Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Assessment Project
Mia Angelis
EDU 342
Introduction:
This fall 2017 year I had the opportunity to have a fourth grade science buddy through
experience that helped me to individually guide a student through the science process, an
experience so personal and one that I will probably never have the opportunity to do
again. My science buddy’s name was Nathan, he was born and raised in Salt Lake City
and had never been to the Great Salt Lake previous to our science field trip. Nathan loves
to play soccer and hangout with his friends and he has a twin brother who he loves to
goof around with. When asked what his favorite subject was he said science, with no
hesitation. Nathan has a yearning to learn and the patience to get there, although Nathan
has a hearing impairment that requires him to wear a BTE hearing aid that never stopped
him from asking questions or getting out there and going the extra mile. I feel confident
when saying that Nathan and I both equally learned so much from each other during this
Skills I assessed:
Throughout our science buddy-ship I assessed a variety of skills. The main skills I
and experimenting. Nathan was assessed on the above skills over the course of about two
1
Multiple Assessment Project
months. I assessed Nathans observations skills frequently, this is a skill that he loved to
do and was very good at. Nathan observed at the both the lake and in classroom settings,
posing questions to me along the way such as: “why does the sand look like_____? How
come the water is _____ color?” Nathan also tied communicating into his observation
skills. When he would ask a question he would communicate why he was asking the
question and if I asked the question he would clearly communicate through his
observations why and justify his reasoning. Nathan used inferring and predicting
frequently throughout the processes but especially during lake day. I was pleasantly
surprised to see how much Nathan interacted and engaged during that day given how
hectic it was. Nathan was constantly looking for items to infer or make predictions about,
and always picking up items or wafting smells so he could do the same. Nathan made it
easy to ask questions because he was always so inquisitive himself. When it came time to
begin to outline the experiment Nathan was quick to form a hypothesis about how the
experiment would turn out. He made the hypothesis that the tap water would freeze first
out of our three liquids because it did not have salt or sugar in it. A hypothesis that
Nathan could justify through verbalizing his thinking, and communicating. Nathan used
measuring during his actual experiment part of the project. Together him and I came up
with and identified the controlled variables, which would end up being the types of
liquids and the amount of liquids that we would use in the experiment. Nathan was
thorough during the experiment set up and ensured we used the same amount of orange
juice, tap water, and Great Salt Lake Water. During the experiment, Nathan was able to
follow directions and write them down so others could follow the same procedure as
well. We did two trials of the same experiment to validate our results and following the
2
Multiple Assessment Project
conclusion of both experiments he was able to interpret the data that yielded from the
experiments. Nathan helped to create a bar graph so passer-byers would easily be able to
reference our data sheet and see that all of the liquids froze. As well as what order the
liquids froze in. He collected data and used it as evidence during his conclusion and
whether he rejected or accepted his hypothesis. I was amazed by how many skills I was
able to assess on my buddy. Each time I met with him he was more and more excited to
During the assessment process I used both formative and summative assessments to
assess Nathan. My forms of formative assessment that I used include the circle papers
that I filled out daily after each time we met, as well as informal conversation. The circle
papers helped immensely, especially while doing this write up, I can clearly see that
Nathan did improve during our time together. Fortunately, Nathan came from a positive
background outlook on science and looked forward to learning more about it, this
mindset helped massively while I was teaching Nathan. From lake day all the way to
poster session day I was able to watch Nathan go from a 1 to a 3.5 on “student relates
investigation to prior experiences” and this wasn’t the only area that I saw a large jump in
Nathans understanding. I also saw a jump on “student suggests causes for what is
observed” – when we first went to the lake, Nathan was able to make inferences and ask
questions but he didn’t know why. After lake day and completion of the science project
Nathan was able to suggest causes for what was observed. He went from a 1 to a 3 on this
section as well. I also used informal conversation to formatively assess Nathan. This
3
Multiple Assessment Project
occurred frequently throughout the duration of our partnership. It was by far the easiest
form of assessment and for me, the most helpful form as well. It really helped me to
gauge his understanding and where I needed to specify in more depth. As far as
summative assessment goes, I used the poster session and the post-test as summative
assessment for Nathan. The poster session astonished me. Aside from a few guidewords
here and there from me, Nathan was able to lead his own explanation of what processes
he went through to create and execute the experiment as well as what his hypothesis was
and whether he accepted or rejected it. It was like a proud teacher moment, I don’t know
how to explain it, but I learned a lot about what Nathan learned from our time together
that day. It is one thing for me to assess Nathan based on what I watched during our
constructing stage of the experiment, it was a whole new concept for me to watch Nathan
in what could have been an overly sensory task given his hearing aids and the amount of
people/noise that day, but he showed me a whole new side of what he learned. The
second form of summative assessment I used was the post-test. The post-test posed as a
little more of a difficult challenge for Nathan, it was much easier for Nathan to orally tell
me what he learned rather than writing it down. However, he still answered the questions
with his same knowledge of that he did during his poster session, it simply took a little
more guidance. It was essential for me to use both forms of assessment in order for me to
shaped and changed my interactions with Nathan as well as the way I worded questions
4
Multiple Assessment Project
that I would ask him. When I first began to work with Nathan, I would ask more broad
questions, because from my prior experiences this sometimes would help kids to not feel
so isolated on the ideas they could think of. However, with Nathan this had the opposite
effect and he seemed lost when I would ask the questions. About halfway through lake
day, I realized the way I was asking questions to assess his prior knowledge was yielding
adjusted the way I was asking questions I began to see much better results and the boy
who looked at me like a deer in headlights began to show all of his scientific knowledge
that he had stowed away. When I was ready for Nathan to start to form an experiment I
didn’t ask “What interested you at the lake?” I asked him, “Were you interested by the
sand? Did the shrimp interest you? What interested you about the salt water? Oh, you
heard it doesn’t freeze… should we try that?” Simply setting Nathan up for question /
answer success helped him to feel more confident when answering. I didn’t leave the
the way his mind worked, but most of the time I helped to guide him through the
question. Once I started to ask questions differently I noticed most of the formative
bubble sheets I filled out began to increase as well. I saw little jumps, even by .5, but it
was something that helped me to concur that by changing the way I asked questions
helped Nathan to preform better during our science time together. This was a great first
hand experience that not all questions are created equally. Sometimes if I asked too many
questions or spoke too quickly it would be hard for Nathan to process everything fully
because of his hearing aids, so by me adjusting my approach to the way I asked questions
5
Multiple Assessment Project
Concerns/Suggestions:
Nathan is an extremely bright scientist, creator, engineer, and student with an amazing
future ahead of him. He is talented in his thinking skills and works fluidly and efficiently.
For his future endeavors the way questions are asked to him and the amount of questions
that are asked should be carefully thought out to best assist in his learning. Nathan’s
‘hearing impairment’ did not negatively affect his learning, but rather I believe it
enhanced it. Hearing impairment or not, the way students learn is different and should be
personalized for each student. By adjusting the way I asked questions helped Nathan to
learn new things and if it seems like a challenge he is up for it. For those in the future
who will work with him it is best to give this student a positive learning atmosphere by
helping to address thinking that may be conceived as ‘incorrect’ or ‘off-track’ and re-
direct him back on course. He works well in groups as well as independently but it is
important to ensure that if he is in a group that he can be near the speaker so he can hear
best and be away from too many other distractions. Personally, from my experience with
this student I don’t have any overarching concerns to address. Nathan can come off as
shy so don’t overlook him, he often knows the answer but just needs the scaffolding to
answer it. Those who will get to work with this student are fortunate and should embrace