Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 27

WTS 7-8 Artifacts for Guided Learning Process

Mindy Rudiger
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standards 7 and 8
EDUW 693 Instructional Design and Assessment
Sara Heisler, Instructor
December 15, 2015

Artifact A: Pre- and Post-Assessments Related to Instructional Design and Assessment

The first three assessment tables involve designing instructional outcomes, learning
processes, and student engagement. The next four tables relate to assessment elements:
designing and using student assessments, and student participation and engagement in formative
assessments. These pre- and post-assessments targeted writing and grammar usage with a focus
on parts of speech instruction.
Descriptors in each cell paraphrase Danielson Framework for Teaching assessment
descriptors from the 200 version. Underlined comparisons or added words show pre-assessment
ratings, and italicized comparisons or added words show post assessment ratings.
Unchanged ratings generally represent improvements within the same developmental
range as the pre-assessment unless otherwise noted, and are indicated by words that are
underlined and italicized.
Rating codes: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished.
Table 1: Pre- and Post-assessment of Instructional Design for Appropriate Outcomes
Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1c: Setting
Instructional Outcomes (p. 51-53 and chart on page 54).
Element
Rating Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria.
Value,
B
1. Most/All outcomes represent low/moderately high/high expectations and rigor.
sequence, to P
2. They do not/Some/Most/All reflect important learning in the discipline. 3.
and
No/some/most/all outcomes connect to a sequence of learning in the discipline. 4.
alignment
No/some/most/all outcomes connect to a sequence of learning in related
disciplines.
Clarity
P
1. Outcomes are moderately clear/are clear, written in the form of student learning.
to P
2. No/some/most/all outcomes permit viable methods of assessment.
Balance
B
1. Outcomes reflect several different types of learning, but no attempt to coordinate
to B
or integrate disciplines.
Suitability B
1. Most/all outcomes are suitable for most/all students in the class and based on
for diverse to P
assessment of students needs.
learners
2. Needs of very few/some/most/all individual students or groups are
accommodated.
Evidence sources:
September 4 lesson plans, standardized test data, LMH samples, whole-class data.
Area to improve:
Differentiate learning based on needs
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans (October 14), standardized test data, LMH samples, whole-class
data.
Meeting the needs of all students, including extensions
Most improved:
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Appropriate Outcomes

Previously, I planned to accommodate one type of student rather than differentiating my


instruction to meet the different leveled learning needs of students. Now, Ive included
differentiation within my lesson plans to meet needs of high and low writers.

Table 2: Pre- and Post-assessment of Instructional Design for Optimal Learning Processes
Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1e: Designing
Coherent Instruction (p. 55-59 and chart on page 60).
Element
Rating Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria. Improve
Learning
B
1. No/few/some/all learning activities are suitable to students or to the
activities
to P
instructional outcomes.
2. None/some/most/all represent limited/moderate/significant/high-level
cognitive challenge. 3. No/some/all are differentiated for groups of students.
Instructional D
1. No/some/all of the materials and resources are suitable to students, support the
materials
to P
instructional outcomes, and engage students in meaningful learning. 2. There is
and
no/some/continual evidence of appropriate use of technology and (upper =) of
resources
student participation in selecting or adapting materials.
Instructional P
1. Instructional groups support the instructional outcomes. 2. Instructional
groups
to D
groups are not/are appropriately varied for students and the different instructional
outcomes. 3. No evidence/Evidence of student choice in selecting the different
patterns of instructional groups.
Lesson and
P
1. The lesson or unit has no clearly defined/recognizable/clearly defined structure
unit
to P
that organizes activities. 2. The structure is chaotic/not uniformly/maintained
structure
throughout.
3. No/Uneven/Even/Highly coherent progression of activities.
4. Unrealistic/reasonable time allocations for each activity.
5. Allows/Does not allow/Some allowance for different pathways according to
diverse student needs.
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans from Friday, September 4.
Area to improve:
Challenging content
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans from week of October 12-16.
Most improved area:
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Optimal Learning Processes
Previously, tis lesson offered content that was review and not challenging enough for fifthgraders. Now, students are individually challenged through independent writing topics and individual
writing conferences with teacher.
Table 3: Pre- and Post-assessment of Instructional Design for Engaged Learning
Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 3: Instruction. Component 3b: Using Questioning and
Discussion Techniques and Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
(combining rows in the charts on pages 82 and 85).
Element
Rating Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria.
Quality of
B
1. Teachers questions are of poor/a mix of high and low/high/uniformly high
questions
to P
quality in cognitive challenge. 2. Students generally respond with single correct
responses/some thoughtful responses/thoughtful responses/formulating many
questions of their own. 3. Questions are asked in rapid succession/a mix of
succession combined with inadequate time to respond/adequate time to respond.
Discussion
P
1. Teacher-student interaction is predominantly recitation style/with some
techniques
to P
attempt to engage student in genuine discussion/creating genuine
discussion/creating student responsibility for the success of the discussion.
2. Teacher steps aside when appropriate.
Student
P
1. Teacher attempts with limited success/successfully engages all students in the
participation to D
discussion.

Activities
and
assignments

P
to P

Evidence sources:
Area to improve:
Evidence sources:
Most improved area:

1. Activities and assignments are inappropriate/appropriate to some/appropriate


to all students age or background. 2. No/Some/Almost all/All student are
mentally/cognitively engaged in the activities and assignments in exploring
content. 3. Students do not/sometimes/generally initiate or adapt activities and
projects to enhance their understanding.
Digital recording of instruction from Friday, September 4.
Higher-level questions
Digital recording of instruction from October30, teacher observations.
Questioning

Most Significant Evidence of Improvement in Designing Engaged Learning


1. Previously, my level of questioning needed to be improved so that students are required to do a
higher level of thinking. Now, I begin my writing unit with an essential question that engages thinking
and connects writing to the daily lives of my students.
2. Also, I did not give students more time to think about an answer before calling on a student for
the answer. Now, I use a round robin system for students to choose writing topics so that students can
have time to think about and decide on a writing topic that is best for them.
Pre- and Post-Assessments of Assessment and Instruction Practices Related to WTS 8
Table 4: Pre- and Post-assessment of Assessment Design
Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 1: Planning and Preparation (p. 63)
Component 1f: Designing Student Assessments (Read pages 59-63.)
Rating options: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished
Element
Rating Current Evidence to Support Rating/Area to Improve
Congruence
B
1. None/Some/All instructional outcomes are assessed through the proposed
with
to B
assessment approach.
instructional
2. Assessment methodologies have/have not been adapted for
outcomes
groups/individuals as needed.
Criteria and
P
1. No/unclear/clear criteria and standards. 2. Students do/do not contribute to
standards
to P
development of assessment criteria.
Design in
B
1. Lesson plans include no/rudimentary/well-developed/well-designed
formative
to P
formative assessments strategies for all instructional outcomes.
assessments
2. Lesson plans include no/minimal/particular/well-designed approaches to
engaging students in assessment and correction of their work.
Use for
U
1. No plans/Plans to use assessment results in designing future instruction.
planning
to P
2. Does not use/Uses assessment results to plan for whole class (basic) and/or
group (proficient) and/or individual instruction. (Distinguished is all three
levels.)
Evidence:
Lesson Plans from Friday, September 4.
To improve:
Assessment guides plan
Evidence:
Lesson plans from October 30.
Most improved: Formative assessment
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Effective Assessment Practices
Previously, formative assessment wasnt used to guide future lesson plans. Now, formative
assessment gives me feedback on what instruction of provide next. For example, the four square map let
me know what students needed additional instruction on details within their narrative.

Three Pre- Post-assessments of Participation/Learning Environment Related to Assessment Design


Table 5: Pre- and Post-assessment of Assessment Practices Based on Danielson Framework
Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 3: Using Assessment in Instruction (p. 89)
Component 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction. (Read pages 86-89.)
Rating options: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished
Element
Rating Current Evidence to Support Rating/Area to Improve
Assessment
U
1. Students are not aware/know some/are fully aware of the criteria and
Criteria
to P
performance standards by which their work will be evaluated.
2. Students have not/have contributed to the development of the criteria.
Monitoring of
P
2. Teacher does not/monitor progress of whole class (basic) and groups
student learning to P
(proficient).
2. Teacher elicits no (basic)/makes limited use of (proficient)/actively and
systematically elicits (distinguished) diagnostic information from individuals
regarding their understanding and monitors individual progress.
Feedback to
B
1. Teachers feedback to students is poor quality and untimely/uneven quality
students
to P
and untimely/high quality and timely/consistently high quality and timely.
2. Students do not/make use of the feedback in their learning with/without
prompting. (with=proficient, without=distinguished)
Student selfB
1. Students do not/occasionally/frequently assess and monitor the quality of
assessment and to P
their own work against the assessment criteria and performance standards.
monitoring of
2. Students do not/rarely/occasionally/frequently make active use of that
progress
information in their learning.
Evidence sources:
Digital recording of instruction from Friday, September 4.
Area to improve:
Share assessments with students
Evidence sources:
Digital recording of instruction from October 22, teacher observations.
Most improved area:
Student assessment
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Effective Assessment Practices
1. Previously, students werent aware of how they will be graded prior to working on the
assignment. Now, students are given the rubric for the narrative prior to printing their final drafts giving
them time to adapt their writing to meet needs of the rubric.
2. Previously, students rarely self-assessed. Now, students often assess themselves during the
revise and edit stage of writing, as well as, self assessing their final draft on the rubric.
Approx. %

a = 90% to 98%
b = 70% to 80%
c = 70% to 80%
85% to 55%
52% to 65%
30% to 91%
Evidence sources:
Area to improve:
Evidence sources:
Most improved:

Table 6: Pre- and Post-assessment of Student Participation Related to


Formative Assessment
Approximate overall % of student learning/engagement observed by teacher during
(a) teacher-guided formative assessments in classroom
(b) independent formative assessments in classroom
(c) formative peer assessments in classroom
Current approximate % of completion for assessments assigned as homework.
Current overall accuracy in assessing learning using criteria or assessment tools.
Current understanding of formative assessment as a valuable learning strategy.
Current student observations and teacher observations.
Inform students about assessments
Current student observations and outcomes by teacher.
Understanding why we assess

Table 7: Pre- and Post-assessment of Student Practices Related to Formative Assessment


Rating options: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished
NOTE: Underlined words represent pre-assessment areas most in need of improvement for this semester.
Italicized words represent post assessment areas that improved most during this semester.
Element
Rating Questions to consider in rating current performance and defining skills to improve
Criteria
P
Can students name expectations (what know/do) for each learning step?
and
to P
For a task, can students explain the line between unacceptable (below proficiency
Rating
range) and essentially proficient? ...between fully proficient and mastery (above
System
proficiency range)?
Does the rating system result in points/percentages/rating phrases that match the
proficiency range for the task based on standards for the grade level (or
temporarily adjusted expectations to raise overall PK-12 performance to
standards)
Monitoring B
Do all students participate willingly in formative assessment, knowing the
to P
environment is safe for making inevitable learning mistakes?
Do students quickly and objectively provide evidence and ideas for improvement
when the teacher solicits information about what worked best and what did not to
achieve objectives?
Do students use subject terminology and assessment criteria to question ratings
and frame discussions/questions, rather than personal opinions/emotional thinking?
Would students agree that the teacher maintains useful records of student work
and performance and can communicate student progress understandably?
Feedback
B
Do class and/or groups and/or individuals receive immediate feedback at each
to B
mini-step of learning that confirms learning or corrects learning?
Is the same confirm- or adjust-instruction-process happening on the teachers
part based on continual assessments of student learning and feedback? (In other
words, students know the goal is to get it, and if they are trying and dont get
it, the teacher accepts responsibility for finding a method that worksa learning
TEAM.)
StudentB
Do students consider continual informal and formal formative assessments as not
initiated
to P
only beneficial, but necessary for successful learning?
Assessment
Before deadlines, do students ask for additional formative assessments if unsure
of performance or to ensure performance meets high expectations?
Do students take responsibility for their own formative assessments and try to
evaluate objectively, knowing it will help them become aware of their strengths
and needs, and encourage them to set personal goals for learning?
Evidence sources:
Digital recording on Friday, September 4, tempered by long-term observations and
outcomes.
Inform students about assessments
Area to improve:
Digital recording on October 16, along with current teacher observations.
Evidence sources:
Most improved area: Students work as a team with me to learn.
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Environment Related to Formative Assessment
Previously, students were not familiar with the ins and outs of formative assessment. Now,
students understand that I want to know where they are at so that I can help them meet expectations,
rather than feel pressure if getting the incorrect answer.

Artifact B: Instructional Design, Before-After Comparisons

Improved Lesson Plan Example


Targeted Subject: Writing Topic: Fictional Narrative
Length of Entire Learning Unit: 10 days
Quarter: 1 Students Age/Grade Level: Fifth-grade Performance Range of Students:
Lesson Plan Source:
Fictional Narrative. (2014). In Journeys Common Core (Vol. 1, pp. T284-T287, T358-T361).
Orlando, FL: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

This plan demonstrates understanding of 693 expectations for lesson design processes and
elements, guided by expectations in WTS 7. Highlighting represents understanding of lesson planning
terminology and practices aimed at aligning expectations, content, process, product, and assessment
elements. Numbers represent alignment of five key elements.
5 planning elements: objectives, content, process, product, assessment (3 types: diagnostic,
formative, summative). Only ONE example for each in CAPITALS/YELLOW HIGHLIGHT
5 assessment tools/methods: five formative or summative methods
6 levels of Blooms Taxonomy (explain missing or eventual levels)
5 thinking patterns (place term next to synonym: Introduce/Define by group
5 instructional strategies/techniques: see 693 term sheet for ideas
3 different differentiation strategies at one time (LL, ML, HL; multiple intelligences
MUS, VIS, VER, LOG, BOD, INTER, INTRA, NAT, EXIST; learning styles
SEE, HEAR, TOUCH, SMELL, TASTE, DO, EMOtion, SETTING; explained
specific differentiation needs and coded in the lesson.
1 use of technology incorporated into entire unit (green type)
1 example of making purposeful connections: widening perspectives to realities, interests,
students past/present/future, cultural/racial/ethnic awareness, gender sensitivity, etc.

A BACKWARD DESIGN PROCESS:


1. Align standards developmentally to students. (Process completed in Artifact D.)
a. Current proficiency range based on vertical standards and assessed ability evidence:
Lowest = Gr. 2
Median = Gr. 4
Highest = Gr. 6
b. Learning Unit proficiency range based on vertical standards and students capabilities:
DIF:
Lowest=Gr. 4 Median = Gr. 5 Highest=Gr. 6
DIF:
2-3-4. Align end-beginning-bridge the gap. (Define End & Align 5)
5. Align learning to learners: paces challenging and contrasting activities; differentiations, new practices,
using self-assessment to build independent competence and confidence, connecting to realities.

6. EA: Essential UNIT Answer/Understanding: lasting truth/principle/rule/insight to answer EQ.


Each real-life event that a fifth-grader encounters has character(s), setting, sequence of events,
dialogue, and a problem that is resolved.
7. EQ: Essential UNIT Question: Motivate/broaden learning beyond academics. (Student Appeal!)
How are narrative elements the same as real-life experiences?
Essential UNIT Connections:
8. ETh: Connect thinking patterns from EQ to EA: Relate to real-life
9. EP: Connect content to students and expand perspectives based on diverse realities: Think about a
problem youre currently encountering in your life? Relate it to the narrative elements.
10. EC: Connect learning to build integrity, empathy, insight: Instruct students to include a conclusion
that explains the insight to their story, teaches a life lesson.

What to learn?
[objective(s) + content]
(thinking pat./Blooms)
SO: Define narrative and
tell the elements included
in the beginning, middle,
and end of a narrative.

How to learn? [process] (key strategies,


teachniques, etc.)

Product + Assessment?
(task +evidence method

Define by detail

Repetitive practice of definitions and elements


T = Tell elements of narrative
Apply knowledge to examples of narrative
within each part
writing Low students work in small group
M=Target slip
with teacher, High students will write examples
of elements on white board and exchange with DIFF.TASK
partner to quiz
Students brainstorm competition they encounter T = Discuss topic with
FO1-5: Write (create) a
in their lives
partner and teacher
fictional narrative with
Round Robin - Provide students thinking time;
M= Writing mini conference
necessary elements, with
Students share their ideas to ignite thinking in
with teacher recording topics
guidance.
FO1: Brainstorm and decide classmates
NEW PRACTICE
NEW PRACTICE
on writing topic.
FO2: Create pre-write
4Ws & 1H
T = Make pre-write better by
showing elements of a
(Students may complete only 4Ws & 1H if
adding details
narrative.
struggling to put ideas into pre-write broken
M= Fictional narrative predown by elements Present both ways to see
write discussion with partner
how students learn best)
Analyze ideas by completing pre-write sections:
DIFF. PROCESS
setting, characters, beginning, middle, end
Brainstorm/discuss as whole group; Individual
help as needed
FO3: Write rough draft
Review parts of a narrative and Must Haves so
T = Self-assess own rough
using pre-write to clearly
that both are included in draft; Individual help
draft
show elements of a
as needed; During individual conferences
M=Write two questions on
narrative.
challenge able students to next level of writing; two post it notes to receive
With pencil students underline setting,
teacher feedback about
DIFF. EXPECTATIONS characters, problem, solution, dialogue, sensory
NEW PRACTICE
details correct by giving score out of 6
FO4: Edit and revise
Show top notch writing example so that students T = Identify elements of
writing to make it better.
have product to work towards NEW PRACTICES narrative within own writing
Practice editing using teacher made writing
M=Underline setting +
examples; Individual edit/revise based on needs description in yellow,
from previous writing; Whole group
characters + description in
identification of elements of narrative
orange, problem in red,
Define by classify solution in green
FO5: Publish writing using Use technology to produce final draft of
T = Self-assess final product
computers to type.
narrative, displaying title/author at top of page
M=Student completes same
Voice to text typing option available as needed
narrative rubric as teacher uses

DIFF. PROCESS

Collaborate learning throughout


Sum. Task: Published fictional
writing process to produce final
narrative
product
Sum.Method: Standards based rubric
Student completes writing rubric
based on final product tell one
strength and one area for
NEW PRACTICE
Relate by contrary improvement

SLOs: Write (create) a fictional


narrative independently with the
parts of a narrative clear.

Lesson Plan:
Day 1 Introduce essential question: How are narrative elements the same as real-life experiences?; Define
fictional narrative; Understand what elements belong in each part of a narrative; Formatively assess days
learning target using essential question

Blooms: Remembering
Content

Day 2 Choose topic

Day 3 Create pre-write


Teacher will model using the Smart Board.

Day 4 Make pre-write better

Blooms: Understanding

Students will make their pre-write better by adding detail and describing words, and being sure it
makes sense.
Students will use sheet below to conference with a partner to make their pre-write better.

Blooms: Applying
Compare ideas to improve
Relate problem (if) to resolution (then)

Day 5 Write rough draft of narrative


Teacher will model using the Smart Board how to turn pre-write into beginning, middle, and end
of narrative.
Students will write two questions about their completed rough drafts that they would like teacher
feedback about.
Blooms: Analyzing

Day 6 Edit and revise rough draft


Students will make their writing better by using red pens to make corrections on their rough
drafts. They will identify parts of a narrative, dialogue, and sensory details.
Blooms: Evaluating

Day 7 Publish final draft


Students will use technology to publish fictional narrative, as well as self-assess their work
completing the rubric below.
Product: Evidence of Learning
Blooms: Creating

For students who complete the writing process in a timely manner, they may tell their narrative
using Blabberize.

Artifact C: Assessment Practices, Before-After Comparisons


Example of an Improved Assessment Method or Tool
Targeted Subject: Writing Topic: Fictional Narrative
Length of Entire Learning Unit: 10 days
Quarter: 1 Students Age/Grade Level: Fifth-grade Performance Range of Students:
Lesson Plan Source:
Fictional Narrative. (2014). In Journeys Common Core (Vol. 1, pp. T284-T287, T358-T361).
Orlando, FL: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Areas of improvement:
Before my in class instruction, my summative rubric did not include measurable data for the
following standards: plans, edits, revises; technology use; spelling; grammar. Using Heislers
Write Teaching rubric, I changed the summative rubric criteria to measurable skills that
minimize teacher judgment within assessing.
Previously in assessing writing, as the teacher I made multiple corrections within a students
writing to make it correct. With an increased focus on self-assessment, students will be making
those corrections instead of the teacher.
Before my in class instruction, I lacked the ability to differentiate my instruction to meet the
needs of my students current abilities. I am now more aware of the importance of teaching each
student at their developmental level so that they can make the most gains in the end.
Improved:
1) Think about whether assessments are final or able to be improved.
2) Ensure defined terms are required to be applied
3) Include real-life tasks within assessment
4) Using the writing process measures the process of their work, yet assessing their end
result is a direct measure of their learning
5) We grade using criterion-referenced
6) Constructed response requires higher level of Blooms thinking
7) Use high level words/terminology to push students to excel rather than dumbing-down
word choice
8) Teach students to accurately assess their own work to the same degree as the teacher
9) Have the student makes things correct, rather than the teacher doing the work for them
10) Make rubrics measurable
11) Create coding system so that students are able to assess/identify own work
12) Create Must Have system so that students know what is required of them

NEW PRACTICE: Rubric with specific, measureable,


comparable descriptors aligned to elements.

Lesson 5 Fictional Narrative


Focus of Unit: Narrative Writing
Name:________________________________

Homeroom: 5H 5L 5T 5R 5BF

Date: 10/30/201

Uses Writing
Traits to Write a
Personal
Narrative

Evidence of expectations for 3


rating, plus:
Essay hooks the reader while
introducing the significant 4Ws,
body sequence of events
includes vivid details, thoughts,
feelings, words, dialogue; and
feelings expressed in
conclusion reflect on why event
was significant.

Writes a fictional narrative piece


by introducing the setting,
characters and problem in the
beginning, providing
chronologically ordered events in
the middle, and telling the
solution with reflective thoughts
in the end.
_________________
Writing Focus Trait of the WeekVoice: Writer creates a strong
voice and description of their
experience by using strong word
choices, vivid descriptions,
dialogue, sensory details, and
their own feelings.

Essay includes a
beginning, middle, end
and writing trait, but one
area needs
development.

Acceptable narrative
elements present,
but improvements
needed to two or
more of the following
parts: beginning,
middle, end, writing
trait.

Plans, Edits,
and Revises
Writing

Followed directions to generate


key ideas for a fictional event,
check thinking, draft, revise,
and edit writing to show
improvements beyond grade 5
expectations.

Completes all Must Haves (see


poster in classroom) during
writing process, as well as a prewrite displaying key ideas
relating to a fictional narrative.

Completes 3-4 Must


Haves (see poster in
classroom) with a prewrite that shows a
fictional idea.
Suggestion:

Completes 2 or less
Must Haves (see
poster in classroom)
with a pre-write that
is missing or lacking
ideas.

Uses
Technology to
create and
publish

Uses word processing skills to


publish a narrative
independently that includes:
title and author at top, 1
margins, double-spaced, 12
point font, indented
paragraphs.

Uses word processing skills to


publish a narrative with some
guidance and support that
includes: title and author at top,
1 margins, double-spaced, 12
point font, indented paragraphs.

Uses word processing


skills to publish with
some guidance and
support and includes 45 of the following: title
and author at top, 1
margins, doublespaced, 12 point font,
indented paragraphs.

Uses word
processing skills to
publish with
guidance and
support and includes
3 or less of the
following: title and
author at top, 1
margins, doublespaced, 12 point
font, indented
paragraphs.

Spelling

Uses Grade 6 or higher


vocabulary, and correctly spells
1-2-3 syllable words, plus silent
sounds, harder blends,
possessive words, and
combined adjective hyphens.

Uses Grade 5 vocabulary and


correctly spells 1-2-3 syllable
words, including words with
blended sounds, hyphenated
words, and plural possessive
words (s).

Correctly spells 1-2


syllable words,
compounds, and
homophones.

Correctly spells 1
syllable words.
Spells using sounds.

Correct structure
including sentences
with details in added
words or an added
phrase. Beginning
capital and correct end
punctuation.
Proper nouns
capitalized.

Correct structure for


simple sentences
with up to one
added phrase.
Beginning capital
and end
punctuation.
I is capitalized.

Grammar
Conventions

2 and 1 ratings, plus:


Correct structure, including
sentences with details in one or
two added phrases or a clause.
3, 2, and 1 ratings, plus:
Comma after introductory
Correct structure, including
clauses that begin with When,
sentences with details in added If and time-words such as
phrases or a clause. Comma
Before, After, While, etc.
for introductory clause.

Artifact D: Pre- and Post-Assessments of Student Performance for Independent Process


Background Information: The evidence for this assessment came from the student task of writing
a short story. During lesson 1 of the first month of school for fifth-graders at St. Croix Central Middle
School, students worked through the writing process submitting a rough draft of a short story. This task
required students to show the elements of a narrative in their respective parts (beginning-setting,
characters, problem; middle-events; end-solution), as well as use dialogue and vivid details to make their
writing interesting.
Arrows indicate first semester () or second semester () proficiency levels.
Italicized type distinguishes post-assessment additions (Learning Step 6) from the earlier preassessment (Learning Step 2).
Excerpts from standards are in quotations, followed by the grade level in parenthesis.
Unchanged ratings generally represent improvements within the same developmental range as the
pre-assessment unless otherwise noted.
Two Key Academic Content Standards (ACS #1 and #2) Guiding the Independent Targeted
Learning Unit
Source(s): Wisconsin CCSS. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences, CCR Anchor
Standard 3, page 31
Two Academic Content Standards in Vertical Format:
ACS #1: Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective
technique, well-chosen details, and well-structured event sequences.
Grade 2: Write narratives in which they recount a well-elaborated event or short sequence of
events, include details to describe actions, thoughts, and feelings, use temporal words to signal event
order, and provide a sense of closure.
Grade 3: Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective
technique, descriptive details, and clear event sequences. a. Establish a situation and introduce a narrator
and/or characters; organize an event sequence that unfolds naturally. b. Use dialogue and descriptions of
actions, thoughts, and feelings to develop experiences and events or show the response of characters to
situations. c. Use temporal words and phrases to signal event order. d. Provide a sense of closure.
Grade 4: Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective
technique, descriptive details, and clear event sequences. a. Orient the reader by establishing a situation
and introducing a narrator and/or characters; organize an event sequence that unfolds naturally. b. Use
dialogue and description to develop experiences and events or show the responses of characters to
situations. c. Use a variety of transitional words and phrases to manage the sequence of events. d. Use
concrete words and phrases and sensory details to convey experiences and events precisely. e. Provide a
conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events.
Grade 5: Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective
technique, descriptive details, and clear event sequences. a. Orient the reader by establishing a situation
and introducing a narrator and/or characters; organize an event sequence that unfolds naturally. b. Use
narrative techniques, such as dialogue, description, and pacing, to develop experiences and events or
show the response of characters to situations. c. Use a variety of transitional words, phrases, and clauses
to manage the sequence of events. d. Use concrete words and phrases and sensory details to convey
experiences and events precisely. e. Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or
events.
Grade 6: Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective
technique, relevant descriptive details, and well-structured event sequences. a. Engage and orient the
reader by establishing a context and introducing a narrator and/or characters; organize an event sequence
that unfolds naturally and logically. b. Use narrative techniques, such as dialogue, pacing, and description,

to develop experiences, events, and/or characters. c. Use a variety of transition words, phrases, and
clauses to convey sequence and signal shifts from one time frame or setting to another. d. Use precise
words and phrases, relevant descriptive details, and sensory language to convey experiences and events. e.
Provide a conclusion that follows from the narrated experiences or events
Wisconsin CCSS: Conventions of Standard English, CCR Anchor Standard 1, page 54
ACS #2: Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when
writing or speaking.
Grade 3: Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when
writing or speaking. a. produce simple, compound, and complex sentences.
Grade 4: Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when
writing or speaking. a. Produce complete sentences, recognizing and correcting inappropriate fragments
and run-ons.
Grade 5: Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when
writing or speaking. a. Explain the function of conjunctions, prepositions, and interjections in general and
their function in particular sentences.
Table 8: Pre/Post Assessments of Content Learning Compared to PK-12 Vertical Standards
Skill
Grade Current Proficiency Level Based on PK-12+ Developmental Standards
Level
Level (proficiency = performance meets ALL expectations at and below the rating)
Lowest
2
ACS. #1: Lacks well-elaborated events with description of events, thoughts, feelings
to 2 ACS. #2: Produces simple sentences that lacks correct capitalization and punctuation
ACS #1:Events explained with some details, uses words to signal event order
provides a sense of closure
ACS #2:Lacking command of conventions relating to dialogue, lacks compound
sentences
Median
5
ACS. #1: Writes narrative to establish situation that unfolds naturally; Provides a
conclusion that follows events
to 5
ACS. #2: Produces complete sentences; Lacks capitalization to start sentences
ACS #1: Writes narrative using detail and clear events, uses a variety of transitional
words, provides a conclusion that follows events
ACS #2: Write using correct sentence structure, lacking fragments or run-ons
Highest 6
ACS. #1: Writes narrative using effective techniques; Uses dialogue, pacing,
to 6
description, and transitions to convey writing; Provides fitting conclusion
ACS. #2: Writes using conjunctions, prepositions, and interjections
ACS #1: Writes narrative with naturally unfolding events, includes dialogue and
descriptions with talented word choice, provides conclusion with follows events with
feelings
ACS #2: Writes using conjunctions, prepositions, and interjections
Evidence sources: Short story narrative writing
Area to improve: All students need to write using standard English conventions to write simple and
compound sentences.
Student writing samples
Evidence sources: Fictional narrative writing
Improved use of dialogue, details from increased instruction
Most improved
Improved conventions from using Must Haves (poster in room listing conventions that
area:
must be included) and by editing as whole group
Improved self-motivation and excitement from students due to use of red pen

Most Significant Comparison Evidence of Improvements in Content Learning Outcomes


Specific comparisons are in Artifact E. These examples summarize evidence of greatest gains.
1. Before, 53% capable of writing short story at grade level and 60% capable of writing
description at grade level. Now 49% capable of writing fictional narrative at grade level. However,
percentages do not tell the entire story! The number and level of criteria on the assessment rubric
increased, so students were actually improving skills by at least one grade level from third-grade
previously to a solid grade 4 for low and median students, and grade 5 level for high students. Now the
expectations compare to standards and push students to their capabilities, rather than aiming for lower
expectations.
2. Before many students lacked ability to correctly punctuate their writing even though their
overall proficiency level was at grade 3. Now 33% write with fifth-grade level grammar conventions and
the other 67% have all shown measurable improvement.
3. Before, I included the narrative element of problem in the middle and used the term solution.
Now with research I teach the element of problem belongs in the beginning of a narrative, and I use the
term resolution.
Key Literacy Standards Guiding the Independent Targeted Learning Unit
Literacy Content Source
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts. (2011). Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/common-core/pdf/elastds-app-a-revision.pdf
Vertical Literacy Content Standards:
Wisconsin CCSS: Develop and strengthen writing, CCR Anchor Standard 5, page 35
Grade 3: With guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as
needed by planning, revising, and editing. (Editing for conventions should demonstrate command of
Language standards 13 up to and including grade 3 on page 29.)
Grade 4: With guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as
needed by planning, revising, and editing.(Editing for conventions should demonstrate command of
Language standards 13 up to and including grade 4 on page 29.)
Grade 5: With guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as
needed by planning, revising, editing, rewriting, or trying a new approach.(Editing for conventions should
demonstrate command of Language standards 13 up to and including grade 5 on page 29.)
Wisconsin CCSS: Use technology to produce and publish writing, CCR Anchor Standard 6, page 37
Grade 3: With guidance and support from adults, use technology to produce and publish writing
(using keyboarding skills) as well as to interact and collaborate with others.
Grade 4: With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including the Internet, to
produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient
command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of one page in a single sitting.
Grade 5: With some guidance and support from adults, use technology, including the Internet, to
produce and publish writing as well as to interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient
command of keyboarding skills to type a minimum of two pages in a single sitting.
Grade 6: Use technology, including the Internet, to produce and publish writing as well as to
interact and collaborate with others; demonstrate sufficient command of keyboarding skills to type a
minimum of three pages in a single sitting.

Table 9: Pre/Post Assessments of Literacy Skills Compared to PK-12 Vertical Standards


Skill
Grade Current Proficiency Level Based on PK-12+ Developmental Standards
Level
Level (proficiency = performance meets ALL expectations at and below the rating)
Lowest
Lit. Skills: Lacks grade 3 conventions with guidance and support, pre-write lacks
3
to 4
some detail
Lit. Conv.: Capable of typing to 1 page with some support and guidance
Lit. Skills: Strengthens writing to grade 3 standards
Lit. Conv.: Publishes narrative with some guidance and support
Median
Lit. Skills: Lacks grade 3 conventions with guidance and support, pre-write lacks
3
to 5
some detail
Lit. Conv.: Capable of typing one page in a setting with support and guidance
Lit. Skills: Strengthens writing to grade 5 standards
Lit. Conv.: Publishes narrative with some guidance and support
Highest 5
Lit. Skills: Meets grade 5 conventions, plans writing with detailed pre-write
Lit. Conv.: Capable of independently typing 2 pages in one sitting
to 5
Lit. Skills: Strengthens writing to grade 5 standards; my previous interpretations of
grade give standards was aiming too low.
Lit. Conv.: Publishes narrative independently
Evidence sources: Narrative writing, teacher observations
Area to improve: Grade-level writing conventions
Evidence sources: Fictional narrative writing pre-write, rough draft
Teacher observations of revising and editing
Teacher observations of publishing
Student interest in revising own writing
Most improved:
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Literacy Skills Outcomes
Specific comparisons are in Artifact E. These examples summarize evidence of greatest gains.
1. Before, it was hard for students to make their writing better during the revise/edit stage of the
writing process. Now, the majority of rough drafts have more than 10 revisions in red pen.
2. Before, students did not receive any written teacher feedback during the writing process. Now,
students benefit from receiving teacher feedback related to two questions they had about their writing.
3. Before, students completed their own pre-writes then moved onto rough draft without feedback
from others. Now, students conference with a partner after completing their pre-write to make their
writing better.

Artifact E: Comparison Examples of Lowest, Median, Highest Student Performance


Students had the task of writing a short story describing someone completing a difficult
task. Students were taught how to show their story with a beginning, middle, and end paragraphs
with specific elements of a narrative included in each part.
Whole Class Results, Pre-Assessment
On the rubric below, of my 42 students, scores were as follows:
Score of 4 1 student
Score of 3 27 students
Score of 2 13 students
Score of 1 1 student

Whole Class Results, Post Assessment


According to the rubric above (page 8), of my 43 students, narrative scores were as follows:
Score of 4 1 student
Score of 3 20 students
Score of 2 17 students
Score of 1 5 students
Whole class data ratings are lower due to a better understanding of what the expectations are for
grade five writing from my work with developmental assessment. The initial ratings would most
likely be shifted down one score due to my previous, unclear understanding of developmental
expectations.

Pre-Assessment, Low Sample

This student struggles to state the setting


and characters in the introduction of the
story. The problem and solution are
attempted, but lack clear, detailed
writing.

Post Assessment, Low Sample


This student states the problem, setting, and
characters, with an attempt to describe them,
in the introduction of the story, but lacks the
ability to clearly tell them like a story. The
body includes dialogue, but lacks a clear
sequence of events. The resolution is stated
but in a vague manner.

Pre-assessment, Median Sample


This student
meets
expectations by
writing an
introduction that
includes the
setting and
characters of the
story. The body
paragraph tells
the problem and
detailed events.
The conclusion
tells the solution
of the problem,
using dialogue
somewhere
within the story.

Post Assessment, Median Sample


This student clearly tells the setting,
characters, and problem with some
description in the introduction. The
body paragraph tells a short
sequence of events. The conclusion
tells the resolution of the problem
clearly with a creative question to
leave the reader thinking. Dialogue
and details are used throughout the
writing.

Pre-Assessment, High Sample

This student
exceeds
expectations by
giving an
introduction that
describes the
characters and
setting and
previews the
experience in an
interesting way.
The body
includes the
problem of the
story and events
with vivid details
and dialogue.
The conclusion
wraps up the
story telling the
solution and
overall feelings
about the
experience.

Pre, High, continued

Post Assessment, High Sample


This student
exceeds
expectations by
giving an
introduction that
that hooks the
reader by
describing the
4Ws using
creative word
choice and detail.
The body includes
a realistic sequence
of events with
vivid details and
dialogue. The
conclusion wraps
up the story telling
the resolution in a
unique way, as
well as including
feelings to support
a theme.

Post, High, Continued