How to Analyze Student Work
Zablocki School
Astrid Wagner and Rick Elertson
Spring 2005
Classroom Assessments Improving Classroom Practice
Purpose:
The purpose of this workshop was to implement the Milwaukee
Mathematics Partnership (MMP) protocol for analyzing
student math work and use this protocol as a collaborative
tool for informing teacher instruction in the classroom.
Demographics:
The teachers that participated in the workshop represented
grades 1-5 at Zablocki Elementary School. Their years of
service in MPS ranged from 2-32 years. All staff members
have participated in the Effective Schools, curriculum
alignment to state standards, programs and are currently
using Investigations math.
Methodology:
Teachers were asked to administer a math assessment
covering estimation, computation and constructed responses
to their students and bring them to the workshop. The work
wasn’t to be scored. Teachers were then introduced to the
MMP protocol for analyzing student work. The protocol is as
follows:
1. Select a facilitator for the group. The facilitator
is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the
discussion.
2. Discussing the work
a. Round 1: Describe what you see with the other
teachers.
b. Round 2: Interpret the students’ work by
discussing what they understand.
c. Round 3: What questions does this work raise.
3. Hearing from the presenting teacher
Presenting teacher has been quietly listening to
the teachers as they discuss the students work.
This is the opportunity for the presenting teacher
to respond to the comment/questions that were
raised during the discussion.
Results:
Teachers worked collaboratively throughout the entire
workshop following the MMP protocol and discussing student
work. They offered each other suggestions for alternative
strategies that may or may not have been in place in the
classroom.
Most of the teachers felt a need to pretest their
students to find out their current learning level prior to
teaching a math unit. A pretest is also an excellent way to
inform the teachers’ instruction. Students may not need a
lot of instruction in certain mathematical concepts and a
teacher can spend more time with concepts that students are
struggling with. Without the pretest, a teacher may never
have known that they were wasting precious time on concepts
that his/her students already knew.
Conclusion:
The purpose of this workshop was to offer teachers a
format for discussing student work and how to inform their
instruction through pretests and ongoing assessments during
a mathematics unit. The workshop was a great success for
most of the participants and the presenters would both
agree that it was a valuable experience for all that
participated. We would encourage this type of healthy
dialogue in all curricular areas to help teachers to become
better teachers.