Student Work Analysis Protocol3

Subject Area: Mathematics Grade Level: High School (Pre-AP Geometry)

Formative or Performance Task: Exit Ticket on Special Right Triangles and Rationalizing

1. Are either of these a special right triangle? Which one?

2. Should you rationalize this fraction? If so, what would you multiply by.

3. On a scale of 1-5, how confident are you in recognizing special right triangles and
rationalizing fractions. (1 being “what is a special right triangle” and 5 being “I could
teach this lesson after today, Mr. H”)

Please put any feedback, questions, concerns, or jokes below:

 A. Reaching Consensus about Proficiency
Read the assessment prompt and/or rubric and explain:
∙ What are the students expected to do?
∙ Which standards (CCSS or content standards) or curriculum expectations are being assessed?
∙ 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?
∙ Did the assessment give students a good opportunity to demonstrate what they know?

Students are expected to complete a short exit ticket containing three questions as well as an opportunity
to provide individual feedback. The curriculum standards of identifying right triangles and being able to rationalize
a fraction are being assessed here, as well HS.G-SRT.C. (Similarity, Right Triangles, and Trigonometry: Define
trigonometric ratios and solve problems involving right triangles). A proficient response on this ticket would be
correctly identifying the special right triangle in problem one - circling or writing “B” - and recognizing that the
fraction in problem 2 should be rationalized, including what fraction is needed to rationalize it. The last question is
not needed for proficiency, but is a way for me to see at a glance how comfortable students are with the content
covered in the lesson. The assessment wasn’t an in depth review of student knowledge, but gave students a
quick opportunity to practice what was learned in class and note their comfortability and understanding with it.

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.
(Student names are excluded for privacy purposes, so only the amount of students in each
category is given)
HIGH EXPECTED LOW
(Objectives met) (Objectives partially (Objectives not met)
met)

7 7 5

37% OF CLASS 37% OF CLASS 26% OF CLASS

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.)
 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 (Objectives not met)
met)

Students in “HIGH” Students in this category Students in “LOW” tended to

demonstrated knowledge of
specific types of special right
triangles as well as familiarity
of rationalizing and what steps
belong in the process.
showed understanding of all
the material. The students in
“EXPECTED” demonstrated
proper knowledge of triangles
and rationalizing.
correctly identify the triangle,
but seemed to misunderstand
parts of rationalization. These
students demonstrated
knowledge on right triangles
and their properties.
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 EXPECTED LOW
(Objectives met) (Objectives partially (Objectives not met)
met)

In the “HIGH” category, Students in “EXPECTED” “LOW” is where most

students demonstrated beyond
what was expected, correctly
identifying the special right
triangle as well as properly
rationalizing the fraction. These
were also the students who
labeled themselves as
confident with the material.
performed similarly to those in
high, with many answering both
questions proficiently. The
biggest difference between
“EXPECTED” and “HIGH” was
how students rated their
confidence, so most of this
category is more for me as a
teacher to assess students'
comfortability.
misconceptions exist. All
students correctly identified the
special right triangle in problem
1, but few seemed to have
made multiple guesses before
landing on the right answer.
Students seemed most to
struggle with rationalizing, all
recognizing that the fraction
should be rationalized, but not
the number needed to multiply
by. The common misconception
here was that the number you
multiply is just the rational in
the denominator instead of it
being a fraction of value “1”,
made of the rational.

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 whole class seems to understand the two types of special right triangles and can go as far as
identifying them. Problems arise when recognizing the ratios used for the side lengths. The class tends to
understand when there is a need for rationalizing, but not all understand how this process works. Most
students only felt mildly confident, scoring themselves at a 3.

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

All students could benefit from more directed practice with special right triangles, potentially involving
visuals or methods used to find the side lengths individually. Having a practice of identifying the angles
first to relate to the side lengths could be beneficial for some. For rationalizing, more practice could be
useful, giving students examples to get comfortable with what is being multiplied and why.
▪ 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 (Objectives not met)
met)

For students in the “HIGH”
category, further practice would
be beneficial to begin solidifying
the processes as well as
introducing high-cognitive
demand tasks.
Students in “EXPECTED” could
benefit from more access
points such as real world
examples and projects or visual
methods of learning.
At the “LOW” level, guided
notes could prove to be more
useful to help with engagement
as well as highlighting
important parts of the lesson.