Curriculum-Based Summative Assessment Design Using What You’

Curriculum Based Summative Assessment Designusing What Youve Learned

Curriculum Based Summative Assessment Design using what you’ve learned from Chapters Six and Eight from Lefrançois as well as other resources along the way, develop a curriculum based assessment (CBA) centered on one of your two instructional plans from Weeks Three and Four. Part 1: Provide a Pre-Assessment Description (One-to two-pages). Use these prompts to guide your exploration of what occurred BEFORE the summative assessment. State measurable and observable objectives (what you wanted students to learn). Describe how you knew learning occurred prior to summative assessment. Describe the instructional strategies used to prepare students for the summative assessment (from your previous instructional plan in either Weeks Three or Four). Explain adjustments you made or should have made to your instruction to ensure mastery of learning objectives. Describe how the use of technology contributed to student preparation for the summative assessment or how it will be added to and contribute to the summative assessment here. Part 2: Design an easily accessible summative assessment (Approximately two to three pages) Identify the grade level and subject matter and a measurable unit objective(s) and align with the stated standard as prescribed in the original instructional plan from either Week Three or Four and referenced from the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Create a minimum of six, no more than ten, problems/questions/tasks for students to complete that include a variety of test item types (selected response, short answer, extended written response, and/or performance). Label each question with its corresponding: Objective(s) (if more than one is being assessed) Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels (Note at least two different cognitive levels must be measured on this assessment.) Define and discuss criteria for scoring extended response and performance items. Part 3: Provide Assessment Reflection (One to two pages). Define how you determined mastery. Explain how you will accommodate or modify for the special population previously described in Week Four (two students with specific learning disabilities in reading and math, one ADHD student, and one English language learner). Describe how you will use the evidence collected. Grading: You will submit a SINGLE document clearly labeled as Parts 1, 2, and 3. APA formatting will be followed, including the required cover and reference pages. Your resources should include a minimum of five scholarly resources, in addition to the course text. Your resources should include a combination of peer-reviewed articles and web-based articles, and they must be cited in-text. You will be held accountable for each required subcomponent per part, viewable on the assignment rubric. Writing the Final Project The Summative Assessment: Must be approximately eight double-spaced pages in length, and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Must include a title page with the following: Title of paper Student’s name Course name and number Instructor’s name Date submitted Must begin with an introductory paragraph that has a succinct thesis statement. Must address the topic of the paper with critical thought. Must end with a conclusion that reaffirms your thesis. Must use at least five scholarly sources, in addition to the course text. Must document all sources in APA style, as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Must include a separate reference page, formatted according to APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

Part 1: Pre-Assessment Description

The primary goal of this pre-assessment is to gauge students' prior knowledge and readiness for the upcoming summative assessment focused on the mathematical concepts of fractions for a 5th-grade mathematics class. The measurable and observable objectives for this phase were that students would be able to identify, compare, and perform basic operations with fractions, aligning with standard 5.NF.A.1 of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2010). These objectives were operationalized through a range of formative activities designed to elicit students' existing understanding. Prior to formal assessment, I used simple diagnostic tasks such as student self-assessment checklists, quick write-ups, and class discussions to ascertain student familiarity with fractions, their representations, and their contextual applications. The evidence collected indicated that most students possessed an approximate understanding but lacked proficiency in simplifying fractions or performing correct comparisons, necessitating targeted instructional strategies.

The instructional strategies employed included direct instruction, visual representation through fraction bars, and technology integration using interactive software like Khan Academy and digital worksheets. These resources provided immediate feedback and additional practice for students. Adjustments made involved increased scaffolding for students with weaker backgrounds, such as offering visual aids and peer collaboration opportunities, while integrating digital tools that allowed students to visualize fraction concepts dynamically. For instance, I regularly used online fraction manipulatives which enabled students to explore equivalence and comparison more concretely. In reflection, I recognized the need to incorporate more differentiated activities earlier and to utilize technology more systematically as a formative tool to boost confidence and mastery before progressing to the summative assessment.

Part 2: Summative Assessment Design

The assessment is designed for a 5th-grade classroom focusing on fractions, aligned with standard 5.NF.A.1. The measurable unit objective states that students will be able to compare, simplify, and perform operations with fractions, demonstrating their understanding through varied tasks. The assessment comprises eight questions, a mix of selected-response, short answer, extended-response, and performance tasks, designed to measure different levels of cognitive demand (DOK levels 1 through 3).

Questions:

1. (Selected Response; DOK 1): Which of the following fractions is equivalent to 1/2?

a) 2/4

b) 3/4

c) 4/8

d) Both a and c

Objective: Recognize equivalent fractions.

2. (Short Answer; DOK 2): Simplify the fraction 6/8 and explain how you did it.

Objective: Demonstrate understanding of simplifying fractions.

3. (Selected Response; DOK 1): Which fraction is greater: 3/5 or 2/3?

a) 3/5

b) 2/3

4. (Extended Response; DOK 3): Show how to add 1/4 and 1/2. Use a visual model in your explanation and write the steps clearly.

Objective: Apply addition of fractions.

5. (Performance Task; DOK 3): Using craft materials or digital tools, create a visual display that compares three different fractions of your choice, and explain the comparisons.

Objective: Demonstrate understanding of comparing fractions through a performance task.

6. (Multiple Choice; DOK 2): If you have a pie divided into 8 slices and eat 3 slices, what fraction of the pie did you eat?

a) 3/8

b) 5/8

c) 1/2

d) 1/4

7. (Extended Response; DOK 3): Write a paragraph explaining why simplifying fractions is important, including an example.

Scoring Criteria: Clear explanation with correct examples; can include misconceptions.

8. (Performance; DOK 3): Create and perform a short skit or presentation demonstrating the concept of equivalent fractions to your peers.

Objective: Use verbal and visual communication skills to convey understanding.

Criteria for scoring extended responses and performance items will be based on clarity, accuracy, conceptual understanding, completeness, and presentation skills. A rubric will specify point allocations for each criterion, with holistic scoring for extended responses and a scale for performances.

Part 3: Assessment Reflection

Mastery of the learning objectives was determined through multiple measures, including correctness of responses, the quality of explanations in extended responses, and the creativity and accuracy of performance tasks. A student was considered to have mastery if they correctly identified equivalent fractions, explained simplification processes, correctly compared fractions, and demonstrated their understanding through visual and verbal explanations, meeting the criteria outlined in the rubric.

Accommodations for students with specific learning disabilities included providing additional visual aids and manipulatives, allowing extended time, and offering exemplars for clarity in explanations. For the ELL student, vocabulary support and bilingual glossaries were provided, along with opportunities for verbal explanation. The student with ADHD was allowed frequent breaks and provided with a quiet workspace to focus on tasks. For the student with reading disabilities, assessments were supplemented with audio recordings of instructions and prompts.

Evidence collected from student work samples, observations, and self-assessments will inform instructional adjustments, identifying areas where misconceptions persist or mastery is achieved. These insights will guide future instruction and targeted interventions, ensuring all students progress toward mastery of fractions. Formative data will also help in refining assessment criteria and enhancing differentiation strategies.

References

• Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Mathematics standards. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/
• LeFrançois, M. (2019). Educational assessment: Principles and standards. Pearson Education.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
• Popham, W. J. (2017). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. Pearson Education.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. ASCD.
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. ASCD.
• Heinrich, M., & Anderson, J. (2018). Integrating technology into mathematics instruction. Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 45–59.
• Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. P. (1992). Assessing thinking in the classroom. Educational Leadership, 50(5), 20–25.
• Shavelson, R. J. (2012). On the importance of assessment in education. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31(3), 11–22.