Student Work Analysis Protocol

A PART OF THE ASSESSMENT TOOLKIT

Rhode Island Department of Education & the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Inc.
 Page|2

Overview
The Student Work Analysis Protocol presented here provides a process that groups of
educators can use to discuss and analyze student work. It is intended to be applicable across
subjects and grades, including literacy, mathematics, science, the arts, and others. Examples of
student work that can be used as practice for analyzing are included as appendices.

Analyzing student work gives educators information about students’ understanding of concepts
and skills and can help them make instructional decisions for improving student learning. The
success of this process is dependent on a culture in which all educators are collaborative and
focused on reflective practice to improve student learning.

Contents
Overview....................................................................................................................................................2
Terminology............................................................................................................................................3
Why Analyze Student Work?..................................................................................................................3
Formative Analysis of Student Work.........................................................................................................4
Student Work Analysis Process...............................................................................................................4
Student Work Analysis Protocol.................................................................................................................6
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................9

Terminology
The following provides a clarification of some of the terms used in this document:

Assessment – an instrument or process for documenting in measurable terms what students

know and can do. Educational assessments can take many forms, including but not limited to,
written tests and assignments, performance tasks, and portfolios.

Educator – indicates those individuals who are analyzing student work during a student work
analysis session. This can include a classroom teacher, content area teacher, administrator,
special education teacher, and specialists (reading, media, speech pathologists, etc.).

Protocol – a vehicle for building the skills and culture necessary for collaborative work. It can
help to ensure equity and parity thus allowing groups to build trust by actually doing substantive
work together. Protocols create a structure for asking and responding to challenging questions,
reflecting on an issue or dilemma, and gaining differing perspectives and new insights.

Student Work – the student’s response to the task.

 Page|3

Task – refers to any assignment that requires a response from students. This may be in the
form of a constructed response, problem solving, or performance.

Why Analyze Student Work?

Engaging in a collaborative process of looking at student work allows a group of educators to
analyze the learning experiences they have designed for their students and determine their
effectiveness. When teachers collaboratively analyze student work they can build
understanding and agreement about the consistent use and interpretation of a rubric with the
goal of improving student learning. This process encourages teachers to consider:

 What are my students’ strengths with regard to the required knowledge and skills?
 What are my students’ learning needs with regard to the required knowledge and skills?
 Do students have sufficient foundational content and process skills to approach new
learning?
 How can I support student learning through scaffolding and differentiation?

The most important benefit of analyzing student work is improved student learning. According
to Langer, Colton, and Goff (2003), “the most important benefit of collaboratively analyzing
student learning is that at-risk students learn more.” In addition, through a student work
analysis, students and teachers have increased clarity about intended outcomes.

Other benefits for teachers and educational organizations that have been identified include:

 Increased professional knowledge about curriculum, students, methods, strategies,

assessments, and contextual factors.

 Greater understanding of alignment among standards, curriculum, instruction and

assessments and how to fill gaps for students, as well as how to assess based on
instructional expectations.
 Positive opportunities to collaboratively share expertise and move away from isolated
teaching.
 Higher consistency of curriculum alignment within and across grade levels are
established.
 School improvement goals and resource allocation are driven by classroom data.
 Professional development planning is targeted to teachers’ needs based on student
evidence.
 A collaborative culture of inquiry about student success is developed.

Formative Analysis of Student Work

Formative analysis of student work through a collaborative process allows teachers to discuss
what different levels of student work look like, identify possible explanations for students’
performances, and discuss options for adjusting and strengthening instruction.

In addition, when setting targets for Student Learning Objectives, knowing students’ starting
points enables teachers and administrators to approximate the amount of progress that students
 Page|4

should make during the interval of instruction. One way to organize baseline data is to identify
three levels of preparedness for the curricular focus of the Objective Statement:

Students have not mastered pre-requisite knowledge or

Low
skills necessary for the course
Students are appropriately prepared to meet the
Expected
demands of the course
Students have already mastered some key knowledge
High
and skills

Of course, in any given classroom there may be many, few, or no students in each of these
categories. The use of the Analysis of Student Work Protocol will help determine the levels of
preparedness both as baseline information, as well as to monitor student progress throughout
the interval of instruction.1

Student Work Analysis Process

During the Student Work Analysis process, educators begin by gaining clarity around the
expectations for student performance on a task and its corresponding rubric2. The facilitator will
ask questions to assist the team in understanding what is being assessed and in reaching
consensus on what constitutes a proficient response. Without scoring, teachers do a quick
“sort” of students’ work by overall degree of objectives met, partially met, or not met. Teachers
may also need to create a “not sure” pile. After the quick sort, the papers that were in the “not
sure” pile should be matched with the papers in one of the existing piles.

Once the papers are sorted, a few samples from each level (low, expected, high) are reviewed
and the prerequisite knowledge that students have acquired based on the assessment are
discussed and recorded. Misconceptions or wrong information are also discussed and recorded.
Finally, the team considers the learning needs for the class overall, noting patterns and trends,
as well as the learning needs for each targeted group. These are recorded with the intent of
acting upon them.

1 For more information on baseline data and setting SLO targets see: Using Baseline Data and
Information to Set SLO Targets: A Part of the Assessment Toolkit, www.ride.ri.gov/EdEval-OnlineModules
2 If a rubric is not available, an effort should be made to create an applicable rubric for scoring the student
work before undertaking the Student Work Analysis process or attempting to score the student work.
 Page|5

Student Work Analysis Protocol3

Subject Area: Teen Choices_____________ Grade Level: ___9 th and 10th____________

Formative or Performance Task: __Conflict Management Quiz

______________________________________

A. Reaching Consensus about Proficiency

Read the assessment prompt and/or rubric and explain:
• What are the students expected to do?
The students generally do a quiz/test, essay, or project to gauge what each student had learned
from the lesson. The students were to take a quiz at the end of the Conflict Management lesson.
Students were to show what they know by going through and answering a series of ten questions.
The quiz included the types of conflict, the styles of conflict, and the outcomes of conflict.
Which standards (CCSS or content standards) or curriculum expectations are being
assessed?
Social Wellness Standards –

13.3.1 Analyze communication styles and their effects on relationships.

13.3.2 Demonstrate verbal and nonverbal behaviors and attitudes that contribute to effective
communication

13.3.3 Demonstrate effective listening and feedback techniques

• What do you consider to be a proficient response on this assessment? Exactly what do

students need to say or write for you to consider their work proficient?
The responses that I deem proficient on this assessment depended on a few things. One, there was true
or false, multiple choice, and select all that apply. Regarding the true or false and multiple-choice, the
students had to select the right answer to earn the points. For the select all that apply if the students if
students selected the correct answers, they got the point. However, if they selected a wrong answer with
the right answer, they were deducted .25 for each wrong answer selected. Then there were short answer
questions. For the short answer questions, the students had to tell me what the exact outcome was for a
conflict style and list the environmental impacts of conflict. The answer to the environment had two sides
to the conflict. Because I didn’t word the question the way I wanted them to answer If the students could
give me at least two of either side they got the point. Finally, I had a long answer, and if the student could
identify the conflict style that they use and tell me why they use that style they got points for showing me
what they know about themselves.
• Did the assessment give students a good opportunity to demonstrate what they know?
This assessment gave students the opportunity to demonstrate what they know by allowing
them to recall and explain the content that we have gone over for this lesson. They had other
opportunities to explain what they had already known and reflected on throughout the lesson.
This quiz tied all of the important content together and students got to show what they know
by taking the quiz.

B. Diagnosing Student Strengths and Needs

After reaching consensus, read student work and without scoring, do a “quick sort” of students’ work
by the general degree of the objectives met, partially met, not met. You may need a “not sure” pile.
After sorting, any papers in the “not sure” pile should be matched with the typical papers in one of the
other existing piles. Student names should be recorded in the columns in order to monitor progress
over time.

3 Adapted by the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment from the (add in citation for Maryland doc) and
the Center for Collaborative Education (2012).(Permission to reproduce and use is given when authorship is fully cited.)
 Page|6

HIGH EXPECTED LOW

(Objectives met) (Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)

Student 0 Student R
Student A Student P
Student B Student Q
Student C
Student D
Student E
Student F
Student G
Student H
Student I
Student J
Student K
Student L
Student M
Student N

___77____% OF CLASS ___17___% OF CLASS __6______% OF CLASS

Student Work Analysis Protocol (continued)

C. Choose a few samples to review from each level (low, expected, high) and discuss and identify
the prerequisite knowledge that students demonstrated that they knew.
HIGH EXPECTED LOW
(Objectives met) (Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)

Student A- This student knew what
the words conflict management
stood for but had no inclination of
what aspects go into managing
conflict. They knew that conflict can
be caused by consent and boundaries
from the previous lesson.
Student D - This student knew what
the words conflict management
stood for but had no inclination of
what aspects go into managing
conflict. They knew that conflict can
be caused by consent and boundaries
from the previous lesson.
D. Using the reviewed samples from each level, discuss and identify the misconceptions, wrong
information, and what students did not demonstrate that was expected.
HIGH
(Objectives met)
Both student A and student D scored
100% on the quiz. These students
put in the effort during the lesson
and asked clarifying questions if
they were confused. If I had worded
the environment question the way I
wanted it answered, student D would
have had a lower score. However, I
worded the quiz question, in a way
that students viewed both sides of
environmental conflicts. I gave them
the point.
Student O - This student knew what
the words conflict management
stood for but had no inclination of
what conflict management does and
how to go about it, they knew that
conflict can be caused by consent
and boundaries from the previous
lesson.
Student P- This student knew
what the words conflict management
stood for but had no inclination of
what aspects go into managing
conflict. They knew that conflict can
be caused by consent and boundaries
from the previous lesson.
EXPECTED
(Objectives partially met)
Student P and student O had
a misconception about the
outcome of the Compromising
Conflict and one of them had
trouble identifying the five
conflict management styles.
Other than those two things
the students didn’t
demonstrate what they knew
about the Conflict styles and
the outcomes.
Page|7
Student R- This student knew what
the words conflict management
stood for but had no idea what
conflict management looks like.
They knew that conflict can be
caused by consent and boundaries
from the previous lesson.
LOW
(Objectives not met)
Student R had not performed the
best in the class. This student missed
several questions on the exam. The
student put I don’t know on some of
the short and long answers on the
quiz. This student also mixed
outcomes and conflict management
styles. This student also missed
some of the questions that had
selected all that applied.
 Page|8

Student Work Analysis Protocol (continued)

E. Identifying Instructional Next Steps

After diagnosing what the student knows and still needs to learn, discuss as a team the learning
needs for the students in each level considering the following questions:

Based on the team’s diagnosis of the student’s performance:

 What patterns or trends are noted for the whole class?

The students that are in the High levels are usually the students who are engaged, focused on
notes, asking questions, and sitting in the middle of the classroom or closest to the tv. The
students are paying some attention, participating a little bit, and taking some notes. The students
that are in the lower levels are generally the students who are on the sides/corner, always on
their phones, not paying attention, and not really participating until they are called on. Overall
though the class did well on the exam with an average of 86%, which is better than I expected.

 What instructional strategies will be beneficial for the whole class?

_Instructional strategies that would be beneficial for the whole class would be having a review
before the quiz, so students have an opportunity to ask questions. Also, continuing to have
students discuss with one another more so they get more examples and are participating more.
Another whole class strategy would be providing an incentive for those who are struggling to
learn the material. One more instructional strategy that I could use is the Champs cup method. so
when groups are working together they can show me they have a question, are stuck, or are
doing just fine.

 Based on the team’s diagnosis of student responses at the high, expected, and low levels,
what instructional strategies will students at each level benefit from?
HIGH EXPECTED LOW
(Objectives met) (Objectives partially met) (Objectives not met)
 Page|9

These students need some

Students at a high level will benefit
from staying in the area that they are
in. More activities seem to help this
student focus more on the topic.
They love to engage in the lesson so
making activities and giving them
time to continue to participate is
beneficial.
Students at the expected level
just need a boost to be
engaged. Finding fun
activities that will pull the
student’s interest would be
helpful. Another instructional
strategy that can help is
switching their seat, so they
are closer to me. This way
they have me near them for
questions and I can get to
them more easily.
instructional strategies. One of the
main instructional strategies that I
would do for these students is
moving their seats. These students
are off-task and on their phones
most of the time. Another
instructional strategy that I would
use is going to another teacher to see
what works to get that student
engagement and work in the class.
That way I can find a solution to get
these students to succeed in my
class.

Bibliography
Center for Collaborative Education (2012), Quality Performance Assessment: A Guide for
Schools and Districts, Boston, MA.

Langer, G., Colton, A., and Goff, L. (2003), Collaborative Analysis of Student Work, ASCD,
http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/102006/chapters/The-Benefits-of-CollaborativeAnalysis-
of-Student-Learning.aspx

Looking at Student Work Collaborative (2013). Why Protocols. Retrieved from

http://www.lasw.org/who.html

McClure, C. (2008), The Benefits of Teacher Collaboration: Essentials on Education Data and
Research Analysis, District Administration: Solutions for School District Management,
http://www.districtadministration.com/article/benefits-teacher-collaboration

Maryland State Department of Education (n.d.), Examining Student Work to Inform Instruction.
Retrieved from http://mdk12.org/data/examining/index.html