Benitez, L

Assessment Commentary

1) Monitoring Student Learning

a. Formal Assessment:

Summative- Students will have to use monohybrid and dihybrid crosses to predict the

hair and eye colors my sister’s baby can have.

This assessment provided students with the opportunity to observe patterns

(crosscutting concept) of heredity, collect data to use in Punnett square crosses

(scientific practices of using models and mathematical thinking) to determine the

probabilities of my sister’s future baby (real-world phenomenon). The answers

they came up with were supposed to be backed by the evidence of the data they

collected and the proper utilization of the Punnett squares (scientific practice of

constructing an explanation).

Informal Assessment:

Formative- Students will turn in a ticket out the door to evaluate their understanding

of newly acquired vocabulary.

The ticket out the door was used to measure student understanding of genetic

vocabulary. It only tested for student understanding of scientific concepts in order

to ensure that they would be able to move to a deeper level of thinking within the

subject of genetics.

b. The design of this lesson leaves some areas of the assignment open-ended. This was

done intentionally, so that students would have to work to piece the prediction tools

together as well as make their own observations. The inquiry focus of the lesson was

also chosen because it allows me to see how deep each student can think about the
 Benitez, L

problem. For students with special needs (there are no students in this class officially

labelled as having special needs), I am able to assist them when they get stuck, as

well as scaffold the lesson so that they can understand the steps easier. For some

students, I walked them through how to determine the genotypes of the baby’s parents

based on the picture shown at the beginning of the lesson. This was a form of

scaffolding. Other students worked the genotype of the mother out on their own.

The ticket out the door assignment was not designed with differentiation in mind, as it

was used a formative tool to dictate where future emphasis should be in the following

lessons. Instead of differentiating for the assignment, it was used as a tool for future

differentiation.

2) Analyzing Student Learning

a. The learning objectives measured by the ticket out the door assessment were to

determine the differences between genotype and phenotype and understand concepts

behind mendelian genetics. The learning objectives measured by the baby prediction

assignment were to understand the concepts behind mendelian genetics, to know how

to use Punnett squares to perform monohybrid and dihybrid crosses, to determine the

differences between genotype and phenotype, as well as to predict offspring

phenotypes.
 Benitez, L

b.

Based on the chart data, 86% of the class did not perform adequately on the

prediction assignment. From looking at the student work, it seems as though the

students were not sure how to go from step to step. However, student performance on

the ticket out the door demonstrates that 58% of the class is familiar with the

vocabulary at a proficient level, and 42% of the class still need more practice.

c. I selected three students, representative of different levels of understanding in the

classroom, in order to analyze specific trends in student understanding. Student 1—

Alexandra—was selected as an example of an advanced student. She performed the

best on both assignments. Student 2—Nia—was selected as an example of a

proficient student. She scored close to the median on both assignment. Student 3—

Timothy—was selected as an example of a student who needs improvement. He

scored on the lower end of both assignments.

The class data demonstrates that, although most students did well using the

vocabulary in the ticket out the door assessment, they were not able to work their way

through the prediction assignment. Even Student 1, who scored the highest, only

received a 73%. There were gaps in her understanding of using the family

observations to determine the mother’s genotypes, and therefore in her dihybrid

 Benitez, L

square cross. None of the three example students demonstrated an ability to use the

language function, of making a prediction, or of being able to use pattern

observations and mathematical models (Punnett squares) in a useful way.

3) Feedback to Guide Further Learning

a. I gave written feedback directly on work samples to students on the prediction

assignments and oral, whole class, feedback to the students in response to the ticket

out the door.

b. The feedback given to the three focus students addressed their individual strengths

and needs. For Student 1, I commented on her strength of working the square out

correctly and drawing proper conclusions based on her results, but pointed out her

weakness in arriving at the wrong parent alleles written on the sides of the Punnett

square. For student 2, I pointed out that she was the only student to accurately deduce

the allele combinations each parent would give and work out the cross correctly. I

also commented on her strength of creating a key beforehand, as this was something I

emphasized quite a bit, but was not used by many students. Her weakness was that

she did not follow the assignment through to completion by listing out the genotypes

and phenotypes of the Punnett square products. For student 3, I pointed out his

strength in working through the entire problem, as many of the other students gave up

or skipped parts. He was also one of the few students to follow the problem through

to the listing of genotypes and phenotypes, although it is evident that he gave up

halfway through that process. For his weaknesses, his nomenclature was off. I made a

comment that will help direct him to keeping the proper genes together and working

out an accurate version of the square.

 Benitez, L

The learning objective of knowing how to use a Punnett square to perform a dihybrid

cross was not met by most of the students. Student 2 was the only one from the

samples to work out an accurate version of it. The use of monohybrid crosses was no

tested directly. I hoped that the students would show their work, and demonstrate

whether they had used the monohybrid cross to determine the alleles each parent

would give, but most of them did not, even though we covered a large portion of that

process together as a class. Students 1 and 2 were both able to distinguish between

genotype and phenotype. Student 3 showed that he understood the meaning of

genotype, but he did not list phenotypes and it is unclear if he is able to determine the

difference between the two vocabulary terms. None of the students made accurate

predictions of the offspring phenotype, which was the major learning objective of the

lesson.

c. I gave detailed notes on the actual student work that was handed back to them. I made

myself available to the students so that they could ask questions about their

assignments. Because most of the students did not grasp how to work out the

predictions, I will create a sheet that gives more guided steps and allow them to

complete it for a make up grade. For the ticket out the door, I used the information

gathered to direct which parts of the lesson to emphasize throughout the example

questions. I stopped at every step in the problem, asking students to write out the

genotypes, to label them homozygous or heterozygous, to determine the ratios of

different types, and to determine if the dominant or recessive trait would show in the

phenotype.

4) Evidence of Language Understanding and Use

 Benitez, L

a. The students performed well on identifying appropriate use of genetic vocabulary and

made good observations as they explored inheritance patterns. The language function

that they struggled with was predicting the hair and eye color traits of the baby.

Students showed that they understood how to use letters to represent genes (syntax),

although they often reversed the order and demonstrated that there is a gap in their

understanding how each letter represents one allele in a specific gene.

Student 1 had a good command of the vocabulary, as demonstrated on the ticket out

the door, as well as in her ability to distinguish between the genotypes and

phenotypes on the prediction assignment. Even as the student who scored the highest

in the class on both assignments, she did not master prediction of the baby’s traits.

Student 2 showed moderate command of the vocabulary on her ticket out the door

and trait prediction assignment. She also showed proficiency in working out the

dihybrid cross, although she did not make any formal predictions once it was

complete.

Student 3 demonstrated a lack of understanding on both the ticket out the door and

the trait prediction sheet. The only function he completed was to explore inheritance

patterns, which was inherent to attempting the assignment. He also showed poor

understanding of proper genetic syntax.

5) Using Assessment to Inform Discussion

a. Based on my analysis of the assessments, I have deduced that most of the class still

does not understand that heterozygous genes display a dominant phenotype. I will

continue to be emphasize this throughout future practice problems and give them a

worksheet that requires them to determine the phenotype of heterozygous genes. I

 Benitez, L

also noted that almost none of the students were able to make accurate predictions on

the baby’s eye and hair color possibilities. I will re-structure the assignment, giving

them more detailed instructions, and allow them to complete it again in order to

replace their previous grade. In order to help the three focus students, I will give them

a day in class to work on the highly-scaffolded baby prediction assignment, and I will

be sure to support the students in understanding how to flow from one part of the

problem to the next. For student 1, I will make sure to sit with her as she determines

the mother’s genotype as well as what alleles each parent will give. For student 2, I

will sit with her as she wraps up her assignment to make sure she understands how to

tally up the genotypes correctly. For student number 3, I will make sure to sit down

with him and work through the determination of alleles and the Punnett square

cross—nomenclature is a weakness of his. I will work with him to see that he

understands the proper ordering of genes in the dihybrid cross.

b. Creating a re-do assignment of the baby prediction sheet was decided upon based on

the fact that students perform better when there is a clear outline of what is expected

of them and a show of the final product (Strong et al., 2003). Scaffolding has also

been shown to help students work in their proper zone of proximal development

(Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007).

References:

Hmelo-Silver, C., Duncan, R., & Chinn, C. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and

Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational

Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

Miranda, R. J., & Hermann, R. S. (2012). An Integrated Instructional Approach to Facilitate Inquiry in

the Classroom. Science Scop, 35, 66-72. Retrieved November 16, 2017.
 Benitez, L

Ormrod, J. (2015). Human Learning + Pearson Etext Access Card (7th ed.). Pearson College Div.

Settlage, J., Southerland, S. A., Smetana, L. K., & Lottero-Perdue, P. S. (2017). Teaching science to

every child: using culture as a starting point (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Strong, R., Silver, H., Perini, M., & Tuculescu, G. (2003). Boredom and Its Opposite. Educational

Leadership, 24-29.