Curriculum-Based Summative Assessment Design Using Wh 113261

Curriculum Based Summative Assessment Designusing What Youve Learned

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. You must use 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 as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

Paper For Above instruction

The development of a curriculum-based assessment (CBA) is a critical component of effective instructional planning and evaluation. This paper delineates the process of designing a comprehensive assessment grounded in prior instruction, aligning with educational standards, and accommodating diverse learners. The process is segmented into three parts: pre-assessment, summative assessment design, and reflection. Each component is elaborated with theoretical foundations, practical strategies, and considerations for inclusivity and technology integration.

Part 1: Pre-Assessment Description

Pre-assessment serves as a diagnostic tool to gauge students’ prior knowledge and readiness, ensuring instructional strategies are tailored effectively. In this case, the measurable objectives centered on students mastering key concepts related to a specific unit—such as understanding fractions in a mathematics curriculum aligned with Common Core Standards (CCSS). For example, a specific objective might be: "Students will correctly identify and represent fractions greater than one-half." Prior to summative assessment, formative assessments such as quizzes, class discussions, and observation allowed for monitoring student progress. The evidence of learning included completed practice activities, student engagement, and formative check-ins, which provided tangible indicators of readiness.

The instructional strategies utilized included direct instruction, collaborative activities, and interactive technology-centered lessons, such as digital fraction manipulatives. Adjustments made based on formative feedback involved providing additional visual aids and scaffolded practice for students struggling with concept comprehension. Technology enhanced student engagement and conceptual understanding by allowing interactive exploration of fractions via online tools like IXL or Quizizz. These strategies ensured students were scaffolded adequately, fostering mastery of the objectives before proceeding to the summative assessment.

Part 2: Design of Summative Assessment

The assessment targeted third-grade mathematics learners, specifically focusing on the CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.3.NF.A.2—understanding of fractions as numbers. The objective was: "Students will be able to represent fractions as parts of a whole, with visual and contextual understanding." The assessment comprised six carefully constructed items, ensuring coverage across cognitive DOK levels:

• Question 1 (Multiple Choice): Identify which of the following objects shows a half of the shape shaded? (Objective: Recognize fractional parts; DOK Level: 1)
• Question 2 (Short Answer): Write the fraction represented by the shaded parts in a diagram. (Objective: Represent fractional parts; DOK Level: 2)
• Question 3 (Extended Response): Explain in your own words how you can divide a pizza into equal parts and represent each part as a fraction. Include a drawing and an explanation. (Objective: Demonstrate conceptual understanding; DOK Level: 3)
• Question 4 (Performance Task): Given a set of colored shapes, create a visual representation of at least two different fractions and describe your work. Criteria for scoring include accuracy, clarity of drawings, and explanation.
• Question 5 (Multiple Choice): Which set of shapes shows three equal parts, and one part shaded? (Objective: Identifying fractions within various shapes; DOK Level: 1)
• Question 6 (Short Answer): How is understanding fractions important in real-life situations? Provide at least one example. (Objective: Apply understanding; DOK Level: 2)

Extended responses and performance tasks will be scored based on rubrics that assess accuracy, clarity, explanation, and application of concepts. For extended responses, scoring will consider the quality of reasoning, completeness, and correctness, with points allocated accordingly. The performance task will be evaluated on criteria including visual accuracy, completeness, and the coherence of written explanations.

Part 3: Assessment Reflection

Mastery will be determined through a combination of correct responses, demonstration of conceptual understanding, and application skills as outlined in the scoring rubrics. A 70% success rate across the assessment components will be considered mastery, aligning with educational standards for this grade level. For students with special needs, including those with reading and math disabilities, modifications such as simplified language, additional visual supports, and extended time will be provided. For the student with ADHD, the assessment will be broken into shorter segments with scheduled breaks. For the English Language Learner, bilingual glossaries and visual aids will be incorporated to facilitate comprehension.

The evidence collected from these varied assessment formats will inform instructional decisions and future interventions. Ongoing formative assessments and observations will supplement summative results, providing a comprehensive picture of student learning and areas requiring further support.

In conclusion, a thoughtfully designed curriculum-based assessment grounded in prior instruction, standards alignment, and inclusive practices ensures a valid measure of student learning. Incorporating technological tools and differentiated strategies maximizes engagement and effectiveness, ultimately supporting all learners in achieving mastery.

References

• Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Academies Press.
• Lefrançois, G. R. (2015). Principles of Human Learning and Behavior. Cengage Learning.
• Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The Key to Classroom Management. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 6-13.
• National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
• Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. ASCD.
• Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded Formative Assessment. Solution Tree Press.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Routledge.
• Heritage, M. (2010). Formative Assessment and Next-Generation Assessment Systems. Council of Chief State School Officers.
• Guskey, T. R. (2003). How Classroom Assessments Improve Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(3), 284-289.