WTS 8 Entry

Page 1

Improving Assessment
Monica Huibregtse
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry Documenting a Guided Learning Process for Wisconsin Teacher Standard 8
EDUW 693 Instructional Design and Assessment
Sara Heisler, Instructor
February 27, 2016

WTS 8 Entry

Page 2

Entry Introduction
One premise guiding EDUW 693 is that master teachers are continually learning to improve
instruction while they teach their students. With that premise in mind, this entry uses the seven steps of a
continual professional learning process as the organizational structure. To accommodate an introduction
to terms, elements, and skills associated with improving instruction via this process, outline format
accommodates documentation of essential learning related to Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS 8).
A Researched Process
for New Learning
1. Expand perspectives.
(Learning assumes the brain
recognizes new connections
beyond the familiarwhat
we already know and do.)
2. Pre-assess from evidence.
(Use an inductive reasoning
process to define an area(s)
most in need of
improvement: What to
learn? Those brain
connections begin with
analyzing data/evidence,
connecting like information
to interpret, and connecting
again to draw a conclusion)

Applied to Improving Instructional Effectiveness

as a Seven-step Professional Learning Process
1. Expand perspectives. (Standards and other expectations for educators
and education serve as a common starting point, representing collected
wisdom of the profession. Vanguard ideas offer another option exploring
new trends for improving educator effectiveness.)

3. Research (making new

connections)

3. Research/Learn from professional/credible sources for practical

answers/insights to improve targeted areas.

4. Plan (connect learning to

perception of realities)

4. Incorporate learning into an instructional plan. (Align 5 elements and

standards developmentally for appropriate challenges for capabilities.)

5. Try and gather evidence

(connect learning to world)

5. Implement plan and gather comparable a-b-c evidence from independent

student performance. (Continual developmental assessment!)

6. Post assess from evidence.

(Comparisons to connect:
What was learned?
What remains to learn?)
7. Reflect
(Strengthen desired brain
connections for future
recall.)

6. Post-assess developmentally from a-b-c evidence.

(Valid developmental assessment requires evidence that provides direct
comparisons of a-b-c evidence from multiple perspectives.)

2. Assess current abilities developmentally from true, valid, relevant

evidence. (Determine areas to improve compared to standards for
educators and student learning. Assess three types of evidence:
(a) teaching knowledge/attitudes/ practices based on educator standards
(b) whole-class and lowest-median-highest student performance based
on academic standards that guide subject learning, and literacy standards
that guide tasks to prove learning
(c) student participation and learning environment evidence
(observations, ongoing student feedback, anonymous student surveys, etc).
Reason inductively from assessment conclusions to define an area most
in need of improvement for an inquiry topic.)

7. Reflect. Process the entire learning experience from two perspectives:

(a) Teacher-as-Learner (learning to improve instruction):
What actions/attitudes worked best/least to learn efficiently and
effectively? What are my next steps for improving how I learn?
(b) Teacher: What practices worked best/least for my students? What
are my next steps for improving how I teach?

WTS 8 Entry

Page 3

LEARNING STEP 1: Expand perspectives based on educator and student standards.

The essential question for this guided learning process: How do I improve instructional
assessment to achieve each students developmental capabilities through confident and
independently competent learning?
Three types of standards guide teacher improvement in this learning process:

Wisconsin Teacher Standards (WTS) guide instructional improvement.

Academic Performance Standards guide content learning in each subject.

Wisconsin Literacy Standards for All Subjects guide communication of learning.

Educator Standards: Wisconsin Standards for Teacher Development and Licensure

Source: Wisconsin DPI website at http://tepdl.dpi.wi.gov/resources/teacher-standards
Areas emphasized during EDUW 693 are preceded by a rather than a symbol.
Wisconsin Teacher Standard (WTS) 8: Teachers know how to test for student progress.
The teacher understands and uses formal and informal assessment strategies to evaluate
and ensure the continuous intellectual, social, and physical development of the learner.
Knowledge
The teacher understands the characteristics, uses, advantages, and limitations of
different types of assessments (e.g. criterion-referenced and norm-referenced instruments,
traditional standardized and performance-based tests, observation systems, and assessments of
student work) for evaluating how students learn, what they know and are able to do, and what
kinds of experiences will support their further growth and development.
The teacher knows how to select, construct, and use assessment strategies and
instruments appropriate to the learning outcomes being evaluated and to other diagnostic purposes.
The teacher understands measurement theory and assessment-related issues, such as
validity, reliability, bias, and scoring concerns.
Dispositions
The teacher values ongoing assessments as essential to the instructional process and
recognizes that many different assessment strategies, accurately and systematically used, are
necessary for monitoring and promoting student learning.
The teacher is committed to using assessment to identify student strengths and promote
student growth rather than to deny students access to learning opportunities.
Performances
The teacher appropriately uses a variety of formal and informal assessment techniques
(e.g. observation, portfolios of student work, teacher-made tests, performance tasks, projects,

WTS 8 Entry

Page 4

student self-assessments, peer assessment, and standardized tests) to enhance her or his
knowledge of learners, evaluate students progress and performances, and modify teaching and
learning strategies.
The teacher solicits and uses information about students' experiences learning behavior,
needs, and progress from parents, other colleagues, and the students themselves.
The teacher uses assessment strategies to involve learners in self-assessment activities,
to help them become aware of their strengths and needs, and to encourage them to set personal
goals for learning.
The teacher evaluates the effect of class activities on both individuals and the class as a
whole, collecting information through observation of classroom interactions, questioning, and
analysis of student work.
The teacher monitors his or her own teaching strategies and behavior in relation to
student success, modifying plans and instructional approaches accordingly.
The teacher maintains useful records of student work and performance and can
communicate student progress knowledgeably and responsibly, based on appropriate indicators,
to students, parents, and other colleagues.
Student Standards for Academic Performance
Academic Performance Standards Guiding Content Learning
See Artifact B for targeted academic standards guiding the targeted learning unit.
Literacy Standards Guiding Communication of Learning
See Artifact B for literacy standards guiding the targeted learning unit.
LEARNING STEP 2: Pre-assess. Assess current educator effectiveness and student outcomes
based on evidence compared to educator and academic performance standards. Reason
inductively from that evidence to define area(s) most in need of improvement.
See Artifact B for student performance pre-assessments.
Pre-assessment Analysis Conclusion and Essential Question to Guide Research
The general essential question guiding this learning process: How do I improve
instructional assessment to achieve each students developmental capabilities? The inductive
reasoning visual on the next page shows a pre-assessment analysis, interpretation, and the
resulting inquiry question more specifically suited to my areas to improve.

WTS 8 Entry

Page 5

Reasoning Inductively to a Valid Inquiry Question Based on Assessed Evidence

1. Analysis
Gathered Data for Analysis, Grouped by Type of Evidence:
Key Idea Representing
Areas to improve transferred from each pre-assessment.
Each Area to Improve
Instructional Area to Improve (first underlined WTS 8 descriptor):
Knowledge/practices for
The teacher uses assessment strategies to involve learners in selfassessment activities, to help them become aware of their strengths nonverbal learners.

and needs, and to encourage them to set personal goals for

learning.
Instructional Area to Improve (second underlined WTS 8 descriptor):

Focus on quality/not quantity.

The teacher monitors his or her own teaching strategies and

behavior in relation to student success, modifying plans and
instructional approaches accordingly.
Setting Appropriate Instructional Outcomes (Table 1 )
Diverse Formative
Area to Improve: Balance
Assessments
Teacher Assessment Practices (Table 2)
Self-assessment procedures
Area to improve: Student self-assessment and monitoring of progress
for limited language learners.
Student Assessment Practices (Table 3).
Appropriate and clear criteria
Area to improve: Criteria
2. Interpretation: Group key idea words into one/two focus topics.
Receptive self-assessment procedures in addition to repeated directions and clear expectations of learning
targets.
3. Draw a Conclusion:

The general question guiding professional growth for this process: How do I improve
assessment to achieve each students developmental capabilities through confident and
independently competent learning?
The specific inquiry question that emerged from my pre-assessments: What measures can
be given to identify what type of assessments to give when assessing students with limited
language abilities?

LEARNING STEP 3: Research professional sources to find practical answers.

To focus on learning to apply the 7-step learning process for instructional improvement,
this research section uses key words and phrases in outline format to summarize inquiry findings.
Introduction
Formative assessments are a daily practice for teachers. There are many students at
differing level of abilities. Therefore, there needs to be multiple types of formative assessments.
Some students are not able to write, read, or even stay engaged for more than five minutes.

WTS 8 Entry

Page 6

Different strategies and delivery models of formative assessment are needed, and therefore, drive
the question: How do I best assess all types of learners?
Research Summary:
Source #1: When in doubt, bring in the team.
Danielson (2014) encouraged collaboration of an IEP team when determining instruction
or assessment design. The IEP team can help determine what type of assessment will be the most
successful and give the truest view of student performance.
When in doubt on how to plan instruction or assessments, meet with other team
professionals and discuss.
Review pre-test data to identify the ending learning target.
Build bridge content to close the gap.
Perhaps use a bridge visual to show students their learning progression.
Example: Every third week speech therapist comes in on indirect week to discuss
program carryover.
Source #2. Am I expecting too much and too fast?
Saunders (2001) explained that a teacher can assess student performance level by using a
formal assessment tool that will give the teacher an idea of what type of formal assessments to
use during instruction.
Engagement and sustaining attention to a task is usually the issue, but what if it isnt?
ABLA is a test to use to determine auditory, visual, or any other issues in assessment.
Learn to communicate effectively and eliminate what is appearing to be behavior.
Plan to assess both students in group to determine best assessment process.
TEMA & TERA Test of Early Mathematical Abilities and Test of Early Reading
Abilities can be used to help identify academic levels.
Source #3 Shouldnt assessment be documented?
The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2014) identified formative assessment
as verbal, worksheets, observations and more.
Formative assessments help assess the speed limit of the students learning highway.
Examples: Charting in my classroom, chart verbal prompts.
Provides feedback for all students.
Differentiate formative assessments.
Source #4 How far can instruction differentiate before it strays too far from the learning
target?
Stiggins (2005) explained that in order to make proper accommodations, a student must
be properly assessed. How far can instruction differentiate before it strays too far from the
learning target?
The goal of education is to take each individual student as far as he or she can go by
determining what learning style suits them best.
Document the assessments that show a true picture of the childs abilities.

WTS 8 Entry

Page 7

Try changing lighting, and minimize distractions.

Dont bother collecting data that isnt reflective of full potential: repeating what we
already know.
Find out where each student is get an expected range of how far I can take them toward
the goal. For the lower student, pull out the most basic, functional skill that is as closely
related to the ending goal.

Source #5: Standardized tests are okay to use without parent permission if not used for
diagnostic purposes.
Tomlinson (2014) explained that standardized tests ok to use without parent permission if
not used for diagnostic purpose.
Teachers are encouraged to use an assessment tool that is designed for the students
functional age equivalent.
Additionally, using an assessment that is at the functional and academic level of the
student may increase student confidence.
Using preschool diagnostic testing as a formal tool to assess exact level and can correlate
to early learning standards for goals.
Create portfolio of informal assessments: untestable doesnt mean not assessable.
Document best formative assessments.
Conclusion:
Formative assessments can be more than just worksheets. Formative assessments can be
as simple as observation of student work and student responses. Formative assessments can be
modified for students with exceptional disabilities as well. The key to formative assessment is to
learn how students learn best. Formative assessment does not always mean student evidence.
It may be verbal data that is collected, and then kept in a written, teacher-created document or
electronic document.
Research Implications for Implementation in Planning and Instruction
The essential question guiding professional growth for this process: How do I improve
assessment to achieve each students developmental capabilities through confident and
independently competent learning?
My specific inquiry question: What measures can be given to identify what type of
assessments to give when assessing students with limited language abilities?

WTS 8 Entry

Page 8

Answers/insights from research and course learning that I plan to apply in planning and
instruction for my targeted learning unit:
1. Meet with occupational therapist, speech therapist, and physical therapist to determine
student goal, which is an additional meeting for instructional planning that is not normally
routine.
2. Keep more data to assess how well I am closing the gap.
3. Work from vertical standards.
4. Make sure the room is quiet.
5. Slow down the pacing to allow processing time.
My specific inquiry question: What measures can be given to identify what type of
assessments to give when assessing students with limited language abilities?
Answers/insights from research and course learning that I plan to apply in planning and
instruction for my targeted learning unit: Some of the answers that I came up with that I plan to
apply in planning and instruction are what Im doing right now for this entry. I plan to dissect my
students capabilities by using the 7-step learning process. In doing so, an accurate assessment of
my students abilities and capabilities can be determined. I plan to use the information I gather
from this process to determine my formative and summative assessments. The insights and
information I will gain from the 7-step process to determine students abilities and capabilities
will lead me to more effective instructional practices.
LEARNING STEP 4: Incorporate learning into a plan.
See Artifact A for evidence of incorporating assessment learning into lesson planning.

WTS 8 Entry

Page 9

LEARNING STEP 5: Implement plan and gather educator and student evidence.
Evidence gathered during implementation included whole-class and a lowest, median,
and highest formative task sample. In addition, evidence included significant differentiation with
lower functioning student included reducing choices to two. Instead of asking find Marshfield,
the prompt had to be Find M. Evidence gathered included post-test rubric, worksheet, digital
recording of instruction, teacher observation, formative worksheets and response cards with
written notes and observation.
LEARNING STEP 6: Assess teacher/student evidence compared to pre-assessment results
See Artifact A for post assessment information related to teacher evidence. See Artifact
B for post assessment information related to student evidence.
LEARNING STEP 7: Reflection of entire learning process from two perspectives
Teacher-as-Learner Perspective
Most significant insight, attitude, or practice that worked best for more efficient and
effective learning on my part in comparison to my previous learning process: Learning to preassess has been most beneficial. Setting learning targets were easy, but assessing the prerequisite skills needed in order to achieve the learning target was something that needed to be
addressed before the lessons could take place. For example, before assessing understanding of
identifying the students city and state, a general understanding of what a city and state are was
needed before the unit could be taught. Therefore, learning about step 2 was most beneficial in
this specific process.
Teacher-as-Learner Perspective
My next logical learning step(s) to achieve more efficient and effective learning as an
educator: To achieve more efficient and effective learning, assessing the students auditory,

WTS 8 Entry

Page 10

visual, cognitive and fine motor skills needs to be considered and planned for before planning the
initial unit. Also, learning to create engagement by using different forms of formative
assessments and multi-sensory approaches have intrigued me to further pursue and independent
study of best teacher practices for students with significant disabilities. I have learned
meaningful learning cannot take place without engagement. Step 3 was specifically helpful for
me in addition to step 1. This process has allowed me continuously reflect on my teaching
practices and has given me a guide to reference when Im searching for clarity.
Teacher Perspective
Most significant insight, attitude, or practice that worked best to improve student outcomes
in this learning unit in comparison to previous outcomes: In the past, quantity seemed to supersede
quality. By reflecting on my practice over the last few weeks, and evaluating my instructional
video, Ive learned that I need to slow down the pace of my instruction and assess for engagement
before proceeding in my teaching. Example: making sure students are making eye contact, making
sure students know what is expected of them.
Teacher Perspective
My next logical learning step(s) for improving teaching practices to benefit student learning:
Proper planning techniques will be my next step in improving my teaching practices. I need to have
written plans, and a schedule set up on the board for the students (pictures included next to the
printed schedule) to show the students the sequence of activity and create predictability, which sets
them up for a better learning experience essentially leading to more meaningful learning. My lessons
will be planned with more tactile activities to promote engagement as well. In addition, including a
positive reinforcer more frequently throughout the lesson proved to be successful in keeping students
engaged.

WTS 8 Entry

Page 11

Research References
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, C. (2014). Special ed scenarios, extended examples of levels of performance in
special education (2014). Retrieved from https://danielsongroup.org/special-education/
Heisler, S. (2013). Write teaching. Retrieved with password and username write1 from
MY SMU to Blackboard site at http://www.smumn.edu
Pennsylvania Department of Education Standards Aligned System. (n.d.). Possible framework
for how the framework for teaching could apply to early childhood teachers. Retrieved
from http://static.pdesas.org/content/documents/8_13_13_FINAL_ECE_Rubric%20
Formatted%2010_28_13%20revised.pdf
Saunders, M. D. (2001). Who's getting the message? Teaching Exceptional Children, 33.4, 7074. Retreived from http://ezproxy.smumn.edu.xxproxy.smumn.edu/login?url
=http://search.ebscohost. com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=keh&AN=4890718&site=eds-]
live
Stiggins, R. (2005). Assessment for learning defined Retrieved from http://ati.pearson.com/
downloads/afldefined.pdf
Tomlinson, C. (2014). Using assessments thoughtfully. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/
publications/educational-leadership/mar14/vol71/num06/The-Bridge-Between-Today'sLesson-and-Tomorrow's.aspx

WTS 8 Entry

Page 12

Artifact A: Pre- and Post-Assessment of Teacher Evidence and Related Improvements

LS 2, 4: Danielsons Framework for Teaching (Wisconsin Educator Effectiveness System)
Descriptors in each cell paraphrase Danielson Framework for Teaching assessment descriptors
from the 2007 version. Underlined comparison words in each descriptor show pre-assessment ratings.
Italicized comparisons or added words show post assessment ratings.
Unchanged ratings or descriptors that are both underlined and italicized generally represent
improvements within the same developmental range as the pre-assessment.
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,
P
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.
and
3. {No/some/most/all} outcomes connect to a sequence of learning in the discipline.
alignment
4. {No/some/most/all} outcomes connect to a sequence of learning in related disciplines.
Clarity
P
1. Outcomes are not clear or are stated as activitiesOR Outcomes are {moderately
To P
clear/are clear/are clear and written in the form of student learning}.
2. {No/some/most/all}outcomes permit viable methods of assessment.
Balance
B
1. {Choose ONE sentence}: Outcomes reflect only one type of learning and only one
to P
discipline or strandOR Outcomes reflect several different types of learning, but no
attempt to coordinate or integrate disciplinesOR Outcomes reflect several types of
learning and opportunities for coordination and integration of disciplines or strands.
Suitability
P
1. Outcomes are not suitable for the class or are not based on any assessment of students
for diverse
to P
needsOR {Most/all} outcomes are suitable for most/all students in the class and based
learners
on assessment of students needsOR Outcomes are suitable for all students and
based on global assessments of student learning/evidence of student proficiency.
2. Needs of very few/some/most/all individual students or groups are accommodated.
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans from January
Area to improve:
Balance
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans from the end of January and digital instructional video
Most improved area:
Balance
Most Significant Evidence in Designing Appropriate Outcomes
1. Pre: In the area of Balance, I tend to focus on getting the task done and sometimes the students arent
totally engaged. I need to focus on balancing quality and quantity. Post: Students appeared more engaged and
cooperated when instruction was slowed to an easier, less strenuous pace.
2. Pre: More lesson planning overlap Post: Lessons for the week included spatial concepts to include
mathematical overlap.
3. Pre: Have at least two different assessment types. Post: Students were assessed using assistive
technology, response cards, teacher observation, and a summative assessment worksheet.

WTS 8 Entry

Page 13

Table 2: Pre- and Post-assessment of Teacher 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
B
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 to
2. Teacher {does not/sometimes/always} monitors progress of whole class (basic) and
student learning
To P
groups (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
P
1. Teachers feedback to students is {poor quality and untimely/uneven quality and
students
To P
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 selfU
1. Students {do not/occasionally/frequently} assess and monitor the quality of their
assessment and
To P
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 01/11/2016 and teacher observations.
Area to improve:
The area I could improve in is Student Self-Assessment.
Evidence sources:
Digital recording of instruction from 01/18/2016 and teacher observations.
Most improved area:
Student self-assessment and monitoring of progress.
Most Significant Evidence in Designing Effective Assessment Practices
1. Approximate overall % of student learning/engagement observed by teacher during
(a) teacher-guided formative assessments in classroom. Pre: 80% student one 50% student 2 Post: 80% and 70%.
(b) independent formative assessments in classroom. Pre: 60% student one 0%student 2 . Post: 90% and 0%.
(c) formative peer assessments in classroom. Pre: N/A. Post: N/A.
2. Approximate % completion for assessments assigned as homework. Pre: N/A. Post: N/A.
3. Overall accuracy in self-assessing using criteria or assessment tools. Pre: N/A. Post: N/A.
4. Understanding formative assessment as a valuable learning strategy. Pre: N/A. Post: N/A.
Table 3: Pre- and Post-assessment of Student Assessment Practices Related to Formative Assessment
These attributes represent descriptors in action from WTS 8 and the Danielson Framework.
Rating options: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished
Element
Rating Questions to consider in rating current performance and defining skills to improve
Criteria
U
Students {do not recognize/recognize} various levels of challenge in the action words
To P
included in objectives and assessment criteria. (Meaning: criteria written as action + topic
words. Action words are Blooms Taxonomy or thinking pattern words or their synonyms.)
Without guidance, students {cannot/can} name expectations for each learning step.
For a task, students {can/cannot} explain the lines (measures) between unacceptable
(below proficiency range), essentially proficient (D/C), and fully proficient (B/A)?
Rating
U to
During assessment, students know it is {possible, sometimes possible, not possible} to be
System
B
lacking or missing expectations in one area and still earn ratings equivalent to A/B.
By the end of an instructing a learning objective, students {cannot/can sometimes/can}
assess, measure and rate performance as accurately as the teacher.
Monitoring
P
{None/some/most/all} students participate willingly in formative assessment.
To P
{None/some/most/all/} students know mistakes are inevitable while learning, and their
job is to create a comfortable environment to help each other learn to proficiency.
Students {have never been asked/tend to answer emotionally (by like and dont
like)/answer quickly and objectively} to provide evidence and ideas for improvement
when teacher solicits info about what worked best and what did not to achieve objectives.

WTS 8 Entry

Feedback

P
To P

Studentinitiated
Assessment

B
To B

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

Page 14

Students use {personal opinions/emotional thinking /subject terminology and assessment

criteria} to question ratings and frame discussions/questions while learning a topic.
Students would {probably disagree/agree} that the teacher maintains useful records of
student work and performance and can communicate student progress understandably.
{Class and/or groups and/or individuals} receive {no/rare/some/continual} immediate
feedback at each mini-step of learning to confirm learning or correct learning.
Students {do not/do} work as a learning team. (In other words, students know the goal is
to get it, and if they are trying and dont get it, their teacher accepts responsibility for
finding a method that works.)
Students {do not/sometimes/do} consider continual informal and formal formative
assessments as not only beneficial, but necessary for successful learning.
Before deadlines, students {do not/sometimes/do} ask for additional formative
assessments if unsure of performance or to ensure performance meets high expectations,
Students {do not/sometimes/do} take responsibility for their own formative assessments
and try to evaluate objectively as independent or team learners.
Digital recording on 01/11/2016 and teacher observations.
Criteria
Digital recording on 01/18/2016 and teacher observations.
Criteria

Most Significant Evidence of Student Practices Related to Formative Assessment

1. Pre: One student appears to lose focus frequently. Post: One student still struggles with focus and
attending, other student was completely engaged.
2. Pre: A lot of time is spent on re-direction, disrupting the flow of the lesson. Post: Due to the need of one
student, the lessons were taught as a group and reinforced in a one on one session with each student two times this
week.
3. Pre: There werent many instances for students to interact in their learning. Post: Students interacted and
played games to enhance learning.

Evidence of Improved Assessment and Planning

LS 2: Typical Formative Assessment Criteria/Tool and Methods Before Learning Process
Fill in the blanks, multiple choice, response cards, pre-test rubric.
LS 4: Improved Formative Assessment Criteria/Tool and Method
Student will self-assess by responding verbally to questions: Is this correct? Is this your
last name? Is this Marshfield? Student will self-assess by answering yes/no questions via iPad
communication software or sign language in addition to find ___.
LS 4: Summative Task/Assessment for Entire Learning Unit
Students will draw a line to match the picture question to the printed response in a choice
of four.
LS 4: Improved Planning Related to Assessment
Targeted Subject: Life Skills
Topic: City/State/First/Last Name Identification
Length of Entire Learning Unit: 2 weeks
Quarter: 3
Students Age/Grade Level: 5 and 9 grades Kindergarten and Third
Lesson Plan Source: Self-Created

WTS 8 Entry

Page 15

LS 4: Evidence of Aligning Essential Assessment Elements in Learning Plan

What to learn?
[objective(s)/action word + content/topic]
(start w/thinking pattern/Blooms word)
COMPREHENSION by responding and
choosing KEY Starting Objective(s):
Responds purposefully to verbal statement
and/or chooses a purposeful answer in a
multiple choice arrangement.

How to learn?
[process]
(omit for now)
Figure out how lowfunctioning students
self-assess .

KEY Formative Objective(s) for Step 1 (FO1):

COMPREHENSION by generalizing:
Generalizes concept/or idea of city and states.

COMPREHENSION by recognizing and

identifyingFO2: Recognizes that student (and
people in general) has/have a first and last
name. If this step is mastered, students will
then identify their own first and last name.

APPLICATION by understanding
and applying: Key SLOs at END of
ENTIRE UNIT: Students will

understand and apply (basic)

concepts to:
ANALYSIS by producing:
Produce a line by drawing to
match the picture question to the
printed response in a choice of
four.
ANALYSIS by writing: Student 2
will demonstrate basic writing
skills by forming letters in print
when given a defined space.
COMPREHENSION by
identifying: Student 2 will also
verbally identify his last and first
name as well as his city and state.

Find generalized
ways to assess for
comprehension(assess
the skill out of normal
context)

Find multiple ways

for students to
respond besides
pencils and paper.

Evidence of Learning?
[product + assessment]
(task + assessment method)
T = Understand that a verbal answer is expected
when the talk card is held. Understand that its time
to write when the written prompt card is shown.
A=Student will color with a crayon and circle the
choice asked (with the answer being something she
knows) when write prompt card is held up. Student
will make beginning utterance when speak card is
shown.
FT = Students will watch short video clips about
different cities.
A= When shown two pictures (one being an object
and the other being a picture of a city) student will
identify which picture shows a city by pointing.
When shown pictures of common places in their
own city, student will respond with yes or no if the
picture is showing their city.
FT = Showing objects and/or flashcards of people
and objects, students will say whether the given
picture or object has a first and last name.
A= Through observation and charting,
documentation will be collected on whether or not
the student demonstrates understanding that a person
has a first and last name. If this task is mastered,
student s will then identify their own first and last
name verbally or identifying it in print when given a
choice of 3.
Sum. Task: Matching Worksheet. Student 2 will
answer verbally when asked by another teacher what
his last name is as well as his city and state.
Summative Assessment Method: Corrected
worksheet by teacher only. Students will be handed
back assessment within 10 minutes of taking
assessment and will be reviewed as a small group.
Verbal question for student 2.

WTS 8 Entry

Page 16

Artifact B: Pre- and Post-Assessment of Student Performance Evidence

Targeted Subject: SE Life Skills. Topic: Responding with oral/written sentences about. Task: Create
appropriate responses visually, orally and/or in writing up to a five-word sentence. Targeting only two
students: K student at Age 2-3 level, and Grade 3 student at approximately K level.
LS 1: ELA Academic Performance Standards Guiding Content Learning (specific learning target)
Targeted descriptor in vertical alignment representing range of thinking abilities to
capabilities
Source of academic standards in vertical format: CCSS for ELA/Wisconsin Literacy for All
Subjects Standards. Vertical format at https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/cal/pdf/las-stds.pdf.
Foundational Skills: Print Concepts College and Career Readiness (CCR) Anchor Standard 1: n/a Grade
(PRE-LOW, PRE-HIGH, POST-LOW). Kindergarten Demonstrate understanding of the
organization and basic features of print. a. Follow words from left to right, top to bottom, and page by page.
b. Recognize that spoken words are represented in written language by specific sequences of letters. c.
Understand that words are separated by spaces in print. d. Recognize and name all upper- and lowercase
letters of the alphabet.
(POST-HIGH). Grade 1 Demonstrate understanding of the organization and basic features of
print. a. Recognize the distinguishing features of a sentence (e.g., first word, capitalization, ending
punctuation).
Evidence: The group consists of two students. The lowest level is age 3 to 4 years old and the
highest current performance level is age 5.
Targeted proficiency range: Age 6/ grade 1
Expectations to Differentiate: Students may formulate a sentence by arranging word cards and/or
identifying answers in print by selecting from a group of no more than three choices on a notecard.
Students may also be given a one word sentence starter in order to prompt a five word sentence response.
Targeted descriptor in vertical alignment representing range of thinking abilities to
capabilities
Source of literacy standards in vertical format: Compiled from Wisconsin Model Early Learning
Standards (http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/fscp/pdf/ec-wmels-rev2013.pdf) and Wisconsin
Literacy for All Subjects Standards. Vertical format at https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/cal/pdf/
las-stds.pdf.
Expectations related to generating ideas to create a three- to five-word sentence response:
Targeted descriptor in vertical alignment to represent range of student abilities to capabilities:
Early Literacy and CCSS for ELA, combined descriptors.
(PRE-LOW, POST-LOW). C.EL, Row 4, Age 2-3: Generates a key answer word(s).
(PRE-HIGH-POST-HIGH). C.EL, Row 5, Age 3-4: Generates an appropriate subject-action
word(s) to answer question.
C.EL, Row 6, Age 4-5: Generates a subject-verb-object/descriptor word to answer question.
C.EL, Row 7, Age 5-6/Kindergarten: Generates appropriate noun, pronoun, plurals, simple verb
tense to answer question with a five-word sentence. (ELA, Kindergarten: With prompting and support, ask
and answer questions about key details in a text.)
C.Grade 1: Generates appropriate parts of speech to answer question with 5+-word sentence or
multiple simple sentences. (ELA: Grade 1: Ask and answer questions about key details in a text..
Evidence: See student samples. The group consists of two students. The lowest level is age 3 to
4 years old and the highest current performance level is age 5.

WTS 8 Entry

Page 17

Targeted proficiency range: Age 6/ grade 1

Expectations to Differentiate: Students may formulate a sentence by arranging word cards and/or
identifying answers in print by selecting from a group of no more than three choices on a notecard.
Students may also be given a one word sentence starter in order to prompt a five-word sentence response.
LS 1: Literacy Standards Guiding Communication of Learning
Targeted descriptor in vertical alignment to represent range of student abilities to
capabilities: Early Literacy and CCSS for ELA, combined descriptors.
Source of literacy standards in vertical format: Compiled from Wisconsin Model Early Learning
Standards (http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/fscp/pdf/ec-wmels-rev2013.pdf) and Wisconsin
Literacy for All Subjects Standards. Vertical format at https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/cal/pdf/
las-stds.pdf.
Expectations for written responses:
C.EL, Row 3, Age 1-2: W: Crude scribbles.
C.EL, Row 4, Age 2-3: W: Purposeful scribbles. Recognizes written letters vs. numbers vs.
symbols.
(PRE-LOW). C.EL, Row 5, Age 3-4: W: Recognizable drawings. Recognizes written
letters/numbers, name.
(PRE-HIGH. POST-LOW, POST-HIGH). C.EL, Row 6, Age 4-5: W: Writes recognizable
letters/numbers, spelling phonetically (letter matches sound).
C.EL, Row 7, Age 5-6/Kindergarten: W: Writes at least 6 decipherable words, 2 phrases, or a
complete sentence with correct letters/numbers, letters match dominant sounds phonetically, capitalizes I
and known names.
C.Grade 1: Names, city, day/month capitals, end punctuation, saying/spelling high-frequency words
Evidence: See student samples. Lowest student in group is at about a 2 year old age level and the
highest level of the group is about age 3 to 4.
Targeted proficiency range: Age 5 & Kindergarten
Expectations to Differentiate: Differentiated Expectation: Lowest student may also have one- to
two-word sentence starters. (Differentiate Process: Accommodations may include assistive technology to
communicate through use of iPad communication software.)
Targeted descriptor in vertical alignment to represent range of student abilities to
capabilities: Early Literacy and CCSS for ELA, combined descriptors.
Source of literacy standards in vertical format: Compiled from Wisconsin Model Early Learning
Standards (http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/fscp/pdf/ec-wmels-rev2013.pdf) and Wisconsin
Literacy for All Subjects Standards. Vertical format at https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/cal/pdf/
las-stds.pdf.
Expectations related to oral responses:
C.EL, Row 3, Age 1-2: O/L: Pays attention to speech (student is not at higher level because it
takes a lot of prompting to initiate eye contact which then results in paying attention to speech); responds to
simple requests.
(PRE-LOW, POST-LOW). C.EL, Row 4, Age 2-3: O/L: Understands speech, one-step
directions, takes turns, uses gestures, and responds with sounds/single words. (Student is not at next level
because she is unable to respond to two step directions, or communicate in phrases even through assistive
technology or sign language.)
(PRE-HIGH, POST-HIGH). C.EL, Row 5, Age 3-4: O/L: Listens and responds to two-step
directions. Speaks words clearly in relevant phrases, some discernable sentences. (Student is not at the next
level because he cannot speak clearly and in sentences.)

WTS 8 Entry

Page 18

C.EL, Row 6, Age 4-5: O/L: Responds to speech, three-step directions. Speaks words clearly in
understandable sentences/phrases, using plurals and simple verb tenses. Non-verbal skills developing.
C.EL, Row 7, Age 5-6/Kindergarten: O/L: Responds orally to simple directions and conversation
with appropriate nouns, pronouns, plurals, simple verb tenses, and nonverbal language.
C.Grade 1: O/L Responds orally to simple directions and conversation with appropriate sentences.
Evidence: See student samples. Lowest student is at about age 1 to 2. Highest level student is
about age 4 to 5
Targeted proficiency range: Age 6/Grade 1
Expectations to Differentiate: Re-direction, reduced choices, given response cards in place of
expressive language.
LS 2: Pre-assessment Information: The students included in this life skills group include a
kindergarten student of Indian background. Language is a barrier in addition to his disability (Down
syndrome). His functional level is between a 2-9 year old depending on the skill. The other student in the
group is a third grade girl with Down syndrome who functions at about a 2-5 year old level depending on
the skill. The students were questioned verbally and/or asked to identify the answer to the skill questions
by pointing to an index card with the answer when given a choice of three. (Ex: What state do you live
in?)
LS 5: Post Assessment Information: Students took an assessment that was read aloud to them.
One student completed the entire assessment on his own; the other needed maximal prompting and
reduction in choices. Its important to note that her attention and vision seemed exceptionally off the last
two days of the unit.

WTS 8 Entry

Page 19

LS 2: Pre-assessment: Lowest Formative Assessment Performance Sample: This is a sample of the

data collected on the pre-assessment of this unit. I asked the students questions verbally to assess prior
knowledge. With the student who could not speak, she chose her answers on the iPad or via response card
in print with a choice of 3 answers.
On the pre-test, the student
On the post test, the student

LS 6: Post Assessment: Lowest Formative Assessment Performance Sample

Differentiated objectives, process, product, assessment: The way in which the lesson is presented
was remediated to one student in this group. Language was significantly decreased to short, slow phrases.
Work produced will be choosing from multiple choice rather than using a pencil and paper to produce
work. The product expected is different for the reason that expressive language is not applicable. The
product the other student will produce is verbal responses and written responses. The product the other
low-functioning student will produce will be correct answers identified through multiple choice.
Measurable progress: Student can identify her first in last name in print when her attention and
engagement is on for the day. However, when assessed another day when her attention and engagement
is lacking, she chooses and answer without looking and is uncooperative. It is believed that she can
identify her city, state, first and last name if asked, find ___.
Remaining proficiency gaps: If stated as find your last name, she is unable to produce the
answer. She also does not appear to generalize the idea of what a city is and what a state is. The
summative assessment below was done with maximum prompting and guidance.

WTS 8 Entry

Page 20

LS 2: Pre-assessment: Highest Formative Assessment Performance Sample: This is a formative

work sample from a student who has Down syndrome, is six years old, but can read at a third-grade level.
He has language barriers and his functional level is that of a two-year-old.

On the pre-test, this student

On the post test, this student

LS 6: Post Assessment: Highest Formative Assessment Performance Sample

Differentiated objectives, content, process, product, assessment: Did not need to differentiate
from lesson plan at all for this student!
Measurable progress: Student definitely understands the concept of a city and a state, and firmly
identifies his city and state.
Remaining proficiency gaps: None in this area.