A. Create a graphic representation (e.g.

, table, graph, chart) to show student performance

results on the pre- and post-assessments for each learning goal in your unit.

With the exception of identifying plot elements (introduction, climax, etc), all of the scores are

averages out of 5. All scores were rounded to the nearest .5.

Identifying plot elements was a binary correct/incorrect for each element; eg, on the

pre-assessment, 3% were able to identify the resolution of their story, and on the

post-assessment, 100% of students were able to identify it.

The learning goals for my TWS unit are as follows:

“Learning Goal 1: Increase writing ability.”

“Learning Goal 2: Purposefully create works of art with meaning.”

“Learning Goal 3: Become “comic-literate”.”

Learning Goal 1 was measured by the student’s score on the “Spelling” and “Grammar”

self-assessment portions.

Pre: S - 2.5; G - 2.5

Post: S - 3.5; G - 4
Learning Goal 2 was measured by the student’s score on the “Neatness” and “Coloring”

self-assessment portions, as well as their ability to portray and identify the introduction, rising

action, climax, and resolution of their graphic novels.

Pre: N - 2; C - 3

Post: N - 4.5; C - 4

Intro - 89% vs 100%

Rising Action - 71% vs 100%

Climax - 17% vs 100%

Resolution - 3% vs 100%

Learning Goal 3 was measured by the student’s score on the “Sequential Art Conventions” or

“Making It Look Like A Comic” self-assessment portions, as well as their “Planning” score.

Pre: SAC - 2.5; P - 1.5

Post: SAC - 4.5; P - 5

Note: Using the post-assessment’s teacher rubric, the average student score was 87/100, and the

mean and median scores were 89.

B. Analyze (suggested length of 2–3 pages) your assessment data to determine student

progress toward the defined learning goals by doing the following:

learning goal in your essay.)

My students showed the most growth in Learning Goal 3: Becoming “comic-literate”. This is

evidenced by the nearly-doubled score in creating and identifying Sequential Art Conventions,

and the more-than-quadrupled Planning score.

a. Discuss two plausible reasons for this success, addressing your goals, instruction, and/or

assessment.

Reason 1. Vocabulary Familiarity

One reason students achieved significant success in LG3 is that they were often already

integrating these sequential art elements into their work; they just weren’t aware of it. Both the

pre- and post-assessments for the unit were student self-assessments. They were given the rubric

and told to assess themselves to the best of their abilities. During the pre-assessment, when they

reached the bottom of the rubric, I had many students ask me what panels and sound effects

were. I looked over the project they were assessing (a small comic strip created in <60min) and

noted they already ​had​ these elements. The students just didn’t know what those elements of

sequential art were called.

Throughout the unit, I integrated sequential art-specific vocabulary into instruction. Students

even did a guided drawing with me of a comic book page, labeling the following elements as we

worked: panel; foreground; background; middleground; inks; pencils; bleed; gutter; speech

bubble; thought bubble; sound effect; lettering; action lines; and more. Once we reached the end
of the unit, they had a mastery of such domain-specific vocabulary, and accurately indicated

which ones they had used, and where in their project said element was located.

Reason 2. Explicit Planning Instruction

When I gave my pre-assessment, I wanted to see what students could do in less than 60 minutes,

with awareness of the rubric they would be “graded” on. (As a pre-assessment, I only put it into

the gradebook as participation.) Out of all the graded elements, I was most surprised by how

little forethought students put into their work.

For context, the pre-assessment was phrased as an “interview”. Students were to take a familiar

fairy tale and show how they would adapt it into a comic strip. Once I gave the signal to work,

students immediately began drawing on their only piece of paper, in permanent tools. Of the 28

student pre-assessments I looked over, none of them contained visible pre-planning. No sketches,

no scripts, no panels drawn out ahead of time. Students drew tiny boxes, one at a time, with tinier

drawings inside. Any dialogue was added as an afterthought, with the speech bubble drawn first

(often a vertical oval) and the lettering squeezed in. As for backgrounds, they were either drawn

around the character, or in the typical grass-white space-sky vertical style.

I explicitly taught each step of the traditional sequential art-making process: pitch; thumbnails;

scripts; pencils; inks; colors. I included creating a plot map in the process to help students

generate an engaging, naturally-developing story. By drawing out each step of the planning

process, students created works of much higher quality than if they had “jumped in” and started

with the final graphic novel right away. Even when they were just barely beginning to draw their

final product, I noticed marked aesthetic improvements since their pre-assessment comic strip.
2. Identify the learning goal with which your students were least successful. (Include the actual

learning goal in your essay.)

My students were least successful with Learning Goal 1: Increase writing ability. Spelling and

Grammar improved by 1.5pts each.

a. Discuss two plausible reasons for this lack of success, addressing your goals, instruction,

and/or assessment.

Reason 1. Lack of Explicit Editing/Revising Process.

The writing process includes editing and revising work. While I witnessed this occur through

conversation in student pairs (who had higher Grammar/Spelling scores, on average, than single

students), I did not see this in students working individually. Nowhere in my unit instruction had

I included a peer review of student work. I believe this worked to the detriment of students in a

handful of ways, but most importantly, it allowed too many grammatical errors through.

Reason 2. Assessment Methods.

When the rubric to determine whether or not you improved as a writer is limited to mechanics,

it’s unfair to the other elements of writing. I kept the LG1 portion of the self-assessment rubric

limited to Spelling and Grammar to make things “easier” for the students. I was not prepared to

include rubric elements like Voice, Plot Progression, or Word Choice. The method I used to

assess student progress towards becoming a better writer was unfair to students who grew as

writers in ways other than mechanics.

reviewing student self-assessments, e.g. lower the score because a student misspelled throughout

their graphic novel. This helped me catch a few students in need of remedial spelling help.

b. Discuss possible modifications you could make if you were to teach this unit again. (i.e., What

specifically could you modify to increase student performance in this particular learning goal?)

If I were to teach this unit again, I would include a “writer’s workshop”-style peer review

process of ​all​ work done on the final product. Students would be required to give one positive

compliment and one constructive critique to a partner’s work, whether that be the thumbnail

sketches, script, or final graphic novel. This would decrease mechanical errors in the end result

and likely show an overall increase in final quality due to the collaboration between students.

I would also re-examine how I assess writing improvement between the pre- and

post-assessments. I ​could​ do something like an assessment of “coherence”. Sequential art blends

the written and visual medium to tell a whole story. If a reader can’t, from the art and the words,

understand what story was being told, then the student would be rated low in progress towards

LG1. This would be rated on the same 1-5 scale as the other options. I would assess it by reading

through the graphic novel, and then reading a 2-5 sentence summary students wrote on the events

of their graphic novel. If my interpretation matched up with their summary, it would be highly

coherent; if there were extraneous material on the page not mentioned in the summary, it would

be less coherent; if the summary could not reasonably be extracted from the contents of the

graphic novel, it would not be coherent, etc.

you would take after teaching this unit, based on the results of the summative assessment.

Based on the results of the summative post-assessment, I would absolutely move on to the next

content area. I would, however, continue to monitor student writing progress, and I would also

implement a structured peer-review process for any student-generated writing.

C. When you use sources, include all in-text citations and references in APA format.