Mini Project II Quality Criteria Review of an Assessment

1. Mini Project IIQuality Criteria Review of an Assessment Dani Ladwig

2. State Standards - Language Arts • 12.1.7 Read literature written in English, including fiction, poetry, drama, and literary nonfiction prose • 12.1.8 Interpret meaning of literary works, nonfiction, films, and media by different techniques

3. Assessments • Following a unit exposing students to poetry, students will select a poem of choice and read while looking at word choice, format, author’s purpose, meaning, diction, theme, organization, and other appropriate literary devices. Students will write a personal response in the form of a literary analysis, personal essay, poem, short story, narrative, or other teacher approved format. Students will share their response in either small or large group.

4. Quality Criterion One (reflect state standards) • Qualified teachers judged the assessment to meet the standard • -workshop training in RAS(reading assessment systems) Rachel Billmeyer • -ESU training and assistance in writing assessments • -Six Trait Writing Training - Vicki Spandel

5. Quality Criterion Two (students have the opportunity to learn the content) • Qualified teachers from the grade & content area examined the curriculum • Focus in sophomore curriculum on poetry (exposure to it to gain an appreciation) • Focus in sophomore curriculum on improving writing ability as well as writing as a means to interpret and analyze literature

6. Quality Criterion Three (free from bias) • The assessment writers participated in an orientation regarding test bias • The nature of the assessment- which allows for student choice- lends itself to being bias-free

7. Quality Criterion Four (level is appropriate) • Grade & content level teachers evaluated it from a developmental assessment • At the sophomore level students should be able to read a poem, analyze it (with the aid of a worksheet and modeling) then write their feelings and thoughts about the poem in a coherent manner (with the aid of a rubric and sample papers)

8. Quality Criterion Five (consistency in scoring) • Sample papers have been double scored to estimate the percent of scorer agreement. Scorers do this without knowing the results of other scoring. • Sophomore teachers pull sample papers - all assess - compare scores • First year - trouble Second year - better

9. Quality Criterion Six (appropriate mastery levels) • Created an appropriate rubric with the levels being represented in beginning, progressing, proficient, and advanced • Proficient and Advanced are the mastery level scores • The rubric is consistent with the writing traits and skills taught in the curriculum as well as appropriate to the level of a 10th grade writer

10. STRENGTHS On target - it assesses skills that we teach and want students to have mastery of Performance based (and personal communication*) An assessment already in use - practical and fits into normal instruction AREAS TO LOOK AT Scoring consistency (between basic, regular, and honors teachers) *We are not using the “share with small group” aspect mentioned We also focus on the 5 paragraph essay structure and don’t allow for the choice in writing style mentioned (due to 11th grade writing assessment) Conclusions/ Plans for Future