Graphic Organizer for Informal Assessment:
Group Discussion
“First Grade”
1.) Compare and contrast “First Grade” and “Jim Crow Row”. How are they alike? How
are they different?
2.) What words does Langston Hughes repeat in this poem? Why do you think he chooses
to repeat those specific words? What effect does it have on you as the reader?
3.) Why does Langston Hughes choose to write this poem from the perspective of a child?
Why doesn’t he write it from the perspective of an adult looking back on his life?
4.) What lie does the teacher tell the children in the class? How do you think the narrator
of the poem feels when he hears this?
Graphic Organizer for Formal Assessment on Next Page***
(I can’t get it to fit on this one. Sorry!)
Informal Assessment Reflection
To begin a unit on the poetry of Langston Hughes, I assigned the students two poems that
we also read in class: “Jim Crow Row” and “First Grade.” In order to assist students in reading
comprehension and poetry analysis, I separated students into groups and gave each person a
graphic organizer with discussion questions for the poem that compared and contrasted the two
poems. The questions were designed to promote critical thinking and analytical skills. Each
question focuses on a specific aspect of poetry: word choice, poetic devices, voice, content, and
personal connection. I wanted to use the graphic organizer to help students focus on
characteristics of poetry that we had been discussing in class. Prior to reading the second poem,
we talked about use of repetition, simile, and metaphor. The discussion questions were used as
review of the previous lessons as well as independent and guided practice. For students who have
learning disabilities, either the special education teacher or I worked individually to help scaffold
and simplify the questions by breaking poetry analysis down into more manageable steps.
For my criteria, I explained my expectations at the beginning of class—that students
would work quietly together in groups and use the time to focus on the poem. I reminded them
that I grade them on class participation and effective use of class time. In order to help separate
students into groups, I used the “count off” method to make sure that students were not paired
with their friends in order to minimize off task behavior. For assignments such as these, meaning
tasks that I assign in class, I grade with a check+, check, or check-.
After examining the results of the informal assessment, I realized that I had a broad range
of analytical, reading comprehension levels, as well as levels of effort that students put into the
assignment. Also, some students seemed to make a deep, personal connection with the poetry,
whereas others did not seem to understand the content, thus making it difficult to make a
connection. My “high-level” student writes, “Langston uses ‘heavy’ a couple times and he used
‘rolls her eyes’ and ‘sucks her teeth’. He also repeats these words because they meant the most to
him. The effect on the reader is you feel how he felt and it makes you picture what happened.”
My “middle level” student writes, “why’, ‘heavy,’ ‘lies’. It effects the reader by making the
words stand out.” My “low level” student simply writes, “why?” meaning the word that
Langston Hughes repeats in his poem. The difference between the three students is how thorough
each one is with their answer to the question. It seems as though the first student has a good
grasp on what my expectations were for the assignment, how deeply I wanted to students to think
about the poem, and the type of attention that I wanted them to pay to detail. The second seems
to have a less “thorough” answer pertaining to length and personal connection, yet their answer
is still insightful. The third student seems to have missed my expectations and/or feels
overwhelmed by the idea of poetic analysis.
I understand that poetry analysis can be very challenging, especially for middle level
students and even more so for students who have learning disabilities. If I were to do this lesson
again, I think I would try to differentiate my assessment a little more in order to help student
progress and address their needs. I could have done this by creating groups ahead of time and
assigning different graphic organizers that have tiered levels of questions instead of everyone
receiving the same assignment. Looking at the class as a whole, most students fit into the check+
to check range. This means that most students were focusing on the poem while they were in
groups and sharing their answers in a collaborative environment. Most students were very
thorough with their responses to the questions on the graphic organizer and displayed in-depth
critical thinking in their writing. Lastly, pertaining to disaggregation of data, I see a slight
discrepancy in the level of effort displayed in the work of the male students versus the female
students in the class. This could be due to the fact that many of the boys in the class are in a
particular group of friends which often leads to more distraction in a social setting and less time
to remain on task. In order to minimize this discrepancy I think that I should be more attentive to
the make-up of the groups in order to lessen the likelihood that students will get off task. In order
to improve assessment, I would try to be clearer with directions. However, overall, I think that
students’ understanding of poetry analysis is deeper than it was prior to the lesson. Students have
a better grasp on the effects of word choice, poetic devices, and personal connection to poetry.
Therefore, I believe that my assessment matches my objectives.
Formal Assessment Reflection
For the formal assessment reflection, I would like to explain what I learned as the first
component to my written piece because it was the most surprising type of learning experience
that I have had at the middle school thus far. After trying this lesson out on my first class of the
day, I quickly learned that I needed to reassess my directions and revise the order in which I
presented the components to the assignment. I learned that I needed to “chunk” the parts of the
lesson together in order to make it more manageable for students to understand. I separated the
lesson into three parts. The first part related to an activity that we had done in class the day
before in which students wrote down a word that related to the Great Depression for each letter
of the alphabet. Students used this graphic organizer to fill out a chart that mirrored our essential
question from the “backwards design method” of unit planning: “What are the similarities and
differences between Natty’s life during the Great Depression and your life in 2008?” Students
then filled in a compare and contrast chart to assist them in the second section of the project.
After completing the chart, students chose a scene from the book we had just finished,
The Journey of Natty Gann. They then illustrated this scene, which depicted the Great
Depression, and then illustrated how they thought the scene would appear in 2008. Upon
completing their piece of artwork, students wrote a 1.5-2 page reflection explaining the
similarities and differences between the two time periods, their own lives, as well as the
differences between the two pictures.
In order to make my assessment expectations clear, I passed out a rubric before the
project began that we read over in class. Students were graded on three components of their
project: their illustration (color, detail, evidence of historical time period), their written reflection
(explanation of drawing, citation of specific details from time period), and grammar, spelling,
and punctuation. For students with learning differences, I allowed extra time and assisted them
with their graphic organizer at the beginning of the project.
Upon careful examination of the samples of work, I realized that students had various
levels of achievement pertaining to their illustration and written reflection. Some felt more
comfortable with the art project, whereas others felt more comfortable with the written
component of the project. While it was very difficult to assess students for their more creative,
artistic pieces, I based my grade on the amount of effort that seemed to have been put into the
project. For example, my “low level” achiever did not use color in his piece while I had supplied
the class with several art supplies and two class periods to create their illustrations. Others, such
as my “high level” student, used several resources such as construction paper, magazine
clippings, and crayons to create a very detailed interpretation of the text. In addition, the written
component showed in-depth critical thinking and careful consideration of the two time periods.
In this piece, the student compares two “dangerous” occupations as a way to contrast the two
historical contexts: a lumberjack and an astronaut. The middle level student had an excellent
explanation of a piece in which she drew a train: “I drew the trains connected to show them
traveling through time. The modern train is drawn in bright colors to show happiness and no
poverty. The older train is drawn in dull colors to show the sadness, starvation, and poverty of
the Depression.” In terms of the class as a whole, most students scored within the B to A range. I
designed the rubric to weigh the illustration and written reflection as equal parts in order to
highlight the abilities of those with artistic as well as linguistic/verbal intelligence in the class.
After considering the different samples of work from the class, I think that the lesson
addressed the needs of the different modalities of the class, yet many seemed to feel
overwhelmed by the amount of work that was required to fulfill the requirements. If I were to
teach this lesson again, I would present it very differently. Instead of introducing the activity as
part of a “project,” I would assign one activity each class over the course of a week. This would
address the needs of students who have difficulty with organization while also minimizing feels
of frustration and stress that often lead students to “shut down.”
To my surprise and disappointment (in myself), I noticed that many students who have
learning disabilities did not complete this project. After considering the different samples of
work from the class, I think that the lesson addressed the needs of the different modalities of the
class, yet many seemed to feel overwhelmed by the amount of work that was required to fulfill
the requirements. If I were to teach this lesson again, I would present it very differently. Instead
of introducing the activity as part of a “project,” I would assign one activity each class over the
course of a week. This would address the needs of students who have difficulty with organization
while also minimizing feels of frustration and stress that often lead students to “shut down.”
Also, I would better address the needs of my learners by discussing accommodations with the
special education teacher with whom I co-teach twice a week. I think that I would have
considered her expertise as a valuable resource prior to designing this lesson.
Lastly, after completing the assessments, I decided to highlight my students’ abilities by
complimenting them on their creativity and artistic intelligence.