Download
1 / 15
150 likes | 275 Vues
World Languages Mid-Term Review Report February 2010. Overview of Departmental Presentation. I. Department Overview Discussion of PLC content team organization, work, and focus for the year II. Course Analysis A. Overview and Analysis of Common Assessments Delivered
E N D
Overview of Departmental Presentation • I. Department Overview • Discussion of PLC content team organization, work, and focus for the year • II. Course Analysis • A. Overview and Analysis of Common Assessments Delivered • B. Format and Delivery (use of SchoolNet, performance based or objective…) • C. Student Performance Overview • D. Action Plans for Struggling Students (including intervention efforts and plans) • III. Department Summary • IV. Analysis of next steps for PLC’s, W.L. Department (constructive reflection.)
. I. Departmental OverviewDiscussion of PLC Content Team Organization, Work, and Focus for the year • PLC Content Team Organization: languages met in language specific groups, some of them were in virtual groups. At times our W.L. department also met per language level across languages. In addition, most of us joined the cross-curricular technology PLC group. If you were in another group, please add this info here. • PLC Work: Each language compiled student data on common nine week testing and common mid-term sections for reflecting on student progress and exchanging ideas for specific successful instructional intervention strategies as needed to meet our goals of No Child Left Behindin acquiring another language. We also discussed the educational and pedagogical value of assignments and compositions. Please address these points in your slide. SchoolNet was used to post a diagnostic test for Spanish II incoming students. This test is not yet ready for generating a full variety of reports for analysis of student performance due to the fact that W.L. standards do not coincide with the numbers assigned to the state SOL’s. Hence, questions cannot be analyzed due to SchoolNet’s numbers’ recognition restrictions. Students about whom we as professionals have concerns even if scores are acceptable. • PLC Focus for the year: Our focus was on how to refine common assessment, incorporating technology and using CSI developed W.L. lesson unit. • Per language, slides in this power point show how many students did (data that indicates specific progress towards our goals) /did not (D’s and F’s) achieve proficiency on common second quarter assessments. • Overview also shows steps taken to support individual students who are moving toward achieving proficiency and the support and resources necessary to reach our goal(s.)
II. Course Analysis per Language (arranged alphabetically) A. Overview and Analysis of Common Assessments Delivered B. Format and Delivery (use of SchoolNet, performance based or objective…) C. Student Performance Overview D. Action Plans for Struggling Students (including intervention efforts and plans)
Spanish A. Overview and Analysis of Common Assessments Delivered B. Format and Delivery (use of SchoolNet, performance based or objective…) C. Student Performance Overview D. Action Plans for Struggling Students (including intervention efforts and plans)
2nd semester grades - Spanish II and III - Pitts • Spanish students continue to grow stronger in the language per accumulated year of Spanish. • Unlimited mastery performance chances account for 0% failures in both Spanish II and III. • Retakes also encourage students to try harder, resulting in a blue bell curve that has a slight positive peak at the B-C level for Spanish III. For Spanish II, this methodology shows its success as there are fewer lower grades.
Midterm grades - Spanish II and III - Pitts • These numbers reflect inclusion of both the common testing parts and the teacher individual parts. • Spanish II mid-term exam included multiple choice, listening and reading comprehension, writing and culture section. • Spanish III mid-term exam included large scantron multiple choice, listening and reading comprehension, writing and culture section. • The methodology of second chances adversely affects midterm grades as exams are not eligible for retakes. As per student survey, lower level students for many reasons did not take advantage of the review packet and spent less time on the exam itself i.e. double-checking answers. A and B/C students really benefited from and liked the reviews. • The speaking part was the least stellar of the four part exam (listening, reading, writing, speaking.) Speaking is usually the hardest score to raise due to our geographical location and make-up of student body. Little to no exposure outside of the classroom is readily available unless the assignments specifically direct students to seek out target language opportunities. • The test itself for Spanish III was mostly scantron and much longer than the Spanish II exam which may account for student test taking fatigue. • This is the third year that the same questions have been used for both levels with minor adaptations each year. • One Spanish III class contains an inordinate large number of students with testing/studying issues who are also much less prepared for the rigors of a level III language.
Overview - Spanish II and III - Pitts • Review and second chances work – as evidenced from the semester grades and from the midterm grades. • Consistent adherence to the three R’s (Rigor, Relevance, Relationship of subject to student’s world) is inversely related to the student’s self-image i.e. a student who sees himself as a D performer needs more reasons to “see the light” for studying Spanish. This is especially true in the third year. Many lower level students view it as the final hurdle and for them Spanish learning has lost its intrinsic attraction. • Practical students need more assistance beyond CARE. Any disruption in a student’s home life severely affects a student’s scholastic performance. While teachers are the first CARE givers in the academic defense line, the administration (in particular Mr. Tim Driver) has been instrumental in providing point person assistance to redirect and provide additional networks of support for specific fledgling Spanish students. • Equal parts of time need to be given to reading, writing, speaking and studying Hispanic culture. While our students appear to be tech savvy, they are not making good use of available online help in either one of these areas. My job as a learning facilitator will be to balance these pillars of W.L. out more in class and to also point out how and where to find self-help tutorials and practice online for these students. This will also alleviate CARE crowding. • In short, the good news is that the students are learning and mastering Spanish.. The work that needs more attention is the common assessment for Spanish III and to find a way to focus more on weaker students beyond CARE and reviews. • For successful students, current e-Teacher classes are providing me with new learning and teachable opportunities to pass on to students who are ready to augment their learning.
IV. Analysis of next steps for PLC’s, W.L. Department (constructive reflection.)
How can the Division support your work? Please read and add comments. • - In 2009 we stated that curricular goals should be met. Testing, collecting and analyzing data to be presented is an important facet in reaching these goals. We mentioned that time is a limited commodity. Preparing for improved delivery of common curricular goals and making sure these goals are met, adjusting teaching/help and devising innovative strategies for students who exceed or fall short of said goals, needs more of our time. New time made available in the division calendar should NOT be filled with new mandates or expectations as that defeats the purpose. This year, 2010, we are pleased to report that more unencumbered time has been made available for above mentioned goals. • - 2010 saw no change from our viewpoint in how the division recognizes/treats academic performance/practice on the same par as athletic performances/practices. Wall of fame? Trophies? TV? Newspaper? Many people still rely heavily on the printed word and like to see their efforts recognized in the local paper rather than in cyber space. This is especially true for the older generation aka the ones who support us financially. • - As in 2009, 2010 shows that SchoolNet needs to incorporate different ways of showing W.L. proficiency beyond writing, speaking, listening tests e.g. student portfolio that is better adapted to our subject matter. In addition, writing a test for SchoolNet use is a job of Sisyphean proportions. New textbooks will have these tests ready made for SchoolNet inclusion. Until then, teacher time should be spent teaching, not trying to match taxonomies and SOL strands and bullets to tests. - In 2009, the number of students not showing proficiency was directly related to class size and ability grouping. This is also borne out by empirical data. Due to time constraints and funding, 2010 saw that grouping teachable and manageable classes became less of an option. Again, the perception is that classes contain as many students as possible that will get them an advanced diploma regardless of student interest or motivation, with a detrimental result for all. In short, division support for smaller and better focused class size and increased planning time will help in increasing student proficiency. In 2010, class sizes for Spanish II were very good. Spanish III, however, was bursting at the seams at the beginning of the year. To lose students due to lack of attention which in turn is due to class size, is disappointing and frustrating for all parties involved and surely will not help in closing the achievement gap or our W.L. goal of No Child Left Behindin acquiring another language. • - In 2009, the request for one system that can take attendance, communicate with parents, track grades, be CARE friendly where perhaps students use their barcode to scan themselves in was still elusive in 2010. It seems that between SchoolNet, SASI and Gradekeepers, we mimick the security offices of the federal administration. Not enough intercommunication to connect the dots for students in need. Lack of transparency or communication regarding county wide technology software programs coming down the pike that would help us in setting/changing goals for the year rather than spend time on items that will be out of date in the near future, would be a nice policy consideration. • - The request in 2009 to find ways to fund technology e.g. a smart board in every room or an i-pod for every teacher esp. in W. L. that would allow for more listening activities, was thwarted to a grossly understated economic downturn. Still, changes are happening though, albeit piecemeal and painstaking. The Millennial generation though will leave us no choice but to continue on this path of credit card debt lest we should fall behind even more on the world wide scale of student achievements. As always, the child with no tech toys will suffer the most if the school cannot extend help.
