Chemistry+Content+Area+Data+Analysis+2014-2015

Name:______________ Date:_________ Directions: Part I. Overall Proficiency Levels
 * Content Area Data Analysis 2014-2015**
 * Analyze the data from your content area.
 * Complete the template below.

BM and End of Year Assessment Performance 2013-2014
 * **Assessment** || **% of Students Basic or Lower** || **% of Students Proficient or Higher** ||
 * **BM1** || 21 || 79 ||
 * **BM2** || 55 || 45 ||
 * **BM3** || 8 || 92 ||
 * **EOY** || 5 || 95 ||

Standard/Cluster Performance 2013-2014
 * **Standard Cluster Name:** || **Overall Proficiency Level:** ||
 * **SC1.9-12.CH.1.a-h** || 94% ||
 * **SC1.9-12.CH.2.a-d** || 83% ||
 * **SC1.9-12.CH.3.a-e** || 70% ||
 * **SC1.9-12.CH.4.a-f** || 85% ||
 * **SC1.9-12.CH.5.a-d** || 91% ||
 * **SC1.9-12.CH.6.a-g** || 61% ||
 * **SC1.9-12.CH.7.a-d** || 75% ||
 * **SC1.9-12.CH.8.b-c** || 88% ||
 * **SC1.9-12.CH.9.a-b** || 57% ||
 * **SC1.9-12.CH.10-11.a-d** || 92% ||

Analysis Questions:
 * 1) 1. Provide an overall summary of the data. What does the data show?

Essentially, the main take-aways from this very general look at that data are that students found relative success across the board by the end of the course, and that there are definitely areas to grow regarding specific clusters near the end of the academic year. Students scored proficient or advanced in every cluster except nuclear chemistry, with students scoring above 90% in 3 areas: biochemistry, acids and bases, and atomic theory.


 * 1) 2. What patterns were present in the data?

Students definitely took a slump by the end of first semester, having been tired out by the math portion of stoichiometry. However, considering they achieved a 70% average by the end of the year, there is seemingly merit in giving the topic exposure early on. Students also went consistently up from the start of second semester, indicating the time off may have given them a chance to come back with a renewed vigor.


 * 1) 3. What are the cluster areas of strength? Identify possible causes of this area of strength(s).

Biochemistry – taught via food chemistry and really helps students nail it home Atomic Theory – initial and easiest unit. Most prolonged exposure to the topic. Acids and Bases – my most well planned and, in some ways, my most difficult unit. Definitely a fun one and kids seem to get a lot out of the activities.


 * 1) 4. What opportunity for improvement was common to all students? Identify possible cause(s) of this area of needed improvement.

Students are going to definitely need more assistance in solution chemistry and exploring the concept of aqueous substances. The calculations are difficult and the conceptual framework has a relatively steep learning curve. However, the kids who understand it, really, really understand it.


 * 1) 5. What do the patterns suggest about how to improve instruction for the entire group?

There needs to be more opportunity to engage in discussion about lab work and accountability measures in place for appropriately pacing their learning. There also needs to be a retweaking of a few units to focus on areas that were consistently difficult for students this year.

Part II. Historical Subgroup Performance Data on EOY Assessment (if applicable)
 * ** Subgroup ** || ** %FBB ** || ** %BB ** || ** %B ** || ** %P ** || ** %A ** ||
 * ** All Students ** || 0 || 2 || 3 || 70 || 26 ||
 * ** ELL ** || 0 || 22 || 22 || 44 || 11 ||
 * ** Male ** || 0 || 1 || 2 || 80 || 17 ||
 * ** Female ** || 0 || 1 || 1 || 68 || 29 ||
 * ** Special Education ** || 0 || 100% || 1 || 0 || 0 ||

Analysis Questions:
 * 1) 1. Which subgroup had the highest percentage of FBB? What are some possible causes of this performance?

Fortunately, I had no students fall into the FBB this time around, and I hope to continue this trend! This is probably due to students constant access of content, focus on mastering learning targets, and publically displaying high-level pieces of content.


 * 1) 2. Which subgroup had the highest percentage of proficient and advanced?

With a whopping 98%, The Ladies! Nice work girls.


 * 1) 3. What do the patterns suggest about how to improve instruction for individuals and for subgroups?

There needs to be a key focus on students with special needs and accommodating strategies to help them complete work at a high level. I also need to find ways to improve vocab connections for ELL students and provide more ways to deliver content that will assist in the access problem.


 * 1) 4. How will you differentiate instruction to support the subgroups in your courses?

I will continue to use digital tools to create learning opportunities for students with all learning styles and continually develop methodology by which I can analyze their progress and intervene at appropriate times. The main issue will be providing supports for terminology and difficult vocabulary to ensure that students have the foundational skills for application, evaluation, and synthesis.


 * 1) 5. Based on the data above is there one particular subgroup that needs the most assistance? If so which group is it? How will you better support this group specifically this year? What resources will you need to do this?

Most assuredly, the ELL and SPED populations will need the most support in the upcoming year as the content is both difficult and abstract to the point that any student would need substantial assistance in understanding the conceptual framework. As stated previously, I intend to refine resources that will assure that students have constant access to content and are holding themselves accountable for a high quality of work with embedded structural progress-tracking components.