Using The Blueprint You Created In Unit 3 To Construct A Sum

Using The Blueprint You Created In Unit 3 Construct A Summative Asses

Using the blueprint you created in Unit 3, construct a summative assessment that you would give your students after you have fully taught your chosen standard. This test must be an appropriate length to fully assess your students’ mastery of your chosen standard. It should contain questions of at least three (3) varying levels of rigor and contain multiple question types. You should have a student copy that is ready for the student to complete and a teacher copy that contains an answer key and identifies what level of rigor each question represents. As you construct your assessment, you may realize that you need to add additional questions or increase/decrease rigor levels. If this happens, be sure to adjust your blueprint. See Appendix B for rubric. (40 pts.)

Paper For Above instruction

Constructing a comprehensive summative assessment based on the blueprint devised in Unit 3 requires careful consideration of multiple factors, including the assessment’s alignment with the identified standard, the inclusion of varied question types, and an appropriate range of cognitive rigor. The goal of this assessment is to accurately evaluate students' mastery while providing a balanced and fair testing experience that measures different levels of understanding and skills.

Designing the Assessment Structure

The first step in developing this summative assessment involves reviewing the blueprint created in Unit 3, which delineates the specific standard, learning objectives, and cognitive levels targeted. The assessment should comprehensively cover these objectives, ensuring that students demonstrate proficiency across the spectrum of skills, from recall to higher-order thinking. To this end, the assessment should contain questions of at least three different levels of rigor: basic knowledge and comprehension, application and analysis, and synthesis or evaluation.

Question Types and Rigor Levels

Multiple question types should be incorporated to engage students and assess different learning modalities. These can include multiple-choice questions, short answer or constructed response questions, and performance-based tasks or essays. Each question must be aligned with a specific cognitive level. For example, basic recall questions can be straightforward multiple-choice items, while higher-level questions might require students to analyze data, compare concepts, or justify their reasoning.

- Low Rigor Questions: Focused on knowledge recall and basic understanding. For example, multiple-choice items asking students to identify facts or definitions directly related to the standard.

- Medium Rigor Questions: Emphasize application and analysis, such as scenario-based questions, categorization tasks, or short answer questions requiring interpretation of data or concepts.

- High Rigor Questions: Target synthesis, evaluation, or creation tasks. These may involve designing a proposal, critiquing a scenario, or composing an essay that integrates multiple concepts.

Creating Student and Teacher Copies

The student copy should be formatted clearly, with instructions, questions, and space for responses that promote ease of understanding. It should avoid providing hints or cues that could inadvertently lead to answers. The teacher copy requires an answer key that not only provides correct responses but also indicates the question’s level of rigor. This assists in scoring and provides insight into which cognitive levels students are demonstrating.

Adjusting the Blueprint

During the construction process, if the assessment reveals gaps in coverage or insufficient rigor, adjustments should be made. For instance, adding questions that target underrepresented aspects or increasing difficulty to challenge students further ensures the assessment remains aligned with learning goals. Conversely, if the assessment feels overly complex or lengthy, reducing the number of questions or simplifying some tasks maintains fairness and focus.

Conclusion

Overall, a well-designed summative assessment following the blueprint from Unit 3 should serve as both a measure of student mastery and a reflection of instructional effectiveness. Incorporating varied question types and rigor levels provides a comprehensive picture of student learning, supports differentiated assessment practices, and aligns with best educational standards. Regularly reviewing and adjusting the blueprint and assessment items guarantees that the evaluation remains authentic, balanced, and aligned with instructional goals designed to foster deep understanding of the standard.

References

• Angelo, T. A., & Cross, P. K. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Developing formative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
• Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (2007). The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Corwin Press.
• McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by Design (2nd ed.). ASCD.
• Nitko, A. J., & Brookhart, S. M. (2014). Educational Assessment of Students (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Popham, W. J. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (6th ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
• Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Pearson.
• Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to quality classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.
• Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. ASCD.
• Wiske, M. S. (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. Jossey-Bass.