Key for Student Learning Gains:

Low: Below 70%

Moderate: Between 70-90%

High: 90% or higher

Final Grade Class Average

95.5
 Conclusion
There are a multitude of factors that could affect the scores of the activators. For the
finalized implementation plan, 36 students completed 14 activators throughout the entity of one
trimester. Each day the activators had a different question on them that the students had to
answer with a complete sentence, while including a why. They were scored as followed:
1. Name-1 point
2. Handed in on time- 2 points
3. Complete sentence- 6 points
4. Gave a “why”- 5 points
5. Expressed their own emotions/opinions clearly- 6 points
The activator grading policy was purely based off subjective grading because the educator
was to determine if the student expressed themselves clearly enough to receive all 20 points.
The educator also made the grading rubric, so the activators were graded as the educator sought
fit whether the students believed they met all criteria or not. Students were not able to go back
and make corrections after grades were handed back. Students were given the grading policy
rubric and each day the educator wrote down on the board and verbalized what was expected
on each activator to help the students achieve a perfect score of 20 points. For the students who
were unable to write due to injuries or impairments teacher allowed students to verbally express
what they would write down on their activator. For students who had speech impairments or
partial physical impairments that inhibited them to write, they could draw an image of what they
wanted to express on the activator. The educator did this to create a safe learning environment
and to meet diverse needs. The activators overall served as a form of self-expression and good
rapport in the classroom. As an educator, providing students with ways to improve their affective
domain in the classroom can help students overall in the field of social interaction and
relationship building.
A bar graph was created to show visual proof of the improvements made. 33 students
achieved high student learning gains and 3 students achieved moderate students learning
gains. 7 students received a score of 20 on all 14 activators making their final grade a 100%.
Factors that could have played a role in the moderate improvement for this group of students
would be effort, and completion. At the beginning all three students struggled putting effort in
because they had found out that the grade was not entered into Power School which is their
grading system at Glenbrook. After talking with Mrs. Siegel, we agreed that the grade needed
to be inputted to receive valid results. After the students saw that the grade became inputted
their grades went up tremendously making them go from the path of low student learning
gains, to moderate. For some of the lessons I would have the students share their activators.
After sharing them they would sometimes set them to the side of their desk or hand them in.
For the times that they were set to the side of their desk, the bell would ring, and students
would flood out of the room forgetting to hand in their activator resulting in a zero. Factors that
affect high improvement scores are attendance, effort, and understanding. All 36 students
were present for all 14 activators keeping students hopefully from receiving a score of 0. All
students put in the up most effort when writing the activator out. This shows in the students
who received high performance because they obtained a score of 90-100%. Seven students
were even able to score a 100%. Attention plays a role in high improvement because if the
student is listening to everything the educator says about the instruction and reads the grading
policy rubric each day it is given, they will receive a high score. Understanding plays a role in the
activator grades because the students need to understand and connect to the question that is
being asked on the activator. Some questions for the activators were taken from a health
textbook for middle school students. Other questions, were student formed. Students could
write a question on their activators that were being completed. The educator would look over
them and choose which ones were most appropriate for the classroom setting. At Glenbrook
Middle School, all students first language is English. Since the activators were completely in
English, all students had an advantage already before taking it. The average score for the final
grade of the class on activators was 95.5%. This means that there was extremely high
improvement in the 6th grade class overall. All 36 students’ scores improved which means the
activators helped overall improve student’s self-expression and writing styles. One student
brought in an English assignment with a high grade and thanked me for helping them learn
what a complete sentence looked like. Glenbrook’s high academic achievements showed
through the students writing. A lot of students were able to obtain 20 on the first attempt. If I
was to administer the activator again, I would make the activators more cross-curricular to
improve overall STEM skills, and I would make the instructions more challenging such as answer
the question in no less than 3 sentences. I would also make the grading policy different because
I believe some things were worth to high of point values and it affected some students grades
tremendously on certain activators.