Differentiated Assessment Over The Past Four Weeks You've Ha

Differentiated Assessmentover The Past Four Weeks Youve Had The Oppor

Over the past four weeks you’ve had the opportunity to create a classroom environment that supports the foundations of differentiated instruction (DI), brainstorm differentiated strategies that align with the Common Core State Standards, and create the foundation for a unit plan based that incorporates instructional technology while adhering to UDL and DI principles. This week you will use what you’ve learned to create a summative assessment for the unit plan you created, using one of the strategies from your PLC blog, and with the classroom environment you’ve outlined in Week Two. This summative assessment must include: Common Core State Standard being assessed for mastery (it can be the same one you used in Week Four’s assignment).

A unit goal that aligns with the Common Core State Standard: The students will (Measurable Verb) by (A specific outcome with a specific tool) with ___% accuracy. Measurable – How will mastery be measured? (e.g.: Classify, discriminate, create, construct, defend, predict, evaluate, etc…). Be sure to avoid subjective words such as know, understand, learn, or appreciate. A specific outcome – what will students do to demonstrate mastery? (e.g.: skill or knowledge that has been gained to as a result of this unit). Measurable progress – What tool will be used to measure mastery (e.g.: project, journal, test, etc.) Proficiency Level – What is an acceptable level of achievement to demonstrate mastery?

Three Formative Assessments – Using the three day lesson plan outline from the unit plan, create a formative assessment for each day that: A unique differentiated teaching strategy for each day’s lesson. Addresses multiple intelligences. Considers student’s different learning styles. Explains how the assessment results will be used to drive instruction. Summative Assessment: Using the summative assessment outline from the unit plan, create a summative assessment that appraises mastery of the Common Core State Standard and the Unit Objective.

It must include: Directions to complete the assessment written using vocabulary and terms geared towards your identified student population. A rubric that clearly details how each part of the assignment will be graded. Addresses multiple intelligences and various learning styles. The assignment should be a minimum of five pages in length and must include reference to the course text and one additional research (scholarly article or online resource) in creating the formative/summative assessment. The assignment must be cited in proper APA format. A title and reference page must be included.

Paper For Above instruction

The design of assessments plays a pivotal role in evaluating student mastery of learning objectives, especially within the framework of differentiated instruction (DI). For this assignment, I will develop a comprehensive summative assessment aligned with a specific Common Core State Standard (CCSS), incorporating formative assessments tailored for each day of the lesson plan, and applying differentiated strategies that meet diverse student needs and learning styles. This paper will articulate the unit goal, the three formative assessments, the summative assessment, and the rationale behind each component, emphasizing the integration of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), instructional technology, and differentiation principles.

Selection of the CCSS and Unit Goal

The chosen CCSS for this unit centers on reading comprehension and analytical skills, precisely CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.4.1, which requires students to "Refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text." The unit goal aligns with this standard: "The students will analyze informational texts by identifying supporting details and making inferences with 80% accuracy, as measured by a performance-based project." The measurable verb, "analyze," emphasizes higher-order thinking, while the specific outcome and tool—a project—ensure clarity in assessment expectations.

Three Formative Assessments

Each of the three formative assessments corresponds with a lesson within the unit plan, designed to provide ongoing feedback and inform instructional adjustments.

Day 1: Active Reading and Detail Identification

For the first day, students will engage in a think-pair-share activity focused on annotating texts. Differentiation will be achieved through the use of graphic organizers suited to multiple intelligences—visual learners will use concept maps, while linguistic learners will annotate texts directly. This activity assesses their ability to identify explicit supporting details. Teachers will utilize the results to provide targeted mini-lessons on identifying details, focusing additional support for students struggling with text evidence extraction.

Day 2: Making Inferences

On the second day, students will participate in a game-based activity—"Inference Stations"—where different stations prompt students to infer meanings from various texts and images. The activity addresses multiple intelligences; for example, bodily-kinesthetic learners will move through physical stations, while naturalistic learners might relate inference tasks to real-world contexts. Results from this activity will guide differentiated instruction by regrouping students based on skill levels for small group inference lessons.

Day 3: Reflective Journaling and Peer Discussions

The third day's formative assessment involves reflective journaling, where students explain their reasoning behind supporting details and inferences. To accommodate diverse learning styles, options for response include written essays, audio recordings, or visual diagrams. This formative assessment provides insight into students' metacognitive strategies and conceptual understanding, which will inform future instruction and targeted coaching.

Summative Assessment Design

The summative assessment will encompass a performance-based task requiring students to apply their skills by analyzing a complex informational text. Directions will be tailored for the student population, incorporating clear vocabulary and visual supports for English Language Learners (ELLs) and students with learning differences. Students will select, highlight, and explain supporting details, followed by drawing inferences supported by evidence from the text. They will then write a brief analytical paragraph that synthesizes their findings.

Rubric and Differentiation

The rubric will detail criteria such as identification of details, inference accuracy, evidence support, and clarity of explanation, with suitable modifications for diverse learners—for example, providing sentence starters or graphic organizers. Various means of demonstrating understanding—visual, verbal, or kinesthetic—will be supported to address multiple intelligences, ensuring accessibility for all students.

Instructional Technology and UDL Principles

To promote engagement and accessibility, instructional technology such as digital annotation tools, interactive whiteboards, and speech-to-text applications will be incorporated. The assessment instructions will be visually formatted, with simple language and audio options to meet Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, eliminating barriers for students with disabilities or different learning preferences.

Conclusion

In conclusion, designing effective assessments within a differentiated framework requires deliberate alignment with standards, clear criteria, and thoughtful accommodation of diversity in learning styles. The integrated use of formative assessments guides ongoing instruction, while the summative assessment provides a comprehensive measure of mastery. Utilizing technology and UDL principles ensures equitable access for all students, supporting their academic growth and confidence in mastering CCSS objectives. This approach exemplifies best practices in assessment that promote inclusive, differentiated instruction tailored to individual learner needs.

References

1. Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners. ASCD.
2. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.
3. Heacox, D. (2012). Differentiating Instruction in the Regular Classroom: How to Reach All Learners. Free Spirit Publishing.
4. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.2. Wakefield, MA.
5. Garnett, P. (2008). Differentiation and the Brain: How Neuroscience Supports the Learner-Friendly Classroom. ASCD.
6. Tomlinson, C. A., & Imbeau, M. B. (2010). Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom. ASCD.
7. Wormeli, R. (2006). Differentiation: from Planning to Practice. Stenhouse Publishers.
8. Schmoker, M. (2014). Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Transform Teaching and Learning. ASCD.
9. Sousa, D. A. (2011). How the Brain Learns. Corwin Press.
10. McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by Design. ASCD.