Paula Slezak

ADDIE Evaluation
Summary of Formative Revisions of Your Unit
Component Problem
Data Source
Revision
Decision
Purpose
Goals
Objectives

No Issue Found
No Issue Found
Some of the
objectives need
revised because the
standard of
mastery does not
align to the
percentages
available on the
rubric.

Prerequisites
Instructional
Strategies

No Issue Found
Guided practice did
not match
assessments/object
ives well

Testing

Rubric is not

N/A
N/A
Students: students
scored 3s and 4s
(in all domains) but
still did not obtain
an 80% due to the
way the percent
vs. points worked
out.

N/A
N/A
Reword the
objective
instead of
using percent
use the
numbers
from the
rubric. Rubric
will need to
be revised as
well.
N/A
N/A
The students had
Change the
trouble making the directions in
jump from paper to the guided
computer.
practice
The expert
portion to
suggested more
make it align
collaborative
better to the
practice before the assessment.
assessment
Instead of
wring on
paper go
straight to a
blank Write
to Learn
document.
Then allow
the students
to check
each others
work on the
practice
just like they
will on the
assessment.
Student: Some
Take out the

Methods /
weighted well.
Assessments There is too much
emphasis on some
minor things, and
too little on others.

students wrote
solid summaries
but their scores
were under
mastery because
they didnt cite
their source well.
Other students
added way too
much extra
information but I
had no way to note
that on the rubric.

Information
to Guide the
Learner
Information
to Guide the
Facilitator

No Issue Found

N/A

The time needed

for each lesson was
incorrect.

Supporting
Media /
Technology

Checklist was
missing a domain.

Students: On the
first lesson the
students only took
about 20 minutes.
But on all other
lessons they
needed
approximately 40
minutes.
Observations/Stud
ent: There was no
check box for the
students to
confirm that their
supporting details
were sequential.

Part 1 Student Formative Assessment Analysis

1. Introduction

section about
citing the
name. This
does not
need its own
points, it can
be added to
the
mechanics
section.
However, I
need to add
in a section
describing
the length
and content
(important
vs.
unimportant)
of the
summary.
N/A
Revise the
time needed
for each
lesson in the
Instructors
guide.

Add a check
box to the
check list
stating that
the key
details are in
order.

This unit set out to teach third grade students the correct way to
write a summary on a nonfiction text. This unit was necessary because
on the fall administration of the standardized English language arts
test, the data showed that my students struggled in identifying the
important facts in a nonfiction text. Since this is the first year the test
relies heavily on writing, it was also necessary to tie this into writing
using the summary and revision process. The students were asked to
do this on the computer since the standardized tests are also on the
computer.
2. Methods
The learners in this tryout were 3 boys and 2 girls. They included
one student who was one grade level below reading level, three that
were at or near grade level, and one that was above grade level. The
unit was presented in a small group format, as close to the way a
whole group format would work as possible. It was given in a selfcontained third grade classroom that contains 18 students total. The
main difference between the trial and a full group implementation was
that the slide show was shown on a Chromebook instead of a projector
due to the small group format.
Each day the students met with the instructor at a small table
during the reading centers time. Students not involved in the trial were
working in various reading centers. The scripts in the lesson plans were
followed exactly. Students returned to their seats to complete any
independent work. These lessons were always done in the morning.
During independent work, the instructor was available to answer
questions, guide, and clarify directions. As shown in the instructors
guide a gradual release method was used; meaning the instruction
started with modeling and gradually released the responsibility of the
work over to the student using scaffolding. The instruction included
technology such as chrome books, an interactive PowerPoint
presentation, and the Write to Learn software which guides students in
the revision process of their summaries.
3. Results and Discussion
The students started the trial very enthusiastic. As the work got
harder and they were expected to be more independent their
enthusiasm diminished slightly but they mentioned in their survey they
really enjoyed the reading selections that were picked and that helped
them stay focused.
The first lesson on main idea and key details went very quickly. It
only took about 20 minutes to complete. The students immediately

defined main idea but were confused about key details. After further
discussion the students correctly identified the key details in the text.
Post lesson discussion revealed they still felt unsure about finding key
details.
In the second lesson, the students said they felt the main idea
graphic organizer was very helpful when writing the summary. The
students were very energetic and enthusiastic about the slide show.
They enjoyed evaluating stories they already knew. At the end of the
lesson the students said they felt most nervous about getting their
spelling and grammar correct. While they all gave a thumbs up,
when asked to discuss what was easy and hard they mentioned being
nervous about the spelling and grammar. They were excited to use
Write to Learn and felt comfortable by the fact that it has a spelling
and grammar check. We discovered that a category for having the key
details in order was accidentally left off of the check list and added this
into the checklist.
The third lesson was independent practice. The group met
together for instructions and then went back to their desks to work.
There were a few questions about how to get started on the summary,
which showed a lack of confidence in this stage. The students took
about 10 15 minutes to read the story and fill out the graphic
organizer. Only one student had to go back and fix her work. The
completed summaries, which were hand written, had only minor
spelling mistakes. This was not a huge concern since the computer
program should fix that. I was particularly surprised at just how well
my lower level student did with this activity.
In the fourth lesson they started their final project. The students
had much more confidence when using the program. They liked the
hint feature which appears if they did not get the correct main idea
or key details. I noticed that the summary feature uses a different
rating scale which means some rewording is needed in the objectives
for the unit.
In lesson five the students were to review another students
summary and use the checklist to give them feedback. They were then
to correct any mistakes on their own summary before turning in their
materials to be graded. There were a lot of questions about the
directions, it may be helpful to have these written on the board as well.
This lesson was done on a Monday (with Lesson four on the previous
Friday.) The students were extremely unmotivated, rushing and not
working carefully. While grading the summative assessment I noticed
some issues with the rubric. Having a full section for the citation
seemed a little too heavily weighted. Also, because the project is only

15 points the percentages dont completely line up with the objectives

so that would need to be fixed. Lastly, I had no way to offer feedback
when a student included a lot of unimportant details, so I felt that
needed to be added to the rubric.
4. Revisions
The biggest revision that needs to be made to this unit is the
rubric. The citation having its own category skewed the scores so that
a strong summary with a mistake in citation got a failing grade. I would
change this to include the citation in the "Grammar and Mechanics"
Section of the rubric. I also found that a student included a lot of
details in her summary that were not important but the rubric did not
allow for me to reflect that in her score. I think that the category that I
removed for the citation could be filled with a category about
important and unimportant details. The scoring does not quite match
the objective written for the summary. The objective says the student
will receive an 80% or better on the teacher made rubric for writing a
summary. Since the rubric covers 2 objectives (the evaluating objective
as well) I believe this needs rewritten to better align to the
assessment.
Several smaller changes that were made apparent through the
trial and student surveys included the need to add a category on the
checklist for putting the key details in order. The time frame for lessons
also needs to be adjusted. While 30 minutes was a good estimate, the
first lesson took 20 minutes, and the others took 40 minutes. Lastly,
scheduling seems to play a role in student success and it may be
beneficial not to break up the instruction with a weekend. The weekend
between the fourth and fifth lessons seemed to decrease their
motivation and effort.
Part 2 Expert Formative Assessment Analysis
1. Introduction
The expert I choose was a fellow third grade teacher in my school
district. This teacher is considered an expert on several levels. First,
since she teaches in the same district and grade as this unit was
written for, she has in depth knowledge as to the way these students
learn. She also has experience using the Write to Learn program in her
own classroom which gives her a level of expertise to critique the way
in which I used technology. Lastly, she has a master's degree in
reading and literacy from Ashland University, which makes her an
expert in the content as well.

2. Methods
The expert was given the instructor and student guides and the
link to the expert formative assessment via e-mail. She had
approximately two and a half weeks to review the materials. Being a
teacher in my district, she also had the unique opportunity to look up
the Write to Learn assignments I assigned from her own teacher
account.
3. Results and Discussion
The expert reviewer responded through both a narrative e-mail
and by responding to my formative assessment. Her responses were
overwhelmingly positive. In all categories on the matrix she choose
"agree." She pointed out that she liked the progression from main idea
to summary and thought that the checklist was a good idea. Her areas
for growth included some more independent practice and the
possibility of differentiating the reading passages for the lower and
higher readers, since the passages I used were all on the third grade
level. Both Write to Learn and Read works offer passages in different
levels.
4. Revisions
I really like the idea of differentiated readers. I think this is
difficult to show in the ADDIE model format because it requires the
teacher to find resources based on the particular class they are teach
and may change from class to class. With access to the preassessment data and the Write to Learn and Read Works websites this
can be done. However, the unit is no longer "ready to teach." The
instructor would have to do some preparation to gather the necessary
materials. While this is a normal part of any teacher's job, it does not
align well to the ADDIE model. I also felt that more, or different,
practice would be needed. This could mean adding one more lesson or
changing the current independent practice lesson. Another trial would
be needed to determine which way would be more effective. Having a
6 day lesson would mean having a weekend to separate lessons. If I
changed my independent lesson I would likely have the students
complete their main idea and key details and then work with a partner
to turn it into a summary on Write to Learn instead of on paper. I may
even do the initial model summary in Write to Learn. I think the jump
from paper to computer caused a disconnect with my learners. Using
computers throughout the unit seems to be the best way to solve this
issue.