WTS 7-8 Artifacts for Guided Learning Process

Erika Galewski
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
November 20, 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 math instruction.

Since I use published lesson plans, ratings reflect how I actually deliver instruction. For
example, the lesson plan may show several different types of learning and coordination to
other disciplines, but if I do not deliver that planning element during instruction, I rated my
current performance without that factor, noting: in plan; but not delivery.
Descriptors in each cell paraphrase Danielson Framework for Teaching assessment
descriptors from the 2000 version. Underlined comparisons or added words show preassessment 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
2. They do not/Some/Most/All reflect important learning in the discipline. 3.
and
P
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 not clear or are stated as activitiesOR Outcomes are moderately
to
clear/are clear, written in the form of student learning.
P
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
to
one discipline or strandOR Outcomes reflect several different types of learning,
P
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 B
1. Outcomes are not suitable for the class or are not based on any assessment of
for diverse to
students needsOR Most/all outcomes are suitable for most/all students in the
learners
P
class and based 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, standardized test data, LMH samples, whole-class data.
Go Math ! Lesson 1.1 Algebra Number Patterns (September 3 rd)
Develop multiple forms of formative assessments throughout the lesson.
Area to improve:
Lesson plans (Oct. 12), standardized test data, LMH samples, whole-class data.
Evidence sources:
Outcomes allowed for multiple methods of assessment. Types of assessments
included: exit slips, mid-chapter checkpoints, individual whiteboard responses,
Most improved
self- correcting, and math journal reflections.
area:

Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Appropriate Outcomes

1. Pre: Relied totally on published plans and grade-level objectives for learning steps. Plans for
differentiating based on quick formative assessments. Need to add own formative assessments
throughout lesson to check for student understanding more thoroughly.
1. Post: Implemented the use of published plans, but added my own forms of assessments that
correlated with the published plans.
2. Pre: Lack of outcomes connecting to a sequence of learning in other content areas such as
language arts.
2. Post: Outcomes connected to sequence of learning in language arts. Students were given
opportunities for additional writing opportunities in math with journals and exit slips.
3. Pre: Outcomes need to integrate multiple disciplines.
3. Post: Outcomes integrated multiple disciplines writing and social studies most notably.
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
instructional outcomes...OR Learning activities are highly suitable to diverse
P
learners and support 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. OR
Activities are appropriately differentiated for individual learners.
Instructional B
1. No/some/all of the materials and resources are suitable to students, support the
materials
to
instructional outcomes, and engage students in meaningful learning. 2. There is
and
P
no/some/continual evidence of appropriate use of technology and (upper =) of
resources
student participation in selecting or adapting materials.
Instructional B
1. Instructional groups do not/partially support the instructional outcomes. 2.
groups
to
No/some variety in grouping students...OR Instructional groups are not/are
P
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
that organizes activities. 2. The structure is chaotic/not uniformly maintained
structure
P
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. Go Math! Lesson 1.1 Algebra Number Patterns (September 3)
Area to improve:
Facilitating opportunities for students to selecting activities/materials.
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans. Go Math! Lesson 1.7 (October 12)
Most improved area: Students developed their own math journals and reference tools along with
monthly math projects of their choice.

Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Optimal Learning Processes

1. Pre: outcomes = moderately high level of performance; modify to challenge advanced, too.
1. Post: outcomes were modified to challenge all students.

2. Pre: no evidence of student choice in selecting the different patterns of instructional groups.
2. Post: students were able to choose math journal topics, monthly math projects and methods to
demonstrate their understanding of a mathematical concept through: writing journals, hands-on and verbal
explanations, whole group demonstrations, and computer simulations.
3. Pre: additional pathways to learning needed for a diverse group of students.
3. Post: provided opportunities for students to use manipulatives, computer programs/apps,
supporting math texts, and small group partnerships to enhance student learning for a diverse group of
students.
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
quality in cognitive challenge. 2. Students generally respond with single correct
P
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
B
1. Teacher-student interaction is predominantly recitation style/with some
techniques
to
attempt to engage student in genuine discussion/creating genuine
P
discussion/creating student responsibility for the success of the discussion.
2. Teacher mediates all questions and answers./Teacher steps aside when
appropriate./Students initiate topics and make unsolicited contributions.
Student
P
1. A few students dominate the discussion./Teacher attempts with limited
participation to
success/successfully engages all students in the discussion./Students themselves
P
ensure that all voices are heard in the discussion as a whole class or in groups.
Activities
and
assignments

B
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 students 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 September 3.
Engage students to develop own content understanding through adaptive
activities or projects.
Digital recording of instruction from October 12, teacher observations.
Student participation in math activities and responding to content through
projects and activities.

Most Significant Evidence of Improvement in Designing Engaged Learning

1. Pre: Provide opportunities to think more critically about content and generate own questions.
1. Post: Provided math journal response activities for students to extend their thinking and writing
skills. Students created their own math challenge questions 2 times a week for their classmates to solve.
2. Pre: Additional opportunities to lead discussion, monitor own understanding and that of peers.
2. Post: Students were given opportunities to teach math partners their process in solving and
understanding math content during math buddy time, which was given twice a week for 15 minutes
during math class.

3. Pre: Additional opportunities to adapt or create own projects to enhance their learning.
3. Post: Students were given opportunities to create a monthly math project individually or with a
partner. Students were given a topic and were given the month to create a project that would demonstrate
their understanding of the skill/topic we were covering, or a math topic of their choice. The October
project involved toys. Several students/groups chose to create a toy and develop a set of math challenges
for other students to complete.

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
assessment approach.
instructional
P
2. Assessment methodologies have/have not been adapted for
outcomes
groups/individuals as needed.
Criteria and
B
1. No/unclear/clear criteria and standards.
standards
to P
2. Students do/do not contribute to development of assessment criteria.
Design in
B
1. Lesson plans include no/rudimentary/well-developed/well-designed formative
formative
to
assessments strategies for all instructional outcomes.
assessments
P
2. Lesson plans include no/minimal/particular/well-designed approaches to
engaging students in assessment and correction of their work.
Use for
P
1. No plans/Plans to use assessment results in designing future instruction.
planning
to
2. Does not use/Uses assessment results to plan for whole class (basic) and/or
D
group (proficient) and/or individual instruction. (Distinguished is all three
levels.)
Evidence:
Lesson Plans. Go Math! Lesson 1.1 Algebra Number Patterns (September 3)
To improve:
Engage students in developing assessment criteria.
Evidence:
Lesson plans from October 12, teacher observations, additional assessments.
Most
Assessment results were used to plan for whole group, small group and individual
improved:
instruction.
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Effective Assessment Practices
1. Pre: Students should contribute to the development of assessment criteria.
1. Post: Students were given examples of self-assessment rubrics and content based math rubrics
as well as my grading scale. I modeled how I assess student work and provided them with exemplars
after instruction and student practice. Students were able to define orally what elements they identified as
important to each math activity or assessment. Students used a 4-3-2-1 rating system for their own work
and self-reflection process.
2. Pre: Students should be more fully engaged in assessment and the correction of their work.
2. Post: Students now regularly engage in self-assessment and correction of their math work and
assessments on a daily basis, either in small group or whole group with teacher scaffolding.
3. Pre: Assessment results should be used to plan for differentiation.
3. Post: Both formative and summative assessments are used to assist in developing small group
activities and differentiating instructional activities for all students. These groups change frequently
according to formative assessments and student need.

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
B
1. Students are not aware/know some/are fully aware of the criteria and
Criteria
to
performance standards by which their work will be evaluated.
P
2. Students have not/have contributed to the development of the criteria.
Monitoring of
B
2. Teacher does not/monitors progress of whole class (basic) and groups
student learning to
(proficient).
P
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
and untimely/high quality and timely/consistently high quality and timely.
P
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
their own work against the assessment criteria and performance standards.
monitoring of
P
2. Students do not/rarely/occasionally/frequently make active use of that
progress
information in their learning.
Evidence sources:
Digital recording of instruction from September 3rd.
Area to improve:
Developing clear criteria for student assessment with students and displaying
criteria for students to refer back to.
Digital recording of instruction from October 12.
Evidence sources:
Displaying criteria for students to reference and providing immediate
Most improved area:
feedback to students regarding work/assessments.

Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Effective Assessment Practices

1. Pre: Students need to be more aware of assessment criteria and how work will be evaluated.
1. Post: Students used our objectives board in the classroom to reference what skills they would
be developing and were given math rubrics and exemplars after instruction to reference when completing
work.
2. Pre: Provide more frequent feedback and support students in how to use feedback effectively.
2. Post: Students were given immediate feedback more frequently during class time and
immediately following assessments. Through the use of self-correcting as a whole group, students were
able to recognize errors immediately and were supported through the correction process. Positive
reinforcement was emphasized during this process of correction.
3. Pre: Students require scaffolding when monitoring their own work in comparison with the
assessment criteria and performance standards.
3. Post: Students were given rubrics, expectations and exemplars to reference when monitoring
their own work. They used a checklist and acronyms like TIPS (think, inform, plan, solve), to reflect on
their own work and make necessary changes.

Approx. %

a = 60% to 50%
b = 25% to 30%
c = 15% to 20%
25% to 40%
50% to 70%
70% to 90%
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 outcomes by teacher tempered by long-term
teacher observations and recall of outcomes.
Implementing additional independent formative assessments and formative peer
assessments within the classroom.
Current student observations and outcomes by teacher.
Independent formative assessments.

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
B
Can students name expectations (what know/do) for each learning step?
and
to
For a task, can students explain the line between unacceptable (below proficiency
Rating
P
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
environment is safe for making inevitable learning mistakes?
P
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
mini-step of learning that confirms learning or corrects learning?
P
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.)
StudentU
Do students consider continual informal and formal formative assessments as not
initiated
to
only beneficial, but necessary for successful learning?
Assessment B
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 September 3rd, tempered by long-term observations and
outcomes.
Providing feedback to students immediately.
Area to improve:
Digital recording on October 12, along with current teacher observations and
Evidence sources:
outcomes
Most improved area: Providing feedback to students immediately through whole group/small
group/individual self-correcting.
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Environment Related to Formative Assessment
1. Pre: I need to support students in their understanding of assessment criteria and what
determines basic, proficient and distinguished work.
1. Post: I developed an objective board, student rubrics, exemplars and graphic organizers for
students to reference when completing math activities/assessments. These visuals were posted in their
math journals and on classroom walls.
2. Pre: Students must develop their use of critical thinking to assess their own work and to
develop answers that will support their work.
3. Post: Students used a self-reflection and self-assessment scale to assess their confidence in
their skill level and what quality of work they produced. They would chart this data in a data binder to
track progress and set goals.
3. Pre: I need to provide more frequent feedback and monitoring of students through each
learning step in a lesson.
3. Post: I implemented more frequent feedback to students in whole group, small group and
individual learning sessions. I provided students with reference tools to use within their math journals to
support instruction.

Artifact B: Instructional Design, Before-After Comparisons

Improved Lesson Plan Example
Targeted Subject: Whole Number Operations through 1,000
Topic: Using Place Value to Add
Length of Entire Learning Unit: 14 days
Quarter: 1st Students Age/Grade Level: 8-10 years / 3rd Grade
Performance Range of Students: K-4 Lesson Plan Source: Larson, M.et all. (2012). Go! Math.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing.
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. K
Median = Gr. 2
Highest=Gr. 4
b. Learning Unit proficiency range based on vertical standards and students capabilities:
DIF: EXP
Lowest=Gr
. K Median = Gr. 2 Highest=Gr. 4
DIF:PRODUCT
Work on basic math facts
Math projects/journals
2. Align end, start, and beginning to end.

What to learn? [objective(s) +

content] (thinking pat./Blooms)
SO: Understand place value to add
2 digit numbers without
regrouping. DEFINE by Example.
FO1: Apply rounding strategies to
2-digit and 3-digit numbers to the
nearest ten or hundred.

How to learn? [process] (key

strategies, teachniques, etc.)
Hands on completion of base
10 block and place value chart
modeling.
Hands on exploration using
videos and IPAD apps

FO2: Estimate sums.

Teacher modeling
Math Journaling

FO3: Apply the Commutative and

Associative Properties to add more
than 2-digit numbers.

Teacher modeling
Think/Pair/Share

FO4: Illustrate place value to add

3-digit numbers without
regrouping.

Hands on modeling with tactile

base 10 blocks and place value
charts

SLOs: Analyze word problems to

add within 20. Illustrate strategies
to add 2 digit and 3 digit numbers
without regrouping with accuracy.

Developing writing/word
problems
Solving number sentences in
writing and orally

Product + Assessment? (task +

method for evidence)
T = Use base 10 blocks to model addition
sentences and solve.
M= Peer Check/Teacher Monitor
T = Use a number line or rounding hills
to model how to round 2-digit and 3-digit
numbers.
M= Self Assess Student checklist
T = Write estimated sums for 2-digit and
3-digit addition sentences.
M= Self Assess -Exit Slip
T = Write number sentences to
demonstrate commutative and associative
properties.
M= Pair/Share
T = Use base 10 blocks and place value
chart to model addition sentences and
solve.
M= Teacher Check/Observations
Sum. Task: Toy Shop Performance Task
Design toy store shelves with addition &
word problems to accompany their shop.
Sum. Method: Teacher Collection of
project
Whole Class Share students visit the

toy shops and solve the word problems

designed by their classmates.
Sum. Task: At the Theater Performance
Task A RELATE IF/THEN
SITUATION/EVENT
Sum. Method: Teacher Collection
5. Align learning to learners. (Align Five to Thrive) [LearningLearner]: Pacing, diverse activities,

differentiation, new practices, encouraging 6Cs, and connections in elements above.

6. EA: Essential UNIT Answer/Understanding: lasting truth/principle/rule/insight to answer EQ.
Place value helps organize equations in order to solve sequentially.
7. EQ: Essential UNIT Question: Motivate/broaden learning beyond academics. (Student Appeal!)
How can place value properties aid computation? EA: apply single digit facts to multi-digit
computation (ex: use 5x5 for 50x50) - regroup numbers for efficiency. How would not having
the digit 0 affect our number system?
Essential UNIT Connections:
8. ETh: Connect thinking patterns from EQ to EA: Relate by If-Then thinking pattern.
Correct answer with a place value chart and base 10 blocks. If the place value is before
the decimal point, then the value is ones; If two spaces before, then tens; If three
spaces before, then hundreds; etc
9. EP: Connect content to students and expand perspectives based on diverse realities:
Relate place value steps to buying toys at a toy store or books from a book store. Use
book orders, catalogues, an online store, or a student developed toy store.
10. EC: Connect learning to build integrity, empathy, insight:
Discuss how to help students that might not be able to afford books, toys, etc
Brainstorm needs versus wants (food, clothing, housing, medical care)
11. Quality checks: Appropriate challenges? Equitable? Yes, each student is fully capable of
understanding content and achieving objectives.
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). One example 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.
Diagnostic Assessment Unit 1

ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT Inventory Basic Skills

CONTENT

OBJECTIVE

ASSESSMENT
Formative

PROCESS Expanding
Perspectives

DIFF EXPECTATIONS

Understanding
DIFF PROCESS

DIFF PROCESS

DIFFERENTIATION

Connections

Pair/Share

PROCESS
Pre-Assess

Remembering

Technology - iTools Base 10

Blocks on Smart Board

PROCESS Research
Analyzing

COMPARE by
similarity

Applying

Small group

PROCESS
Organize/Analyze

Evaluating

PROCESS Application

PRODUCT

Creating

Give Evidence

SUMMATIVE
ASSESSMENT

PRODUCT &
FORMATIVE
ASSESSMENT

DEFINE by
illustration

PROCESS Reflect

PROCESS Post Assess

NEW PRACTICE

RELATE

SUMMATIVE
ASSESSMENT

SELFREFLECTION

This student self-assessment could be used as a tool for students to reflect upon the level of
skill confidence during the quick check and mid-chapter checkpoints in the lesson.

NEW PRACTICE

Expert
I can arrange math equations using correct place
value placement with 91% or more accuracy.
I can solve math equations using rounding and
regrouping with 91% or more accuracy.

I can arrange math equations using correct place

value placement with 80% to 90% accuracy.
I can solve math equations using rounding and
regrouping with 80% to 90% accuracy.

I can arrange math equations using correct place

value placement with 70% to 79% accuracy.
I can solve math equations using rounding and
regrouping with 70% to 79% accuracy.

With help, I can arrange math equations using correct

place value placement with 70% to 79% accuracy.
With help, I can solve math equations using rounding
and regrouping with 70% to 79% accuracy.

To convert ratings to reporting systems using A-B-C-D grades (or 4 terms for proficiency range):
2005-2013 Sara Heisler
ADD teacher ratings from the four rows for a total score.
If all four row ratings are 2, 3, or 4 ratings: 8-10 = C. 11-14 = B. 15-16 = A.
If any ? rating is part of the total score: Improve to meet proficiency expectations.
If any 1 rating is part of the total score: (The total score does not include ? ratings.)
One 1 rating = C. (Fully proficient writing or A/B grades cannot include a 1 rating.)
Two, three or four 1 ratings = D. (Aim to improve any 1 rating to at least a 2 rating.)
*Caution: Rubric scores are NOT task points. Align A-B-C-D score range to task points via schools % system.

NEW PRACTICE

NEW PRACTICE

ASSESSMENT
Formative or Summative

ASSESSMENT
Formative

NEW PRACTICE

Students could also use the rating system 1-4 to rate their skill on their paper using the Marzano
scales of proficiency, or I could do a quick check using student hand signals.

Artifact C: Assessment Practices, Before-After Comparisons

Example of an Improved Assessment Method or Tool
Targeted Subject: Math
Topic: Whole Number Operations
Task: Rounding Numbers and Adding Three Digit Numbers with and without Regrouping
Quarter: First
Students Age/Grade Level: 8-10/ Grade 3
Performance Range of Students: K-4 Source: Go! Math Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2012
Information below defines practices that improved in the groups areas:
Task & Assessment Purpose
I planned how often to assess, and offered students opportunities to reflect and assess
their own learning by correcting, and following up with independent summative
assessments.
I implemented standardized diagnostic assessments as pre-assessments, along with other
forms of pre-assessment tools.
Terms/standards intentionally aligned with assessments that move beyond recall and
understanding. I asked, Is there a way for students to apply their knowledge in the
assessments in a new way?
I provided performance tasks to highlight specific skills to meet expectations.
Direct measure of work versus indirect measure of process and reflection.
I assessed students with progress over time with a proficiency range.
I also assessed based on objectives.

Criteria (Reliability = measurement Consistency=same score each time)

I allowed students the chance to get out their ideas first before providing models then
used exemplars to show students how to improve.
I used mathematical terms when outlining objectives and standards.
Students showed evidence of learning by coding, highlighting, circling. Students
corrected immediately.
I made strides to teach students to assess with the same level of accuracy as the teacher,
independently.
Students began to think critically about the steps in their thinking process and how to
solve/correct errors with support, which will lead to independence in the future.
Weight (rating scales) & Scoring (rating sum aligned w/school system)
Validity =measurement strength = intent of standard, not too low or too high
Analytic evaluated parts of the task Holistic - evaluated whole task
Students demonstrated higher levels of thinking (Blooms Taxonomy and Complexity of
Thinking Patterns)
This information corresponds with Step 2b in the backward design process.

Copy your summative assessment tool here. If the assessment criteria and rating/grading method
are not clear on this tool, add the information. If the lesson plan does not show a fully proficient
and/or essentially proficient model of a summative task, add an example below the tool. Either
the model or the assessment criteria should distinguish the proficiency range endpoints.
2182497920

I added this component to the toy project as an additional

assessment to relate to real world experiences.

Students will design one toy in an eight inch box.

They will determine how many boxes they need to
produce to fit on seventy-two inches of shelving.
After producing their determined number of toy
boxes students will set a price for their toy and add
their toys to a class toy store. Students will create a
word problem based on their toy for other students to
solve. Students will select five toys they wish to
purchase and determine how much money they
would need to purchase their selection of toys.

Before, I would
correct all tests
and hand back to
students. After,
I allow students
to self-correct
with coding
system.
NEW PRACTICE

I will add
additional
question(s) to
enhance
critical
thinking, real
world
relevance,
and empathy.

D. If you and your family had $50.00 how many tickets could you buy? You may
choose any combination of Friday, Saturday or Sunday shows. Show your math process.

How many people are in your family? _________

CIRCUMSTANCE
E. A classmate cannot afford to attend any of the shows. Could your family afford to
buy another ticket based on the math above? Explain your reasoning.

_______________________________________________________________________

CRITERIA

To convert ratings to reporting systems using A-B-C-D grades (or 4 terms for proficiency range):
2005-2013 Sara Heisler
ADD teacher ratings from the four rows for a total score.
If all four row ratings are 2, 3, or 4 ratings: 8-10 = C. 11-14 = B. 15-16 = A.
If any ? rating is part of the total score: Improve to meet proficiency expectations.
If any 1 rating is part of the total score: (The total score does not include ? ratings.)
RATING
One 1 rating = C. (Fully proficient writing or A/B grades cannot include a 1 rating.)
SYSTEM
Two, three or four 1 ratings = D. (Aim to improve any 1 rating to at least a 2 rating.)
*Caution: Rubric scores are NOT task points. Align A-B-C-D score range to task points via schools % system.

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

Arrows indicate first semester () or second semester () proficiency levels.
Italicized type distinguishes post-assessment additions (Learning Step 6) from the earlier pre-assessment
(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 preassessment unless otherwise noted.
Two Key Academic Content Standards (ACS #1 and #2) Guiding the Independent Targeted Learning Unit
Source(s): Common Core State Standards in Mathematics
Common Core Math Standards Vertical Alignment. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.bullittschools.org/userfiles/9/my%20files/math-vertical-alignment.pdf?id=543437
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, (2011).
Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/common-core/pdf/common-core-math-standards.pdf.
Two Academic Content Standards in Vertical Format:
Operations and Algebraic Thinking
Kindergarten
Understand addition as putting together and adding to, and understand subtraction as taking apart and
taking from.
First Grade
Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.
Understand and apply properties of operations and the relationship between addition and subtraction.
Add and subtract within 20.
Work with addition and subtraction equations.
Second Grade
Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction.
Add and subtract within 20.
Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for multiplication.
Third Grade
Represent and solve problems involving multiplication and division.
Understand properties of multiplication and the relationship between multiplication and division.
Multiply and divide within 100.
Solve problems involving the four operations, and identify and explain patterns in arithmetic.
Fourth Grade
Use the four operations with whole numbers to solve problems.
Gain familiarity with factors and multiples.
Generate and analyze patterns.
Numbers and Operations in Base Ten
Kindergarten
Work with numbers 1119 to gain foundations for place value.
First Grade
Extend the counting sequence.
Understand place value.
Use place value understanding and properties of operations to add and subtract.
Second Grade
Use place value understanding and properties of operations to add and subtract.
Third Grade
Use place value understanding and properties of operations to perform multidigit arithmetic.
Fourth Grade
Generalize place value understanding for multidigit whole numbers.
Use place value understanding and properties of operations to perform multidigit arithmetic.

Table 8: Pre/Post Assessments of Content Learning Compared to PK-12 Vertical Standards

Task: Recognize number patterns, model addition and subtraction fact families, round numbers to the nearest ten and
hundred, use place value when adding and subtracting multi-digit numbers.
Skill
Grade Current Proficiency Level Based on PK-12+ Developmental Standards
Level
Level (proficiency = performance meets ALL expectations at and below the rating)
Lowest
K, 1
Can understand addition as putting together and adding to, and understand subtraction as
To
taking apart and taking from (K), but cannot represent and solve problems involving addition
1 to 1 and subtraction or understand and apply properties of operations and the relationship between
addition and subtraction (1). Can represent and solve problems involving addition and
demonstrate the relationship of addition and subtraction
Median
2, 3
Can represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction and add and subtract
To
within 20 (2), but cannot use place value to understand properties of operations to perform
2,3
multidigit arithmetic (3). Can use place value up to the thousands to perform multi-digit
arithmetic (3).
Highest

3,4
To
3,4

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

Can use place value understanding and properties of operations to perform multidigit
arithmetic and identify and explain patterns in arithmetic (3), but cannot use the four
operations with whole numbers to solve problems, analyze patterns (4). Same.
Go Math! Diagnostic, Summative and Formative Assessments, teacher observations.
Represent and solve problems involving addition and subtraction. Add and subtract within 20.
Work with equal groups of objects to gain foundations for multiplication.
Teacher observations, mid chapter checkpoint assessment tool, math journals
Student self-assessment tools and immediate feedback regarding assessments.

Most Significant Comparison Evidence of Improvements in Content Learning Outcomes

Specific comparisons are in Artifact E. These examples summarize evidence of greatest gains.
1. Pre: 14 students were proficient at addition/subtraction of single digit numbers, with 2 students scoring
at a minimal/basic level.
1. Post: 15 students were proficient at addition/subtraction of multi-digit numbers, with 2 students scoring
at a minimal/basic level.
2. Pre: Before 693, I would grade formative and summative assessments and give them back to students
later in the week. I provided opportunities for students to correct errors for credit back.
2. Post: After 693, I provided feedback to students immediately following the assessment by going through
the assessment as a whole class. Students assessed their answers and corrected errors immediately as we modeled
the correct process and mathematical strategies using the interactive whiteboard.
3. Pre: Before 693, students were not provided with opportunities to self-reflect on their mathematical
errors or on their confidence level when completing math tasks.
3. Post: After 693, students were provided with several opportunities to self-correct errors with teacher
scaffolding and reflect upon their skill level and confidence level using the Marzano scale. Students were
encouraged to rate their work using number codes written in the top margin of their notebook. 1 novice, 2apprentice, 3-proficient, and 4-expert. A similar proficiency scale was also used to assess student skill: 4 Expert
(A) - I can arrange math equations using correct place value placement with 91% or more accuracy. I can solve
math equations using rounding and regrouping with 91% or more accuracy. 3 (B) Proficient- I can arrange math
equations using correct place value placement with 80% to 90% accuracy. I can solve math equations using
rounding and regrouping with 80% to 90% accuracy. 2 (C) Basic - I can arrange math equations using correct place
value placement with 70% to 79% accuracy. I can solve math equations using rounding and regrouping with 70%
to 79% accuracy. 1 (D/U) Minimal - With help, I can arrange math equations using correct place value placement
with 70% to 79% accuracy. With help, I can solve math equations using rounding and regrouping with 70% to
79% accuracy.

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/ela-stds-app-a-revision.pdf
Vertical Literacy Content Standards:
Vertical Standards for Literacy Content
Comprehension and Collaboration CCR Anchor Standard 3: Evaluate a speaker's point of view, reasoning, and use
of evidence and rhetoric.
Kindergarten Ask and answer questions in order to seek help, get information, or clarify
something that is not understood.
Grade 1 Ask and answer questions about what a speaker says in order to gather additional
information or clarify something that is not understood.
Grade 2 Ask and answer questions about what a speaker says in order to clarify
comprehension, gather additional information, or deepen understanding of a topic
or issue.
Grade 3 Ask and answer questions about information from a speaker, offering appropriate
elaboration and detail.
Grade 4 Identify the reasons and evidence a speaker provides to support particular points.
Grade 5 Summarize the points a speaker makes and explain how each claim is supported
by
reasons and evidence.

Literacy Conventions Source:

Summarized descriptors for speech and writing standards adapted from Wisconsin Early Learning Model
Standards and Wisconsin CCSS for Literacy in All Subjects available at
http://www.collaboratingpartners.com/documents/WMELS4thEdition_web_edit2.pdf and
http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/common-core/pdf/ela-stds-app-a-revision.pdf
Vertical Conventions Standards
C.EL, Row 3, Age 1-2: Pays attention to speech, very simple requests.
C.EL, Row 4, Age 2-3: Understands speech, takes turns, one-step directions, uses gestures, uses
sounds/single words, beginning to recognize letters vs. numbers vs. symbols.
C.EL, Row 5, Age 3-4: Listens to and speaks words clearly in discernable sentences, two-step directions,
uses phrases, recognizes letters and sounds in own name.
C.EL, Row 6, Age 4-5: Responds to speech, three-step directions, non-verbal skills, writes recognizable
letters, some familiar sounds, and pronounces recognizable letter sounds, uses plurals and tenses.
C.EL, Row 7, Age 5-6/Kindergarten: Forms correct letters and pronounces correct letter sounds, capital
for I and names, use multi-word sentences
C.Grade 1: Names, city, day/month capitals, end punctuation, saying/spelling high-frequency words
C.Grade 2: + commas before simple conjunctions, commas for a simple list/series, simple apostrophes for 's
possession and nt contractions, capitals for most proper nouns, spelling. Speaking simple sentence
structures correctly.
C.Grade 3: + writing commas/speaking pauses for introductory or inserted clause, title capitals, addresses,
simple dialogue/quotations, possessives, uses spelling rules for K-3 words
C.Grade 4: + writing/speaking complete sentences when expected, commas with conjunctions, spelling
C.Grade 5: + writing/speaking avoids inappropriate shifts in verb tense, uneven series/list commas,
introductory phrases, italics/underline for titles, interjections, colon to introduce a simple series/list,
spelling

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

Task: Ask and answer questions regarding number patterns, fact families and rounding with place value.
Skill
Grade
Current Proficiency Level Based on PK-12+ Developmental Standards
Level
Level
(proficiency = performance meets ALL expectations at and below the rating)
Lowest
K to 1
Lit Content: Can ask questions in order to seek help when solving math problems (K), but
to
cannot answer questions about what a speaker says in order to gather additional information
1 to 1
or clarify math problems that are not understood (1). Can ask and answer questions of a
speaker to clarify information (1).
Lit Conventions: Can form correct letters, numbers and pronounces correct letter sounds,
number identification, but cannot use multi-word sentences (K). Can use capitals for names,
city, day/month capitals, but cannot use end punctuation, or say/spelling of high-frequency
words (1). Can use ending punctuation and spelling of high-frequency words (1).
Median
2 to 3
Lit Content: Can ask and answer questions about what a speaker says in order to clarify
to
comprehension of math topics, and gather additional information (2), but cannot offer
3 to 3
appropriate elaboration and detail. (3). Can offer elaboration and detail when asking
mathematical questions (3).
Lit Conventions: Can add commas before simple conjunctions, commas for a simple
list/series, use capitals for most proper nouns, and speak in simple sentence structures
correctly (2), can add writing commas/speaking pauses for introductory or inserted clause,
title capitals, addresses, and uses spelling rules for K-3 words (3), but cannot use simple
dialogue/quotations, and possessives in writing (3). Same
Highest 4 to 5
Lit Content: Can identify the reasons a speaker provides, along with evidence a speaker
to
provides to support particular points (4), but cannot summarize the points a speaker makes,
4 to 5
and explain how each claim is supported by reasons and evidence (5). Can summarize
mathematical procedures orally and support their reasoning with evidence (5).
Lit Conventions: Can write/speak in complete sentences when expected, use commas with
conjunctions, and correct spelling (4), but cannot follow conventions in writing/speaking to
avoid inappropriate shifts in verb tense, uneven series/list commas, introductory phrases, but
cannot use italics/underline for titles, interjections, colon to introduce a simple series/list,
spelling (5). Same
Evidence sources: Go Math! Formative assessments, teacher observations, small group discussions.
Area to improve:
Ask and answer questions about information from a speaker, offering appropriate elaboration
and detail. Writing about their mathematical thinking and problem solving steps.
Evidence sources: Teacher observations, mid chapter checkpoint assessment, student math journal, summative
task
Most improved
Summarizing mathematical procedures orally and providing evidence to support problem
area:
solving accuracy.
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Literacy Skills Outcomes
Specific comparisons are in Artifact E. These examples summarize evidence of greatest gains.
1. Pre: 25% of the third grade class was unable to orally summarize their mathematical thinking when
problem solving using number sentences.
1. Post: Only 15% of the third grade class was unable to orally summarize their mathematical thinking
when problem solving using number sentences and rounding with place value. 75% of students were able to
summarize their mathematical thinking process both orally and in writing complete sentences following
conventions.
2. Pre: One third of students were able to summarize their mathematical thinking orally, but could not
summarize thinking in writing using complete sentences, grammar and ending punctuation.
2. Post: 50% of third graders were able to summarize their mathematical thinking orally and 10% of
students were able to summarize their thinking in writing using complete sentences, grammar, and ending
punctuation. The implementation of the Call the COPS strategy (Capitalization, Order and Organization,
Punctuation and Spelling) assisted students in reflecting on their sentence structure when writing in their math
journals. Although only 10% of students used complete sentences, grammar and ending punctuation, all students
showed improvement in writing down their thinking using more details.

3. Pre: 50% of students were able to provide evidence orally for how to solve math equations involving
fact families. 50% of students were also able to provide written evidence. There were 0 students that used complete
sentences, correct grammar and ending punctuation.
3. Post: 75% of students were able to provide evidence orally for how to follow a mathematical process for
rounding numbers to the nearest ten and hundred. 10% of students (2) could also provide evidence in writing, using
complete sentences, grammar and ending punctuation.

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

Text boxes indicate areas that show significant improvement (or lack of improvement) in
outcomes due to a defined change in instructional effectiveness.
Pre-assessment Background Information: First quarter, third grade, math. Students were given
a beginning of the year math skills inventory assessment on addition and subtraction problem solving.
Students were asked to model addition and subtraction problems using connecting cubes, base ten blocks,
place value and drawing paper to find out missing addends, sums and differences. There were 20 points
total on the inventory. 21 total students in the class: A = 18 + points B= 16-17 points C=14-15 points
D=12-13 points
U= Below 11
H= 8 students with A grade 2 students with B grade (10 total)
M= 7 students with C grade (7 total)
L =3 students with D grade 1 student with U grade (4 total)
Examples of Pre-assessment Low

Examples of Pre-assessment Median

Examples of Pre-assessment High

Post-assessment Background Information: End of first quarter, third grade, math. Students
were given a mid-chapter checkpoint assessment on rounding, estimating and using place value to solve
equations. 21 total students in the class: H= 13/21 = A 2/21 = B M= 4/21 =C L =2/21 = U
H= 13 students with A grade 2 students with B grade (15 total)
M= 4 students with C grade (4 total)
L = 1 students with D grade 1 student with U grade (2 total)

Example of Post-assessment, Lowest

Example of Post-assessment, Median

Example of Post-assessment, High