3-Grade Students’ Curriculum-Based Assessment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Assessments play a critical role in the learning and development of students. Assessments are used by teachers to help them gain insights into the depth of knowledge levels (DOK) (Biggs, 2008). Secondly, assessments are used as instruments of gauging the achievement of students at certain points of the curriculum. There two main types of assessments, formative and summative. Formative assessment involves a process evaluation in which the teacher appraises the academic progress during the course. On the other hand, summative assessment is the evaluation that takes place after the completion of learning. The main focus of summative assessments is to determine the appropriateness of the instructional programs at the end of the academic period (Stecker, Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005). According to Biggs (2008), the summative assessment helps to evaluate the competence of each student after a specified period. This paper is a curriculum-based summative assessment that targets to determine the depth of knowledge (DOK) level of grade 3 students in reading, writing, comprehending language, speaking, and listening.

Pre-assessment Description

Pre-assessment occurs at the start of the learning process. It is used to provide the information that is required to regulate the learning process and the teaching practice. Pre-assessments provide information about what students know about a particular topic and their preparedness to start new instructions (Woodley & Furguson, 2003). They elicit information that relates to the students’ readiness to learn the intended skills and concepts. Biggs (2008) noted that pre-assessments help instructors to determine the learning capacity of the students. As a result, pre-assessments provide a good platform for designing a summative assessment.

Objectives

The current curriculum is based on Common Core Standards for English Language Arts (ELA), which set guidelines for English language literacy, history, social sciences, and technical subjects. The students being assessed have different needs. For instance, there are students with specific learning disabilities. One student has the problem of reading and math. The other student suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Based on the class composition, the objectives of the curriculum include:

The students should appropriately read, write, speak, and listen in the fourth week of the course.
At the end of the course, the students should be able to closely and attentively read texts in a manner that helps them to understand and enjoy complex stories and literature.
The learning units should equip students with skills in evidence collection and the ability to reason critically.
The student with specific learning disabilities should be able to match the learning pace of the other students through an Individualized Education Program (IEP).

Determination of How Learning Occurred before Summative Assessment

The determination of how learning occurred prior to summative assessment was based on pre-assessment. According to Woodley and Furguson (2003), pre-assessments help instructors to gauge the level of learning and hence prepare the next step during the learning period. The pre-assessments included teacher prepared tests, writing prompts, and show of hands to determine to understand. In addition, there were continuous interactive sessions with students. During the interaction sessions, the students were asked general questions related to the intended learning outcome. This served as the basis for collecting information on the students’ progress. Other pre-assessment practices entailed tasks such as asking the students to carry out simple presentations in class that relate to what they have learned.

Instructional Strategies

After the fourth week of learning, it was imperative to evaluate whether students had understood the various concepts in line with the learning objectives. As a result, there was the need for instructional strategies that were supposed to prepare the student for summative assessment. Criteria and goal setting is one of the strategies. In this case, the students are involved in the establishment and defining the quality of work. Biggs (2008) noted that the participation of students in classroom tests and exemplars enhances understanding of their situation and what they are supposed to achieve at the end of the course.

The other strategy is the application of questioning strategies. Critical thinking questions based on the students’ level of learning allows students to think deeper (Biggs, 2008). Questions should be embedded in the process of lesson planning. According to Woodley and Furguson (2003), questions provide the teacher with the insights into the extent of the students’ understanding. Another instructional strategy is observation. It entails walking around the classroom and monitoring the behavior of the students. The observation helps in gathering of evidence of the learning progress.

Adjustments

The adjustments entailed modifications of the instructional strategies in order to address the needs of the students with specific disorders. Therefore, the adjustments included the application of differentiation strategies as the basis for ensuring that the students with specific learning disorders achieved high standards. For instance, visual and technological aids were incorporated into the learning.

Summative Assessment Design

The aim of summative assessment is to establish the appropriateness of instructional programs at the end of a learning period. Table 1 is a summative assessment plan and a grading rubric. Use of rubric is critical in summative assessment because it establishes levels of masterly. According to Woodley and Furguson (2003), rubrics assist teachers in ensuring that there is an effective and adequate criterion of understanding the degree of performance. In addition, they help teachers in planning and designing the future instructional strategies. However, the masterly is based on the assumption that in every class there are faster and slower learners and regular formative assessments should guide the teaching-learning process.

Table 1: Summative Assessment and Rubric

Grade: 3		Curriculum (subject matter): English Language
Expectation (Unit objectives)			Standards	Assessment tools & Strategies
At the end of the course, all the students should be able to closely and attentively read texts in a manner that help them to understand and enjoy complex stories and literature. By the end of the first month, the students should acquire skills in evidence collection and the ability to reason critically. The student with specific learning disabilities should be able to match the learning pace of the other students. This should be attained through an Individualized Education Program (IEP).			Reading -Writing -Speaking and listening -Research (Language comprehension)	Performance tasks		Oral communication	Writing (paper and pencil)
Grading Rubric
Marking Range	Instructions				Grade
70%-100%	Students are able to APPROPRIATELY read, write, speak, listen and have high language comprehension.				Distinction
60%-69%	Students are able to read, write, speak, listen and understand language comprehension.				Credit
50%-59%	Students cannot clearly read, write, speak, listen and do not have language comprehension.				Pass
Below 49	Students cannot read, write, speak, listen and do not have language comprehension.				Fail

Tasks and Questions for Students

The aim of the above tasks and questions is to determine the cognitive levels that the students have gained in the English language. The Bloom’s taxonomy described six cognitive levels which include knowledge, comprehension, synthesis, application, analysis and evaluation (Stecker et al., 2005). These levels relate to the Common Core Standards for ELA i.e. reading, writing, listening and speaking, and research. Table 2 is a summary of the tasks/questions, the corresponding objectives and the depth of knowledge level being assessed.

Table 2: Tasks/Questions and the Corresponding Objectives

	Tasks/Questions	Objective	Depth of Knowledge
1.	Each student is given a short story (250 words) to read.	The students should be able to read independently using different strategies.	Knowledge
2.	Students are asked to list five characters and briefly state their roles in the story-synthesis.	The students should understand and describe the elements of stories.	Synthesis
3.	What is the moral teaching of the story?	Students should be able to make inferences.	Application/knowledge
4.	Role tasks in which students debate about a topic that the teacher will choose randomly.	To develop the ability to state opinions by considering different ideas.	Analysis
5.	Provide students with technologically enhanced template (TE) in which each student is supposed to order texts, select and change texts as instructed by the teacher.	To understand vocabulary and use of technology.	Application and knowledge
6.	Provide students with random English phrases and words. The teacher instructs them to construct sentences.	To understand the language structure and vocabulary use.	Comprehension

Criteria for Scoring Extended Responses and Performance Items

Scoring is an important component in summative assessment. There are two methods that can be applied to attain scoring. One approach is the use of technology such as computers. The second is use of hands. In addition, scoring can be achieved by the combination of the two methods. According to Biggs (2008), criteria of score assessment should rely on the validity and reliability of the score item used. Reliability entails the ability to replicate the results in the different populations of students. On the other hand, validity relates to the applicability of the analyzed results (Biggs, 2008). Therefore, in relation to the criteria for scoring extended responses, the main aim will be to construct response items, which address the claims of reading, writing and speaking. Similarly, the performance items focus on the common core standard of ELA. In order to enhance the use of technology, technology-enhanced items will be used. The main goal of scoring is to measure depth of understanding, analytical ability, recall, synthesis, interpretation, and research.

Determination of Masterly

Masterly refers to the degree students understand the concepts taught and the ability to apply the concepts in future lives (Woodley & Furguson, 2003). The gauging of the masterly levels is very critical for instructors. For instance, it helps teachers to design instructional materials and strategies to cater for specific needs of the students based on the assessment outcome. In relation to the summative assessment, the masterly of the students was achieved through the different tasks that were designed to measure DOK levels. For example, performance tasks were carried out through the use of technology enhanced items. The tasks gauged reading, writing, synthesis, and analytical capabilities of the students. The use of technology aligned the students to the contemporary millennium practices in which use of technology has become part of daily practices.

Modification and Accommodation

One of the key objectives of the curriculum is to ensure that the students with specific learning disabilities are able to match the learning pace of the other students through an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Stecker et al. (2005) noted that it is important for instructors to put into consideration the needs of the students with specific learning disorders. The special populations should be accommodated through modification of the teaching techniques. However, the modifications should not alter the overall goal and the expectation of the class.

The common core standards provide guidelines that place a rigorous grade-level expectation. The standards articulate the knowledge and skills that students should acquire in order to succeed in college and their future careers (Elliott, 2015). However, for the students with specific learning disabilities this is difficult due to the disabling conditions. As a result, instructions for the students with disabilities must include support and accommodations that meet the individual needs of the students (Tieso, 2005). The students with ADHD have problems in concentrating, they normally forget to do homework, and they have challenges in completing projects that have ordered steps. Therefore, in order to accommodate the student, his seats will be situated away from the windows. In addition, the lesson will be divided into short sessions of four to five minutes. A five-minute break will also be introduced in order to ensure that the ADHD student rests. Visual aids such as computers and projectors will be integrated into the instructional strategies to enhance learning.

Students with SD are often disengaged in class activities. Therefore, modification will be made to address the needs of students with English reading problem and the English learner. According to Schumm and Vaughn (n.d.), such students can benefit from approaches that help them to build language skills. The modification approaches will include scaffolding, purposeful grouping, and extended discussions. The two students will be paired with students who have a high level of English proficiency. The pairing will ensure that the students can be assisted by their peer in reading and speaking English. In addition, remedial classes will be designed for the students. The aim of the remedial will be to address the concerns of the students in a participatory manner. This will enhance their confidence and hence achieve language masterly.

Application of Evidence Collected

The evidence collected from the summative assessment will determine the depth of knowledge levels. The evidence will be used in the planning of the instructional strategies for the students in the prospective units. For example, students who will have not passed will be treated as a special group in which remedial classes will be prescribed for them. This will be customized to meet the specific needs of each student. It is worth noting that one of the primary goals of the common core standards is to enhance the culture of high expectation. As a result, the modifications will ensure that prior to the next summative assessment all the students will have acquired the desired common core standards of ELA.

Conclusion

Summative assessment is product oriented; it assess whether the final product has been achieved as per the outlined guidelines. The main goal of summative assessment is to determine the level of masterly and to gauge the overall learning and teaching process. As a result, the design of summative assessment should be based on the measurable objectives of the course. This should relate to skills and knowledge that students are expected to acquire at the end of the course. Thus, the use of the performance tasks and technologically enhanced items in the summative assessment helped in the determination of masterly of the desired learning skills in reading, writing, comprehending language, speaking and listening among the targeted grade three students.

References

Biggs, J. (2008). Assessment and Classroom Learning: a role for summative assessment? Assessment in education, 5(1), 103-110.

Elliott, J. (2015). A review of Teaching Models: Designing Instruction for 21st Century Learners. Education Review, 22(1), 1-4.

Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (n.d.). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers’ perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(1), 18-27.

Stecker, P., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(1), 795–819.

Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement. Journal of the Education of the Gifted, 29(1), 60-89.

Woodley, L., & Furguson, A. (2003). Standards-based assessments: A model. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!