PART I (addresses InTASC Standard 6 elements a, e, f, h, l, p ...dsuteachereducation.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/7/12676707/...Assessment Project (InTASC Standard #6) PART I (addresses

Assessment Project

(InTASC Standard #6)

PART I (addresses InTASC Standard 6 elements a, e, f, h, l, p, q, r)

For this portion of the project, you will create four (4) assessments designed to measure students’

attainment of Common Core standards. The standards can be found in our Moodle shell. There are two

documents: (1) Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, and (2) Common Core State Standards

for English Languages Arts and Literacy in Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects. The

expectation of the Common Core standards is that literacy is developed through the content of multiple

disciplines, not just ELA.

You may find it helpful to read the introductory pages and the annotations relative to your licensure area

throughout the documents. ELA and Literacy standards for Social Studies, Science and Technical

Subjects in Grades K-5 begin on pg. 9 of the document. [NOTE: These standards apply to *all* subjects

but math in the K-5 classroom.] ELA standards for Grades 6-12 begin on pg. 34 of the document. Literacy

standards for Grades 6-12 Social Studies, Science and Technical Subjects begin on pg. 59. [NOTE: Some

disciplines like music and PE will not use the Common Core standards and will use the current North

Dakota State Standards instead. If you question whether your discipline uses the Common Core, contact

your instructor.]

All four of the assessments created for Part I should address the same grade level. Elementary candidates

will create two assessments addressing the English language arts standards and two assessments that will

address the math standards. Secondary and K-12 candidates will use the state standards in their discipline

for all four assessments. At least two of those assessments should also address the English language arts

standards. Additionally, the collection of these four assessments should encompass (1) at least one formal

and one informal assessment; (2) at least one formative and one summative assessment; (3) a traditional

assessment that employs both selected-response and constructed response items; and (4) authentic

assessments—one of which is to be alternative, one portfolio, and one performance.

Assessments designed for ELEMENTARY English Language Arts or SECONDARY Social Studies,

Secondary Science, or Secondary in a Technical Subject, follow these instructions:

There are four strands in your Common Core document (reading, writing, speaking and listening,

and language). Within each strand, there are four categories. For instance, the Reading Strand

contains the categories: (1) Key Ideas and Details, (2) Craft and Structure, (3) Integration of

Knowledge and Ideas, and (4) Range of Reading and Level of Text Complexity. At least three

categories should be addressed somewhere in your collection of four assessments. [NOTE: Some

strands do not have standards in all four categories for every grade. If the category is not

applicable for your grade, you would not include it in your assessments.]

A single assessment may be constructed to measure more than one strand and/or category and

multiple standards. For instance, a portfolio assessment for the Writing strand may be designed

to measure the categories Text Types and Purposes (standards 1, 2 and 3), Production and

Distribution of Writing (standard 6), and Research to Build and Present Knowledge (standard 8).

Assessment designed for ELEMENTARY Math and SECONDARY Math, follow these instructions:

The math document is arranged somewhat differently than the Literacy document (see pg. 5 of the

math document). You can use the table of contents to find the standards for your grade level.

You will design assessments for *each* Domain for your grade level. A single assessment may be

constructed to measure more than one domain and multiple cluster items. For instance, a

performance-based for Kindergarten may be designed to measure the Domain: Counting and

Cardinality (Standard: Know number names and the count sequence, Cluster #3; and Standard:

Count to tell the number of objects, Cluster #4) and the Domain: Operations and Algebraic

Thinking (Standard: Understand addition as putting together and adding to, and Standard:

Understand subtraction as taking apart and taking from, Cluster #1).

Follow the template below to complete *each* of the four assessments in Part I

(Italicized words indicate a selection is needed. Choose the word that is most appropriate for each

of the four assessments)

Grade Level: _________________ Content Area:________________________________

1. This assessment is aligned to the ELA/Math Common Core standards. Specifically, it measures the following:

ELA/Literacy standards: Strand___, Category___, Standard___. Do not use the codes here.

Write out the Strand, Category, and Standards. Math standards: Domain___, Standard___,

Cluster Number___. Do not use the codes here. Write out the Domain, Standards, and Cluster

Numbers. (Secondary or K-12 candidates should also write out the North Dakota State

Standards for their discipline. Do not use codes.)

2. This is a (formal/informal) and (formative/summative) assessment. It falls into the (traditional/authentic) category, and is in the sub-category (selected-response, constructed

response, alternative, portfolio, performance). I believe this is an appropriate assessment for the

learning target because (list the learning target) ________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

I will score this assessment with (an answer key, a check list, a Likert rating scale, a rubric).

3. Insert the actual assessment and scoring guide here. This should look *exactly* the way it will be presented to the students. It should not be a generic statement about what the assessment will be.

For instance, do not say, “The students will take a multiple choice, true/false, and fill in the blank

test.” You actually need to create the test and put it here. With the authentic assessments, you

should include all of the instructions that will be given to the students so that they can complete

the assessment in keeping with your expectations. If instructions will only be verbal, script out

what you will say.

4. Although I would need guidance from the ESL coordinator, these are possible accommodations I would make to this assessment for my English language learners:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

5. Although I would need guidance from my students’ IEP’s, these are possible accommodations I would make to this assessment for my special needs students:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

6. Although I would need guidance from the Gifted/Talented coordinator, these are possible accommodations I would make to this assessment for my Gifted/Talented students:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

PART II (addresses InTASC Standard 6 elements a, c, d, j, k, m, n, p)

The Buck Institute for Education maintains a repository of Project-Based Learning Experiences. From the

“project search” function on their homepage (http://www.bie.org/), select a content area and grade level

relative to your licensure area.

From the list of Project-Based assignments that appears when the window refreshes, select one and review

it carefully to determine the intended learning outcomes and project expectations. If the project you select

does not explicitly address how affective objectives will be incorporated, consider for yourself how these

might be part of the selected project. Also consider how peer-assessment and student self-assessment

would be incorporated into the project (if not already identified).

Using the project description (and any elements of your own creation for affective/peer/self-assessment),

design a rubric that could be used to score the students on the project.

Follow the template below to complete Part II

1. What is the title of the project you have selected?

2. Insert the link to the actual project here:

3. What affective objectives are (or should be) embedded in this project?

4. How is (or how could) peer and self-assessment be included in the project’s expectations?

5. Design and insert here an appropriate rubric to score students on this project-based assignment. Be certain to include in the rubric affective, peer, and self-assessment elements as well.

PART III (addresses InTASC Standard 6 element b, i)

Reference the attached standardized score reports for Ernalita Domingo (dated May 2007), then respond

to each of the questions below. (NOTE: These questions came from interviews with parents regarding

http://www.bie.org/

what they most want to know when their children receive scores from standardized tests.) Write your

responses in language that Ernalita’s parents/care-takers can understand.

About the Student: Ernalita Domingo emigrated from the Philippines in August 2003. She transitioned

from ESL to a regular classroom at the end of 2005. Ernalita’s mother and father are college graduates

from a university in Manila and speak English.

1. Write one sentence describing Ernalita’s overall performance when compared to that of the national

norm-group on this norm-referenced test (NRT). Then, identify and discuss at least five specific

subtest scores that support this generalization about her.

2. What are Ernalita’s major strengths according to the NRT scores? Use specific subtest scores to

support your generalization.

3. In what areas does Ernalita show a need for improvement according to the NRT subtest scores? Use

specific subtest scores to support your generalization.

4. What cautions must Ernalita’s parents use when reviewing her NRT scores?

5. Write two or three sentences describing Ernalita’s overall performance on the criterion-referenced test

(CRT). Refer to all four scores (use numbers and performance levels) to support your generalizations

about her.

6. Describe Ernalita’s strengths and weaknesses based on the CRT Achievement Profile.

7. Describe how Ernalita’s performance on the NRT and the CRT compare with each other? Use specific

subtest scores from the NRT and specific Achievement Profile scores from the CRT profile to support

your comparisons.

8. How can Ernalita’s teacher use the information from these tests during the next school year?

Norm-Referenced Test

Individual Student Report

Student: Ernalita Domingo Grade: 7 Teacher: Ms. Shaker Test Form M School: Grant Middle School Norms From: 2005 District: Geronimo SD Date Tested: May 2007

Score VOC RCOMP RTOT SPELL CAP PUNCT USAGE LT MCONC MPROB MCOMP MTOT CORE

SS 222 250 236 234 257 244 223 240 290 287 293 290 252

NP 10 49 25 21 59 35 12 32 90 89 99 94 54

NS 2 5 4 3 5 4 2 3 8 8 9 8 5

Abbreviations:

Subtest or Area Total Types of Scores

VOC Vocabulary SS Standard Score

RCOMP Reading Comprehension NP National Percentile

RTOT Reading Total NS National Stanine

SPELL Spelling

CAP Capitalization

PUNCT Punctuation

USAGE Usage and Expression

LT Language Total

MCONC Mathematical Concepts and Estimation

MPROB Mathematical Problems and Data Interpretation

MCOMP Mathematical Computation

MTOT Mathematics Total

CORE Average of Reading, Language, and Mathematics

STATE CRITERION-REFERENCED TEST Individual Student Report

Grade 7

Spring 2005 Report for: Ernalita Domingo School: Grant Middle School Teacher: Mr. Friend District: Geronimo School District Performance in Relation to the Standard: In each content area, a score of 400 or higher is required to meet the standard.

Content Area Score 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

Performance Level

Reading Math Writing Science

Did not Meet Standard Met Standard Did not Meet Standard Met Standard

380

448

337

407

standard

Student Achievement Profile

This student's achievement on each of the following sub-areas of the test was similar to the performance expected of students who met the standard:

Reading Writing • Main ideas and details of Fiction • Conventions and Spelling in Writing • Analysis and Interpretation of Fiction • Main ideas and details of Non-fiction Mathematics Science • Number Sense • Life Science • Measurement • Earth/Space Science • Probability and Statistics • Physical Science • Algebraic Sense • Scientific Inquiry skills • Geometric Sense • Science, Technology, & Society • Making Mathematical Connections • Mathematical Reasoning

This student's achievement in each of the following sub-areas of the test was below the performance expected of students who met the standard:

Reading Writing • Critical reading of Fiction • Content, Organization & Style

• Analysis and Interpretation of Non-fiction • Critical reading of Non-fiction Mathematics

• Mathematical Communication • Problem-Solving

PART IV (addresses InTASC Standard 6 elements b, e, g, i, m, n, o, p)

The last component of your project is a modified “Impact on Student Learning” project. Using the data in the

Excel file titled “Impact on Student Learning Data,” you will write a reflection paper and conduct some

analyses of the effect of instruction on students’ learning.

For the sake of this assignment, you are assuming the role of “teacher” for the group of students represented in

the data set. The data reported is data you would have collected for a unit you taught to this fictional class. Prior

to implementing the unit, you conducted a Pre-Unit assessment and recorded that data in the spreadsheet. You

also collected data on formal, formative assessments throughout the unit and recorded that data in the

spreadsheet as well. Once the unit was concluded, you collected Post-Unit assessment data and recorded it in

the spreadsheet.

With the data already in Excel, you are ready to examine your instructional effectiveness. Specifically, you are

interested in examining the data to determine what you seem to have taught well, what areas you might want to

strengthen in the future, and if all student populations appeared to have equitable opportunity to learn. To

determine this, you first need to calculate the average performance for each assessed area. Additionally, you

will create charts to graphically represent the impact *you* had on student learning. You should at least the

following graphs:

comparison of pre/post overall average data;

representation of pre, formative, post overall average data for each goal;

comparison of pre, formative, post data by student sub-population (male, female, ELL, SPED, G/T) compared to the overall average.

You should format your charts in a manner you feel best represents what you want to communicate about the

data. You may want to experiment with a few options before you make your project selection. Charts should be

insterted into the text of your reflection paper so that the reader can reference the chart as you discuss the data

represented in it.

Reflection Paper

Once you have your data averaged and charts created, you will write a reflection of “your” instructional

effectiveness based on your interpretation of the data. NOTE: You will need to establish (and communicate in your

paper) what the standard for “goal met” is (i.e. 70%). The reflection paper should include the following:

Were the learning targets met by all students by the end of the unit?

Were the learning targets attained equitably among the various student populations (male, female, ELL, SPED, G/T)?

Were there any patterns you noticed in the pre, formative, and/or post unit data that seemed curious?

Based on the data, what would you say are your instructional strengths?

What areas for improvement can you identify for your instructional practice based on the student data?

Submitting the Project

All parts of the Assessment Project should be included in a single document. Insert a header that includes the

last names of each member of the group and page numbers. Upload this document *and* the Excel document

containing the changes you made (i.e. averages) to Chalk and Wire by the posted due date.

InTASC #6 Rationale and Presentation

Outcomes Linked to Criteria

Criterion: Organization

No linked outcomes.

Criterion: Detail and Analysis

No linked outcomes.

Criterion: Syntax and Mechanics

1.0 Below Basic 2.0 Basic 3.0 Proficient 4.0 Exemplary

Organization

No Description

Organizational pattern is poorlydeveloped and unclear.

Organizational pattern is partiallydeveloped.

Organizational pattern is clear andconsistent.

Organizational pattern is clear andconsistent, polished, and makes thecontent cohesive.


Detail and Analysis

No Description

Uses insufficient or inappropriatesupporting details to convey basicgrasp of InTASC Standard #6.

Uses some supporting details withlimited or incomplete explanations,examples, and/or descriptions.Conveys tenuous grasp of thedefinition of InTASC Standard #6.

Selects sufficient and relevant supportingdetails, but lacks in analysis. Communicatessolid grasp of the central meaning of InTASCStandard #6.

Employs relevant detail to provideeffective support and analysis in a waythat reflects a thorough understandingof InTASC Standard #6.


Syntax and Mechanics

No Description

Shows a serious pattern of error insyntax and mechanics thatinterferes with meaning.

Exhibits substantive errors insyntax and mechanics which, attimes, impedes the clarity of thework.

Uses syntax and mechanics that generallyconveys meaning with clarity. The languagehas few errors.

Demonstrates clear and fluid control ofsyntax and mechanics that skillfullycommunicates meaning to readers andis virtually errorfree.


Eye Contact

No Description

Reads speech from notes. Avoidseye contact. Appearsuncomfortable.

Conspicuous use of notes. Onlyoccasional, sporadic glances ataudience. Appears tentative.

Eye contact establishes rapport withaudience. Unobtrusive use of notes. Scansaudience to establish zone of interaction.Appears comfortable.

Consistently uses eye contact tomaintain rapport with audience.Inconspicuous use of notes. Effectivescanning to expand zone of interaction.Appears confident.


Voice

No Description

Fails to maintain audience interestdue to excessive monotone,inappropriate rate and volume. Pitchmay be strained or flat.

Monotone passages interfere withaudience interest. Rate may be toofast or slow; volume too high orlow. Pitch is strained at times(artificial or nervous sounding).

Tone changes for emphasis at appropriatemoments. Rate and volume allow audience tofollow message. Pitch seems natural tospeaker.

Tone is appropriate. Rate, pitch, andvolume vary at key points to supportthe verbal message and keep audienceinterest. Voice is natural and speakerseems to be talking *with* rather than*at* the audience.


Fluency

No Description

Incoherent presentation due tomany factors that underminefluency including poorpronunciation. Long pausesinterrupt flow of speech. Excessiveuse of vocalized fillers (i.e. um, uh)distracts audience.

Pronunciation is mostly correct yetenunciation and articulation are stilltentative. Speaker recovers fromawkward pauses and proceeds.Vocalized fillers (i.e. um, uh) arenoticeable but not excessive.

Careful pronunciation supports coherence ofpresentation. Enunciation and articulation ofwords are mostly clear. Pauses weremomentary and did not interrupt fluency ofspeech. Vocalized fillers (i.e. um, uh) areminimal and do not distract the audience.

Coherence of presentation stronglysupported by correct pronunciation,confident enunciation and articulation.Pauses are purposeful and enhancefluency of speech. Virtually novocalized fillers (i.e. um, uh) arenoticeable.

Signature Assessment #6

1.0 Below Basic 2.0 Emergent 3.0 Proficient 4.0 Exemplary

Part I: Template, Assessments,Category

No Description

Candidate’s use of the template wassporadic or nonexistent; there weremore than two incorrect categoricallabels attached to the assessments;and/or one or more of theassessments may have been missing.

Candidate followed the templateadequately for all four assessments.Generally the assessments were correctlyidentified according to the categories andsubcategories, with no more than twoincorrect labels.

Candidate followed the template for all fourassessments. Assessments werecorrectly identified according to thecategories and subcategories, with nomore than one incorrect label.

Candidate followed thetemplate thoroughly for all fourassessments. All fourassessments were correctlyidentified according to thecategories and subcategories.


Part I: Standards; AssessmentAlignment; Asessment

Appropriateness; Scoring Methods

No Description

Candidate’s selection of Common Core(or state) standards was haphazardand missed more than 2 of therequired categories; there were morethan 2 standards poorly aligned in theassessments; the candidate provideda weak (or nonexistent) responseregarding the appropriateness of anassessment or misidentified a suitablemethod to score more than 2 of theassessments; and/or one or more ofthe assessments may have beenmissing.

Candidate selected Common Core (orstate) standards for all four assessments,though may have missed 2 of the requiredcategories; alignment of the fourassessments to the designated standardswas mostly adequate, but 2 of thestandards may have been only looselyrepresented in the designed assessments;and/or the candidate may not haveprovided an adequate response regardingthe appropriateness of an assessment orfailed to identify a suitable method to score2 of the assessments.

Candidate selected Common Core (orstate) standards for all four assessments,though may have missed 1of the requiredcategories; alignment of the fourassessments to the designated standardswas generally strong, but 1 of thestandards may have been only looselyrepresented in the designed assessments;and/or the candidate may not haveprovided an adequate response regardingthe appropriateness of an assessment orfailed to identify a suitable method to score1 of the assessments.

Candidate selected CommonCore (or state) standards in allrequired categories andaligned all four assessmentsto the designated standards.S/he articulated theappropriateness of eachassessment for the learningtargets, and produced asuitable method to score eachassessment.


Part I: Assessment Design andClarity

More than 4 of the questions and/orprompts in the assessments may lackclarity so that K12 students may beconfused about many of theexpectations for completing theassessments; and/or one or more ofthe assessments may have beenmissing.

All four of the assessments are present,though 34 of the questions and/or promptsin the assessments may be lacking inclarity. K12 students may be confusedabout some of the expectations forcompleting the assessments.

All four of the assessments are presentand generally well designed, though 12 ofthe questions and/or prompts in theassessments may be lacking in clarity.

All four of the assessmentsare well designed. Questionsand/or prompts in theassessments are coherent,and expectations forcompleting the assessmentsare clearly communicated tothe students. As a whole, theassessments are indicative ofthe candidate’s emphasis onrigor and critical thinking.


Part I: AssessmentAccommodation for ELL, SPED, G/T

Candidate either does not identifyassessment accommodations in allfour assessments for ELL, SPED, andG/T populations or more than 3accommodations were inappropriateeither for the student population or forthe assessment format; and/or one ormore of the assessments may havebeen missing.

Candidate identifies assessmentaccommodations in all four assessmentsfor ELL, SPED, and G/T populations;however, 23 may not be appropriateeither for that student population or for theassessment format.

Candidate identifies assessmentaccommodations in all four assessmentsfor ELL, SPED, and G/T populations;however, one of the accommodations maynot be appropriate either for that studentpopulation or for the assessment format.

Candidate identifiesappropriate assessmentaccommodations in all fourassessments for ELL, SPED,and G/T populations.


Part II: Descriptive Informationfrom Project; Affective Objectives;

Peer and SelfAssessment

Candidate did not provide descriptiveinformation as instructed; did notidentify at least one affectiveobjective; and/or candidate did notidentify appropriate incorporation ofboth peerassessment and selfassessment; and or the description ofpeerassessment and student selfassessment was poor.

Candidate provided descriptive informationas instructed and identified at least oneaffective objective, but it may not have aclear connection to the project; and/orpeerassessment and student selfassessment were mentioned, but theirincorporation in the project was poorlydescribed.

Candidate provided descriptive informationas instructed and identified at least oneaffective objective. Peerassessment andstudent selfassessment were mentioned,but their incorporation in the project waspoorly described.

Candidate provided descriptiveinformation as instructed,identified appropriate affectiveobjectives for the project, anddescribed appropriateincorporation of peerassessment and student selfassessment into the project.


Part II: Project Expectations andPerformance Levels in Rubric

More than one of the project’srequired elements is missing from therubric’s criteria. More than 3 of theperformance level descriptors are notwell articulated and/or not clearlydistinct from one another.

One of the project’s required elements maynot be represented in the rubric’s criteria;and/or performance level descriptors arenot consistently clear and/or more than 2are not clearly distinct from one another.

Rubric delineates all project expectations,including affective, peer, and selfassessment elements. Performance leveldescriptors are generally clear; however,12 may not be well articulated and/orclearly distinct from one another.

Rubric delineates all projectexpectations, includingaffective, peer, and selfassessment elements.Performance level descriptorsin the rubric are clearlyarticulated and distinct fromone another.

Outcomes Linked to Criteria

Criterion: Part I: Template, Assessments, Category

InTASC Standards

Section Description

6(a) Performances: Balances Use ofFormative and Summative Assessment

The teacher balances the use of formative and summative assessment as appropriate to support, verify, anddocument learning.

Section Description

6(e) Performances: Multiple Ways ofDemonstrating Knowledge and Skill

The teacher engages learners in multiple ways of demonstrating knowledge and skill as part of theassessment process.

Section Description

6(f) Performances: Guide Learners inExamining Own Thinking and Learning

The teacher models and structures processes that guide learners in examining their own thinking and learningas well as the performance of others.

Section Description


Part III: Standardized TestInterpretation

Candidate incorrectly interpreted (orfailed to provide accurate interpretiveinformation) more than 3 times.

Candidate’s incorrectly interpreted (orfailed to provide accurate interpretiveinformation) more than 2 times.

Candidate’s responses indicate anadequate ability to interpret NRT and CRTstandardized test results. However, s/hemay have incorrectly interpreted (or failedto provide accurate interpretiveinformation) 12 times.

Candidate’s responsesindicate an ability to correctlyinterpret NRT and CRTstandardized test results,including related subtestscores, student strengths, andareas for improvement.


Part III: Using Standardized TestResults to Guide Instruction

No Description

Candidate’s response does notindicate an understanding ofusefulness of standardized testinterpretation to guide teacherpractice, includes less than 2examples, or includes examples thatare weak.

Candidate provides less than 3 examplesof how standardized test interpretation canguide instruction, or includes examples thatare overly generalized or vague.

Candidate provides at least 3 solidexamples of how standardized testinterpretation can guide instruction.

Candidate describes withspecificity how standardizedtest interpretation can guideinstruction.


Part IV: Data Spreadsheet andCharts

No Description

Data spreadsheet missing and/or doesnot contain at least averages ofstudent performance scores; and/ormissing 1 or more charts representingthe required information.

Data spreadsheet contains at leastaverages of student performance scores.Charts were presented for the threerequired areas; however, they may nothave clearly communicated the intendedinformation.

Data spreadsheet contains at leastaverages of student performance scores.Appropriate charts were presented torepresent required information (pre/postcomparison, class trend data onpre/formative/post data, data comparisonamong 5 student subpopulations).

Data spreadsheet containsstudent performance averagescores. Charts clearlyrepresent required information(pre/post comparison, classtrend data on pre/formative/post data, data comparisonamong 5 studentsubpopulations). Additionalcalculations were included toprovide deeper insight into thedata.


Part IV: Reflection Paper—DataTrends, Analysis of Student

Learning and Subpopulations, Teacher

Efficacy

No Description

Reflection paper either missing, doesnot discuss student acquisition oflearning targets, does not includetrend analysis among subpopulations;and/or does not provide anymeaningful discussion of strengthsand/or areas for improvement.

Reflection paper provides some discussionof student learning, but does not representthorough interpretation of student trendsand impact on various subpopulations.Reflection paper provides genericdiscussion of strengths and areas forimprovement.

Reflection paper indicates at least asuperficial examination of trends in thedata regarding student acquisition oflearning targets—including that of variousstudent populations. Reflection paperindicates presence of teacher efficacythrough description of strengths and areasfor improvement.

Reflection paper indicatesthoughtful examination oftrends in the data and carefulanalysis of student acquisitionof learning targets—includingthat of various studentpopulations. Reflection paperindicates presence of teacherefficacy through description ofstrengths and areas forimprovement. Candidate usesevidence from the studentdata to support claims.

Section Description

6(h) Performances: Prepares Learners forDemands of Assessment Formats

The teacher prepares all learners for the demands of particular assessment formats and makes appropriateaccommodations in assessments or testing conditions, especially for learners with disabilities and languagelearning needs.

Section Description

6(l) Essential Knowledge: AnalyzeAssessment Data to Understand Patterns andGaps in Learning

The teacher knows how to analyze assessment data to understand patterns and gaps in learning, to guideplanning and instruction, and to provide meaningful feedback to all learners.

Section Description

6(p) Essential Knowledge: Prepare Learnersfor Assessments

The teacher understands how to prepare learners for assessments and how to make accommodations inassessments and testing conditions, especially for learners with disabilities and language learning needs.

Section Description

6(q) Critical Dispositions: Develops EachLearner’s Capacity to Review andCommunicate about Own Progress

The teacher is committed to engaging learners actively in assessment processes and to developing eachlearner’s capacity to review and communicate about their own progress and learning.

Section Description

6(r) Critical Dispositions: Aligns Instructionand Assessment

The teacher takes responsibility for aligning instruction and assessment with learning goals.

Criterion: Part I: Standards; Assessment Alignment; Asessment Appropriateness; Scoring Methods

InTASC Standards

Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Criterion: Part I: Assessment Design and Clarity

InTASC Standards

Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Criterion: Part I: Assessment Accommodation for ELL, SPED, G/T

InTASC Standards

Section Description

6(a) Performances: Balances Use of The teacher balances the use of formative and summative assessment as appropriate to support, verify, and

Section Description

Formative and Summative Assessment document learning.

Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Criterion: Part II: Descriptive Information from Project; Affective Objectives; Peer and SelfAssessment

InTASC Standards

Section Description



Section Description

6(c) Performances: Examines PerformanceData to Understand Progress

The teacher works independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to understandeach learner’s progress and to guide planning.

Section Description

6(d) Performances: Engages Learners inUnderstanding and Identifying Quality Work

The teacher engages learners in understanding and identifying quality work and provides them with effectivedescriptive feedback to guide their progress toward that work.

Section Description

6(j) Essential Knowledge: Differencesbetween Formative and Summative

The teacher understands the differences between formative and summative applications of assessment andknows how and when to use each.

Section Description

Assessment

Section Description

6(k) Essential Knowledge: Range of Typesand Multiple Purposes of Assessment

The teacher understands the range of types and multiple purposes of assessment and how to design, adapt,or select appropriate assessments to address specific learning goals and individual differences, and tominimize sources of bias.

Section Description

6(m) Essential Knowledge: Engage Learnersin Analyzing their own Assessments

The teacher knows when and how to engage learners in analyzing their own assessment results and in helpingto set goals for their own learning.

Section Description

6(n) Essential Knowledge: Positive Impact ofEffective Feedback

The teacher understands the positive impact of effective descriptive feedback for learners and knows a varietyof strategies for communicating this feedback.

Section Description



Criterion: Part II: Project Expectations and Performance Levels in Rubric

InTASC Standards

Section Description



Section Description

6(c) Performances: Examines PerformanceData to Understand Progress

The teacher works independently and collaboratively to examine test and other performance data to understandeach learner’s progress and to guide planning.

Section Description

6(d) Performances: Engages Learners inUnderstanding and Identifying Quality Work

The teacher engages learners in understanding and identifying quality work and provides them with effectivedescriptive feedback to guide their progress toward that work.

Section Description

6(j) Essential Knowledge: Differencesbetween Formative and SummativeAssessment

The teacher understands the differences between formative and summative applications of assessment andknows how and when to use each.

Section Description

6(k) Essential Knowledge: Range of Typesand Multiple Purposes of Assessment

The teacher understands the range of types and multiple purposes of assessment and how to design, adapt,or select appropriate assessments to address specific learning goals and individual differences, and tominimize sources of bias.

Section Description



Section Description



Section Description

Section Description



Criterion: Part III: Standardized Test Interpretation

InTASC Standards

Section Description

6(b) Performances: Assessments that MatchLearning Objectives

The teacher designs assessments that match learning objectives with assessment methods and minimizessources of bias that can distort assessment results.

Section Description

6(i) Performances: Seeks Ways to EmployTechnology to Support Assessment Practice

The teacher continually seeks appropriate ways to employ technology to support assessment practice both toengage learners more fully and to assess and address learner needs.

Criterion: Part III: Using Standardized Test Results to Guide Instruction

InTASC Standards

Section Description



Section Description



Criterion: Part IV: Data Spreadsheet and Charts

InTASC Standards

Section Description



Section Description



Section Description

6(g) Performances: Identify Learning Needsand Develop Differentiated LearningExperiences

The teacher effectively uses multiple and appropriate types of assessment data to identify each student’slearning needs and to develop differentiated learning experiences.

Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description

6(o) Essential Knowledge: Evaluate andReport Learner Progress

The teacher knows when and how to evaluate and report learner progress against standards.

Section Description



Criterion: Part IV: Reflection Paper—Data Trends, Analysis of Student Learning and Subpopulations,

Teacher Efficacy

InTASC Standards

Section Description



Section Description



Section Description

6(g) Performances: Identify Learning Needsand Develop Differentiated LearningExperiences

The teacher effectively uses multiple and appropriate types of assessment data to identify each student’slearning needs and to develop differentiated learning experiences.

Section Description



Section Description



Section Description



Section Description

6(o) Essential Knowledge: Evaluate andReport Learner Progress

The teacher knows when and how to evaluate and report learner progress against standards.

Section Description



Documents

PART I (addresses InTASC Standard 6 elements a, e, f, h, l, p ...dsuteachereducation.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/6/7/12676707/...Assessment Project (InTASC Standard #6) PART I (addresses