Nmaobi+Uzochukwu

toc

About Me
Washington High School - Health Science and Nutrition Physics nuzochukwu@atlanta.k12.ga.us Originally from Nigeria and has lived in the United Satates since 1988. A physicists from The University of Nigeria Nsukka turned teacher. Also has several degrees in education including doctoral in Curriculum and Instruction and Eduacational Leadership. Married and blessed with 5 children and 5 grandchildren. A Christian, strong in faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - my motivation in all I do.I am a member of the National Science Teachers' Association, NSTA, Teg Geaoria Science Teachers' Association,GSTA, and the American Assocoiation of Physics Teschers,AAPT. In addition to my Teacher Certification, I have the National Board professional Certificate in physics and science. I am a Physics curriculum/item writer for both the State of Georgia and the Atlanta Public Schools.

Takeaways / Big Ideas
Assessment has a huge implication on learning. The EE Ford experience is one that has greatly influenced how I look at assessment. Why do we assess? Is it for grades? Actually No. Assessment is an integral part of learning. Even though I had known this last fact, but being a part of the Assessment cohort has made me very away of its implications and applications. I have gotten in depth konwledge about the diffent types of assessments. Schools have emphasizesd and given workshops on Formative assessment, but EE Ford had solidiffied what was given in a hury without showing how it could be suse to stand the teste of its definition as "Assessment for Learning". The two texts were excellent reading. The sharing out and the class discussions were a plus. All educationistslike to talk about Marzano's Assessment strategies, and I had the opportunity to read his book (mandated reading) and discuss them in our cohort. It made much more sense. The Action Research was culmultative indeed. It helped every cohort member to have a close look at his/her classroom to see what one can do to improve instruction and assessment toward students' academic success. Being able to conduct this research encourages me to extend this to one or two more such researches a year for better knowledge of what one is dealing with and how to improve on it.

AR Overview
[provide a brief context for your work -- what made you pursue this topic?] Most of my students do not test well. Most of the time only about 5% reach the proficiency level. Even though tests often times are not a good test of knpwledge, but to a certain extent they are indicators of what students know and can do. Most of the students that take physics at my should are in the class by default; physics is taken by juniors. If you a re a junior you have to take physics whether you have the prerequisits or not. In my physics class, there are students who have not passed the 9th grade mathematics. These cannot add or subtract literally. These students need a lot one one-on-one help. In order to motivate them to want to learn, I deviced a way to have them make corrections on their benchmark tests, and retake a much shorter test that will test the major comcepts.

AR Question
How would giving students an opportunity to make corrections on their Benchmark tests before a re-take impact their motivation to learn and academic performance? AR Question AR Process [ ** 3. Methodology **
 * How would providing students opportunities to analyze and correct errors on their benchmark tests before retakes impact mastery of physics concepts, and improve motivation to learn and academic achievement?**
 * 3.1 Participants **
 * This research was conducted in Block 3A physics class. Every student was given the opportunity to participate. The whole class started the process but only five followed through to retaking the test and. **


 * Student 1 – Brittany is a student who ranks number 1 in her class. She aims at making perfect scores in all her assignments. She was disappointed with grades of 81% and 86% in the 41/2 weeks assessment and the midterm exam respectively. When the test correction was offered to her class she jumped at it even though she scored the highest on those two tests. **


 * Student 2 – Earnita is a very hard-working student. She asks a lot of questions because she wants to do well. She is very anxious to perform very well and somehow this affects her test-taking skills and her test grades do not indicate her intelligence **


 * Student 3 – Joshua is the only male in this project. His retention ability is not very good. He needs a constant reminder to be able to complete any assignment. His usual phase is “I don’t know how to do it” no matter how simple the task is. Once he is given a kick-start, he works well though slowly. **


 * Student 4 – Tatyanna likes to work very fast; she always turns in her work before anybody else. She scores average although capable of scoring higher but she lacks the patience to read the questions carefully and give correct answers. She did her corrections but did not do the retake. **


 * Student 5 – Jasmine – a very-hardworking student and the class peer-tutor. She easily understands concepts and likes to help other students who are struggling. She could be the best but she makes do with average scores because ‘it will take too long.” **


 * Student 6- Montavia is in the gifted program but her grades do not depict her academic giftedness. She gets bored easily and wants to leave the class with the flimsiest excuse. She works very fact and turns in her work quickly and leave with to the restroom or starts to talk. **
 * 3.2 Curriculum **
 * APS uses the Core Curriculum of the Georgia Performance Standard (CCGPS). The APS Scope and Sequence document is used to align the unit plan to the CCGPS for spacing **
 * guide and instruction. BTW-HSN teachers are required to prepare an Instructional focus Calendar to align instruction with the Scope and Sequence. **


 * 3.3 Procedure **
 * This was a semester study that included two units, one benchmark test and a midterm examination. The physics lessons were taught as advised by the CCGPS.
 * Datalink program was used to grade and analyze the Multiple Choice (MC) test. The free-response questions were hand-graded by the teacher.
 * Student who scored 50 and below had to correct at least 15 MC items and all the free-response questions. Scores between 50 and 70 corrected 10 and 70 and above corrected less than 10 depending on how they perceived their understanding of the concept.
 * Teacher, by the help of the detailed Item Analysis data, selected the most missed questions and reviewed them in a whole class setting. Teacher model correct procedures, processes, and methods while students followed and wrote the correct steps on the correction papers.
 * Students were free to ask individual questions as they worked on their test corrections.
 * Students designed their own papers for display on the students’ work board.
 * Teacher then gave a comprehensive two-question test as a retake.
 * Results are analyzed to see if the intervention had an effect on students' academic achivement
 * If the retake score was higher it was used to replace the initial score.

The data was analyzed using the Datalink program. This program gives the student scores, shows the items missed and the percentage of the class that gave a correct answer for each item. It also showed the score distribution and graphed the distribution on an MS excel spreadsheet. This analysis made it easy to categorize students in three groups: the **at-risk**, the **bubble**, and the **on-target**. The class proficiency report, and individual student proficiency report were made with the **proficiency set at >=75**%. The individual proficiency report is very useful to the student in that it showed the student how he/she performed on each item as compared to the whole class. With this report they are able to choose which test item to correct. They would not a correct any one that was a silly mistake or the one they shaded on the scantron sheet by error.
 * 3.4 Analysis **

AR Data Samples
[Link, attach or embed key examples of your data, e.g. charts, graphs, tables, student work samples, photos, videos, surveys, etc.

Student Test grade Retake Grade
 * Student ||   ||  Ret ae Grade  ||
 * Montavia ||  54  ||  97  ||
 * Joshua ||  46  ||  77  ||
 * Brittany ||  82  ||  100  ||
 * Tatyianna ||  65  ||   ||
 * Jasmine ||  54  ||  94  ||
 * Earnita ||  55  ||  94  ||

Brittany Crawford ID# 109217 Student Proficiency Report Instructor: Dr, Uzochukwu: Total Possible: 48 Student Score: 39 - 81% Exam Name: Physics 4.5 week benchmark test: Highest Score: 39 - 81.25 % Class Average: 23.9 - 49.79 % Exam Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013 Lowest Score: 14 - 29.17 % Proficiency: >=75%
 * Responses**

SP1c 32 36 89% SP1d 7 12 58% Proficiency Level 39 48 81%
 * Standard Description Correct Total %**
 * Projectiles and circular motion**
 * Overall Proficiency 39 48 81%**


 * Missed Questions**

1 B A 14 B A 25 C D 29 B A 31 D C 41 E D 42 E D 46 D E 47 E D
 * **Correct Your Answer Prescriptive Information**

Tatyanna Fleming ID# 1011096 Instructor: Total Possible: 48 Student Score: 31 - 65% Exam Name: Highest Score: 39 - 81.25 % Class Average: 23.9 - 49.79 % Exam Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013 Lowest Score: 14 - 29.17 % Proficiency: >=75%
 * Student Proficiency Report **
 * Responses**

SP1c 27 36 75% SP1d 4 12 33% Proficiency Level 31 48 65%
 * Standard Description Correct Total %**
 * Projectiles and circular motion**
 * Overall Proficiency 31 48 65%**


 * Missed Questions**

3 A B 5 B A 21 B A 23 B A 24 A C 25 C A 28 A D 29 B A 30 D C 36 D A 38 D C 40 B C 41 E B 42 E D 44 D A 46 D E 47 E D
 * **Correct Your Answer Prescriptive Information**

Instructor: Total Possible: 48 Average: 23.9 - 49.79 % Exam Name: Highest Score: 39 - 81.25 % Median: 24.5 - 51.04 % Exam Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013 Lowest Score: 14 - 29.17 % KR20: 0.820 Correct answers are shown in italics Blanks Multiples Point Correct Percent Incorrect Biserial Q 1 A (12, 60%) **// B (8, 40%) //** C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) -.03 8, 40.0% **60.0%** Q 2 **// A (20, 100%) //** B (0, 0%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .00 20, 100.0% **0.0%** Q 3 **// A (11, 55%) //** B (9, 45%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) -.14 11, 55.0% **45.0%** Q 4 A (4, 20%) **// B (16, 80%) //** C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .25 16, 80.0% **20.0%** Q 5 A (13, 65%) **// B (7, 35%) //** C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .11 7, 35.0% **65.0%** Q 6 **// A (16, 80%) //** B (4, 20%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .27 16, 80.0% **20.0%** Q 7 A (6, 30%) **// B (14, 70%) //** C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .49 14, 70.0% **30.0%** Q 8 **// A (18, 90%) //** B (2, 10%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .25 18, 90.0% **10.0%** Q 9 **// A (10, 50%) //** B (10, 50%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .47 10, 50.0% **50.0%** Q 10 **// A (17, 85%) //** B (3, 15%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .36 17, 85.0% **15.0%** Q 11 A (7, 35%) **// B (13, 65%) //** C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .31 13, 65.0% **35.0%** Q 12 **// A (16, 80%) //** B (4, 20%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .44 16, 80.0% **20.0%** Q 13 **// A (16, 80%) //** B (4, 20%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .31 16, 80.0% **20.0%** Q 14 A (14, 70%) **// B (6, 30%) //** C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) -.01 6, 30.0% **70.0%** Q 15 A (8, 40%) **// B (12, 60%) //** C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .25 12, 60.0% **40.0%** Q 16 **// A (14, 70%) //** B (6, 30%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .42 14, 70.0% **30.0%** Q 17 **// A (16, 80%) //** B (4, 20%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .03 16, 80.0% **20.0%** Q 18 **// A (12, 60%) //** B (8, 40%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .62 12, 60.0% **40.0%** Q 19 **// A (19, 95%) //** B (0, 0%) C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) (1, 5%) .24 19, 95.0% **5.0%** Q 20 A (9, 45%) **// B (11, 55%) //** C (0, 0%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .35 11, 55.0% **45.0%** Q 21 A (13, 65%) **// B (6, 30%) //** C (1, 5%) D (0, 0%) E (0, 0%) .34 6, 30.0% **70.0%** Q 22 A (4, 20%) **// B (15, 75%) //** C (0, 0%) D (1, 5%) E (0, 0%) .45 15, 75.0% **25.0%** Q 23 A (6, 30%) **// B (9, 45%) //** C (4, 20%) D (1, 5%) E (0, 0%) .38 9, 45.0% **55.0%** Q 24 **// A (7, 35%) //** B (3, 15%) C (5, 25%) D (5, 25%) E (0, 0%) .08 7, 35.0% **65.0%** Q 25 A (8, 40%) B (5, 25%) **// C (3, 15%) //** D (4, 20%) E (0, 0%) -.37 3, 15.0% **85.0%**
 * Exam Item Analysis Report **
 * Exams Graded: ** ** 20 **

Report run date: 2/14/2013 4:14 PM Page 1

AR Data Analysis
[what patterns, trends, do you draw from your data? what did you notice?] The self-monitoring method of having student analyze their test items and making corrections before a retake appeared to have a positive effect on students academically, and additionally seemed to improve their attitude towards physics and testing. This was proven by the students’ assessment scores, as well as by their answers and scores on the survey provided.
 * Findings **
 * Students test scores averaged over three assessments showed all students performed at a level of 77% accuracy with the majority scoring above 90%.
 * APS proficiency level is at >75%, and all the students who participated met and exceeded the mark.

AR Conclusions
[what conclusions, if any, did you draw from your AR? what will you pursue in your next cycle? what new questions do you have? what will you change in your classroom, if anything, base don the AR experience?] The data presented illustrates that students who took part in the correcting of their work had academic success. However, what was even more interesting were the answers students gave when asked to write about this test correction practice. Teacher had a post practice interview with students and these are their responses. Student 1 Teacher : What did you discover about your test-taking skills during the correction exercise/ Brittany ; I didn’t pay attention to the questions well enough. Teacher : What will you so better next time? Brittany : I will pay more attention to what the question is asking me. Teacher : What else would you do to improve your score on the next test? Brittany : I will take my time and use the GUESS method. I realized I could have answered most of the free-response [correctly] if I used GUESS. Teacher : Do you think we should continue making corrections before retake? Brittany: Yes, without corrections, we will continue making the soame mistakes in both the class assignments and tests. Student 2 Teacher : What was your experience with the test corrections exercise? Earnita : When I saw the test corrections I knew the answers, but I went blank on the test. While doing the test corrections, I learned to look at the questions more carefully when testing. Student 3 Teacher : Do you think there is any benefit with the test correction? Jasmine: Teacher : Do you think we should continue this practice? Jasmine: Student 4 Teacher : What is your opinion about test correction? Montavia: I think it is a waste of time. If we study before the real test we will pass, but because students know that they will be allowed to make corrections they will not study. Student 5 Teacher : What was your experience with the test corrections exercise? Joshua: I really like it because it is then I can get clarifications on what the question is asking me to do. My problem is not understanding what the question is saying. If I know what is being asked, I will be able to answer it correctly.

Student 6 Teacher : What was your experience with the test corrections exercise?

Tatyana: I did not really understand many of the questions during the test, but you [The teacher]

directed me on how to answer the questions and it seemed a lot easier.

Lit Review & Resources
[list and/or link articles and other resources related to your learning this year, and relevant to your AR ]

Research shows that students involvement in setting their own goals brings enjoy a high degree of success. Also, ormative assessment helps students become aware of their shortcomings and therefore points them in the direction of what they need to work on to improve. Integral to achievement was specific feedback allowing students to comprehend how they needed to improve, and the more immediate this intervention was, the more success students enjoyed. “In fact, the research set forth proved that effective, opportune, and judicious formative assessment not only improved student achievement, but created a positive outlook on school and specific subject matter for learners.” Formative assessment has been defined as measuring student progress prior to and/or during instruction in order to adapt and adjust instruction while improving student accomplishment [16]. In order for students to effectively learn and improve their performance, they needed to identify and understandthe areas of study where they needed to develop and increase their knowledge and/or skills. Therefore, students required formative assessment in order to evaluate their own achievement by receiving feedback on their school work, considering which items in their assessment were incorrect, and why their answers were wrong [7]. Reference [12]stated that formative assessment was not only useful for students in helping them identify areas where they needed to dedicate time and energy, it was also valuable toeducators because it provided feedback on their teaching processes and strategies. This assessment, in turn, led to reflection in order to allow the educator to adjust the approach, THE EFFECTS OF SELF-CORRECTING MATHEMATICS PROBLEMS 5 Formative assessment allowed for self-assessment for both the student and the teacher. Meaningful self-assessment proved to be true education because it gave all parties involved opportunities to reflect, learn, and grow which allowed for excellent instruction and excellent learning as well [1] While formative assessment was essential to the success of students, specific feedback in order to understand //how//to improve was vital and indispensible for all learners. Reference [7]stated that when students understood the feedback given to them, they made note as to what the teacher was articulating and tried to figure out what they had done wrong e teacher to immediately identify which math concepts students found difficult, while allowing the teacher to give specific feedback on those particular concepts [4]. The bottom line was this type of homework review gave students understanding on how they could improve their performance. Formative assessment promotes student achievement and studies have shown that there was a direct correlation between the amount of feedback given to students and their results in summative assessments]. If formative assessment was effective, it improved student performance as well as scores on summative assessments. The professor utilized a formative/summative assessment (FSA) model by providing students with explicit feedback on their graded tests. The students who participated in the FSA model performed better than those who were in the control group and the feedback revealed that in addition to that, the students’ attitudes toward the FSA model were positive [15]. Wininger’s study proved that effective summative feedback improved student scores and students’ attitudes affirmed it was an effective tool. This was proven by the double dosing action research performed by reference [13]as well. As noted earlier, students who took part in the formative assessment through explicit instruction, teacher feedback, and modeling not only improved their math scores but that the students attitude toward both math and school were much more positive than before [13]. Formative assessment that not only improved scores but also improved student outlook towards school was an additional advantage, over and above the original goals set forth. Reflections [share a 'summation" of your EE Ford experience; anything else you want visitors to know] Even though the test-correction process is time consuming, it is worth doing since the overall benefit outweighs the downside. All the students who participated fully in the exercise achieved success in both improving their grades and learning the physics concepts being tested. Test corrections, the way it is done is a teaching process through formative assessment. Since the students have the opportunity to make the corrections as many times as it takes to get the correct answer. I therefore recommend that the instructional leader in every school should require teachers to carry out this intervention after every benchmark test. Teachers should include it as part of their lesson plans. Retakes may not apply to midterm and final examinations since they are recorded right away in students’ transcript. If the benchmark tests are corrected, students will do better in the final exams since the tested materials come from these benchmarks. Whatever we the educators can do to improve student achievement is worth doing. After all it is all about learning; the student being able to understand the concept and remember it on the long run is very desirable. This is academic success.
 * 2. Literature Review **
 * 2.1 Formative Assessment ** Instead of setting students up for success, lack of effective formative assessment caused frustration and disappointment for learners. In order to support students with high-quality formative assessment, educators must be familiar, comfortable, and have a well rounded understanding of what formative assessment is, and is not.
 * 2.2 Providing effective feedback **
 * 2.3 Effective formative assessment **
 * Resources **
 * Recommendation **