WTS 7-8 Artifacts for Guided Learning Process

Alexandra Esser
Saint Marys University of Minnesota
Schools of Graduate and Professional Programs
Portfolio Entry for Wisconsin Teacher Standards 7 and 8
EDUW 693 Instructional Design and Assessment
Sara Heisler, Instructor
December 15, 2015

Artifact A: Pre- and Post-Assessments Related to Instructional Design and Assessment

The first three assessment tables involve designing instructional outcomes, learning
processes, and student engagement. The next four tables relate to assessment elements:
designing and using student assessments, and student participation and engagement in formative
assessments. These pre- and post-assessments targeted second-year German instruction.
Since I use published lesson plans, ratings reflect how I actually deliver instruction. For
example, the lesson plan may show several different types of learning and coordination to
other disciplines, but if I do not deliver that planning element during instruction, I rated my
current performance without that factor, noting: in plan; but not delivery.
Descriptors in each cell paraphrase Danielson Framework for Teaching assessment
descriptors from the 2007 version. Underlined comparisons or added words show preassessment ratings, and italicized comparisons or added words show post assessment ratings.
Unchanged ratings generally represent improvements (italicized) within the same
developmental range as the pre-assessment unless otherwise noted.
Rating codes: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished.
Table 1: Pre- and Post-assessment of Instructional Design for Appropriate Outcomes
Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1c: Setting
Instructional Outcomes (p. 51-53 and chart on page 54).
Element
Rating Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria.
Value,
P
1. Most/All outcomes represent low/moderately high/high expectations and rigor.
sequence, to
2. They do not/Some/Most/All reflect important learning in the discipline.
and
P
3. No/some/most/all outcomes connect to a sequence of learning in the discipline.
alignment
4. No/some/most/all outcomes connect to a sequence of learning in related
disciplines.
Clarity
B
1. Outcomes are not clear or are stated as activitiesOR Outcomes are
to
moderately clear/are clear, written in the form of student learning.
D
2. No/some/most/all outcomes permit viable methods of assessment.
Balance
P
1. (Choose ONE sentence:) Outcomes reflect only one type of learning and only
to
one discipline or strandOR Outcomes reflect several different types of learning,
P
but no attempt to coordinate or integrate disciplinesOR Outcomes reflect
several types of learning and opportunities for coordination and integration of
disciplines or strands.
Suitability P
1. Outcomes are not suitable for the class or are not based on any assessment of
for diverse to
students needsOR Most/all outcomes are suitable for most/all students in the
learners
D
class and based on assessment of students needsOR Outcomes are suitable for
all students and based on global assessments of student learning/evidence of
student proficiency. 2. Needs of very few/some/most/all individual students or
groups are accommodated.
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans for September 2, standardized test data, LMH samples, whole-class
data.
Area to improve:
Outcomes need to be made clear to students.
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans from week of Oct. 12-16, 2015.
Most improved
Clarity and value of outcomes for students
area:

Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Appropriate Outcomes

1. Pre: Outcomes were established in my head during planning and not clearly articulated to
students throughout the lessons. In turn, I spent a lot of time writing comments on their written work.
2. Post: Outcomes were planned, explained and demonstrated to students during coded reading
and writing and students were expected to meet these outcomes before they turned in their work. My time
was then saved when I wrote comments on their written work.
Table 2: Pre- and Post-assessment of Instructional Design for Optimal Learning Processes
Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 1: Planning and Preparation Component 1e: Designing
Coherent Instruction (p. 55-59 and chart on page 60).
Element
Rating Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria. Improve
Learning
B
1. No/few/some/all learning activities are suitable to students or to the
activities
to
instructional outcomes...OR Learning activities are highly suitable to diverse
P
learners and support instructional outcomes.
2. None/some/most/all represent limited/moderate/significant/high-level
cognitive challenge. 3. No/some/all are differentiated for groups of students.
OR Activities are appropriately differentiated for individual learners.
Instructional B
1. No/some/all of the materials and resources are suitable to students, support
materials
to
the instructional outcomes, and engage students in meaningful learning.
and
D
2. There is no/some/continual evidence of appropriate use of technology and
resources
(upper =) of student participation in selecting or adapting materials.
Instructional B
1. Instructional groups do not/partially support the instructional outcomes.
groups
to
2. No/some variety in grouping students...OR Instructional groups are not/are
P
appropriately varied for students and the different instructional outcomes.
3. No evidence/Evidence of student choice in selecting the different patterns of
instructional groups.
Lesson and
P
1. The lesson or unit has no clearly defined/recognizable/clearly defined
unit
to
structure that organizes activities.
structure
P
2. The structure is chaotic/not uniformly maintained throughout.
3. No/Uneven/Even/Highly coherent progression of activities.
4. Unrealistic/reasonable time allocations for each activity.
5. Allows/Does not allow/Some allowance for different pathways according to
diverse student needs.
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans from Sept. 2
Area to improve:
Design activities that are cognitively challenging to high-performing students.
Evidence sources:
Lesson plans from October 12.
Most improved area: Productivity of instructional groups
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Optimal Learning Processes
1. In the past, outcomes were established based on the median performance level of the class
rather than setting higher expectations for students to improve and meet.
2. In the past, students easily got off-task in small groups when they worked with students they
chose as partners. During the coded reading, students stayed on task the entire time in order to figure out
new words from the text they read.

Table 3: Pre- and Post-assessment of Instructional Design for Engaged Learning

Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 3: Instruction. Component 3b: Using Questioning and
Discussion Techniques and Component 3c: Engaging Students in Learning
(combining rows in the charts on pages 82 and 85).
Element
Rating Assessment Based on Danielson Framework Criteria.
Quality of
B
1. Teachers questions are of poor/a mix of high and low/high/uniformly high
questions
to
quality in cognitive challenge. 2. Students generally respond with single
P
correct responses/some thoughtful responses/thoughtful responses/formulating
many questions of their own. 3. Questions asked in rapid succession/a mix of
succession combined with inadequate time to respond/adequate time to respond.
Discussion
P
1. Teacher-student interaction is predominantly recitation style/with some
techniques
to
attempt to engage student in genuine discussion/creating genuine
P
discussion/creating student responsibility for the success of the discussion.
2. Teacher mediates all questions and answers./Teacher steps aside when
appropriate./Students initiate topics and make unsolicited contributions.
Student
B
1. A few students dominate the discussion./Teacher attempts with limited
participation to
success/successfully engages all students in the discussion./Students themselves
P
ensure that all voices are heard in the discussion as a whole class or in groups.
Activities
and
assignments

B
to
P

Evidence sources:
Area to improve:
Evidence sources:
Most improved area:

1. Activities and assignments are inappropriate/appropriate to

some/appropriate to all students age or background. 2. No/Some/Almost
all/All student are mentally/cognitively engaged in the activities and
assignments in exploring content. 3. Students do not/sometimes/generally
initiate or adapt activities and projects to enhance their understanding.
Digital recording of instruction from Sept. 2.
Ask cognitively challenging questions and allow students to offer suggestions to
structure their learning outcomes.
Digital recording of instruction from October 12, teacher observations.
Discussion techniques allowed for more student responsibility in their successes

Most Significant Evidence of Improvement in Designing Engaged Learning

1. Before, I had to remind certain students to stay on task during any kind of self-assessments, but
after they were shown how to easily code their writing, students stayed on task 100% of the time.
2. Students correctly identified their errors the related to word order (verb second for German)
and there were only 0-2 mistakes overall per students after they coded their writing, rather than 3-5
mistakes overall per students before they had coded their writing. When they were shown how easy it was
to identify their own mistakes, they left fewer mistakes in the paragraphs they handed in.
Pre- and Post-Assessments of Assessment and Instruction Practices Related to WTS 8
Table 4: Pre- and Post-assessment of Assessment Design
Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 1: Planning and Preparation (p. 63)
Component 1f: Designing Student Assessments (Read pages 59-63.)
Rating options: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished
Element
Rating Current Evidence to Support Rating/Area to Improve
Congruence
P
1. None/Some/All instructional outcomes are assessed through the proposed
with
To
assessment approach.
instructional
P
2. Assessment methodologies have/have not been adapted for
outcomes
groups/individuals as needed.

Criteria and
standards
Design in
formative
assessments
Use for
planning

Evidence:
To improve:
Evidence:
Most
improved:

B
To B
P
To
D

1. No/unclear/clear criteria and standards. 2. Students do/do not contribute to

development of assessment criteria.
1. Lesson plans include no/rudimentary/well-developed/well-designed
formative assessments strategies for all instructional outcomes.
2. Lesson plans include no/minimal/particular/well-designed approaches to
engaging students in assessment and correction of their work.
P
1. No plans/Plans to use assessment results in designing future instruction.
To
2. Does not use/Uses assessment results to plan for whole class (basic) and/or
P
group (proficient) and/or individual instruction. (Distinguished is all three
levels.)
Lesson Plans from week of October 5.
Have students contribute to development of assessment criteria.
Lesson plans from week of October 12.
Congruence with instructional outcomes and design in formative assessments.

Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Effective Assessment Practices

1. Pre: Before for self-assessment, I would go over the answers for the homework on the
document camera and students would correct their own homework. For any longer written assignments
and tests, I would grade all of it and not require students to assess these assignments.
2. Post: After research, I found good ways for students to assess their written, spoken, and literacy
performance through coding. It was very effective for reading and writing, but I did not have time to
implement the plans for students pronunciation.
Three Pre- Post-assessments of Participation/Learning Environment Related to Assessment Design
Table 5: Pre- and Post-assessment of Assessment Practices Based on Danielson Framework
Danielson A Framework for Teaching, Domain 3: Using Assessment in Instruction (p. 89)
Component 3d: Using Assessment in Instruction. (Read pages 86-89.)
Rating options: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished
Element
Rating Current Evidence to Support Rating/Area to Improve
Assessment
B
1. Students are not aware/know some/are fully aware of the criteria and
Criteria
to
performance standards by which their work will be evaluated.
B
2. Students have not/have contributed to the development of the criteria.
Students did not contribute to the criteria, but this was because they had to
first be taught what the criteria were. In the future students will better
contribute.
Monitoring of
B
1. Teacher does not/monitor progress of whole class (basic) and groups
student learning to
(proficient).
B
2. Teacher elicits no (basic)/makes limited use of (proficient)/actively and
systematically elicits (distinguished) diagnostic information from individuals
regarding their understanding and monitors individual progress. When
students coded their reading and writing, teacher looked at each students
work and helped students find correct answers if necessary.
Feedback to
students

P
to
P

1. Teachers feedback to students is poor quality and untimely/uneven quality

and untimely/high quality and timely/consistently high quality and timely.
2. Students do not/make use of the feedback in their learning with/without
prompting. (with=proficient, without=distinguished) Students still need
prompting to utilize feedback.

Student selfassessment and

monitoring of
progress

B
to
P

Evidence sources:
Area to improve:
Evidence sources:
Most improved area:

1. Students do not/occasionally/frequently assess and monitor the quality of

their own work against the assessment criteria and performance standards.
2. Students do not/rarely/occasionally/frequently make active use of that
information in their learning. Students revised their own writing more than
once before the teacher saw it and graded. Students were given the option to
re-write their paragraphs for a better grade or keep the original grade
Digital recording of instruction from Sept.2.
Encourage students to make use of feedback and assess their own work
without teacher prompting
Digital recording of instruction from 10/12/15.
Students improved their own original work before the teacher saw it

Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Designing Effective Assessment Practices

1. Two students chose to re-write their paragraphs for a better grade with teacher-corrections
2. Students made 0-1 total mistakes per paragraph related to incorrect word order and corrected
most mistakes before they handed in their work.
3. Students sought out new information during the coded reading and told the teacher what the
new words meant rather than the teacher telling the students
Approx. %

a = 91 to 100%
b = 80 to 90%
c = 80 to 90%
83% to 100%
85 to 95%
85 to 95%
Evidence sources:
Area to improve:
Evidence sources:
Most improved:

Table 6: Pre- and Post-assessment of Student Participation Related to

Formative Assessment
Approximate overall % of student learning/engagement observed by teacher during
(a) teacher-guided formative assessments in classroom:
(b) independent formative assessments in classroom
(c) formative peer assessments in classroom
Current approximate % of completion for assessments assigned as homework.
Current overall accuracy in assessing learning using criteria or assessment tools.
Current understanding of formative assessment as a valuable learning strategy.
Current student observations and outcomes by teacher tempered by long-term
teacher observations and recall of outcomes.
Incorporate more formative peer assessments in classroom
Current student observations and outcomes by teacher.
Independent formative assessments in classroom

Table 7: Pre- and Post-assessment of Student Practices Related to Formative Assessment

Rating options: U=Unsatisfactory, B=Basic, P=Proficient, D=Distinguished
NOTE: Underlined words represent pre-assessment areas most in need of improvement for this semester.
Italicized words represent post assessment areas that improved most during this semester.
Element
Rating Questions to consider in rating current performance and defining skills to improve
Criteria
U
Can students name expectations (what know/do) for each learning step? Steps for
and
to
writing paragraph were broken into parts and students could identify acceptable
Rating
B
performance at each step
System
For a task, can students explain the line between unacceptable (below proficiency
range) and essentially proficient? ...between fully proficient and mastery (above
proficiency range)? Students assessed themselves and only handed in acceptable
writing to be graded
Does the rating system result in points/percentages/rating phrases that match the
proficiency range for the task based on standards for the grade level (or temporarily
adjusted expectations to raise overall PK-12 performance to standards)

 Do all students participate willingly in formative assessment, knowing the

environment is safe for making inevitable learning mistakes?
Do students quickly and objectively provide evidence and ideas for improvement
when the teacher solicits information about what worked best and what did not to
achieve objectives? Students self-corrected work when shown how to correct
common mistakes
Do students use subject terminology and assessment criteria to question ratings
and frame discussions/questions, rather than personal opinions/emotional thinking?
Would students agree that the teacher maintains useful records of student work
and performance and can communicate student progress understandably?
Feedback
P
Do class and/or groups and/or individuals receive immediate feedback at each
to
mini-step of learning that confirms learning or corrects learning?
P
Is the same confirm- or adjust-instruction-process happening on the teachers part
based on continual assessments of student learning and feedback? (In other words,
students know the goal is to get it, and if they are trying and dont get it, the
teacher accepts responsibility for finding a method that worksa learning TEAM.)
Students self-scored each section of their homework so teacher could look at their
papers after each step and assess what students knew and could do
StudentB
Do students consider continual informal and formal formative assessments as not
initiated
to
only beneficial, but necessary for successful learning?
Assessment P
Before deadlines, do students ask for additional formative assessments if unsure
of performance or to ensure performance meets high expectations? Students
requested the Quizlet link to study their vocabulary for the upcoming test.
Do students take responsibility for their own formative assessments and try to
evaluate objectively, knowing it will help them become aware of their strengths
and needs, and encourage them to set personal goals for learning?
Evidence sources:
Digital recording on (date), tempered by long-term observations and outcomes.
Area to improve:
Have students offer more suggestions for improving instruction to fit their learning
Evidence sources:
styles or needs and ask for more formative assessments where needed. Make the
Most improved area: objectives explicit to students before instruction begins.
Digital recording on 10/12, along with current teacher observations and outcomes
Monitoring

B
to
B

Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Environment Related to Formative Assessment

1. Students not only self-corrected, but also self-scored their own understanding of the
homework each day even though this did not affect their overall grades.
2. Students understood what was expected of them before handing in written work to be graded.
3. Students wrote more complex paragraphs after they were broken into manageable parts

Artifact B: Instructional Design, Before-After Comparisons

Improved Lesson Planning
Targeted Subject: German Topic: Unser Schulfest (our school festival)
Length of Entire Learning Unit: 2-2.5 weeks
Quarter: 1 Students Age/Grade Level: Freshmen. Student Performance Range: Middle, High
Lesson Plan Source: Self and Fleer, S. (2010). Portfolio deutsch: Teachers manuel level 1.
Berlin, Germany: Langenscheidt KG.
This plan demonstrates understanding of 693 expectations for lesson design processes
and elements, guided by expectations in WTS 7. Highlighting represents understanding of
lesson planning terminology and practices aimed at aligning expectations, content, process,
product, and assessment elements. Numbers represent alignment of five key elements.
5 planning elements: objectives, content, process, product, assessment (3 types: diagnostic,
formative, summative). Only ONE example for each in CAPITALS/YELLOW HIGHLIGHT
5 assessment tools/methods: five formative or summative methods
6 levels of Blooms Taxonomy (explain missing or eventual levels)
5 thinking patterns (place term next to synonym: Introduce/Define by group
5 instructional strategies/techniques: see 693 term sheet for ideas
3 different differentiation strategies at one time (LL, ML, HL; multiple intelligences
MUS, VIS, VERB, LOG, BOD, INTER, INTRA, NAT, EXIST; learning styles
SEE, HEAR, TOUCH, SMELL, TASTE, DO, EMOtion, SETTING; explained
specific differentiation needs and coded in the lesson.
1 use of technology incorporated into entire unit (green type)
1 example of making purposeful connections: widening perspectives to realities, interests,
students past/present/future, cultural/racial/ethnic awareness, gender sensitivity, etc.

A BACKWARD DESIGN PROCESS:

1. Align standards developmentally to students. (Process completed in Artifact D.)
a. Current proficiency range based on vertical standards and assessed ability evidence:
Lowest=Gr. 1
Median = Gr. 2
Highest=Gr. 3
b. Learning Unit proficiency range based on vertical standards and students capabilities:
DIF:
Lowest=Gr.K-1 . Median = Gr.2- 3 . Highest=Gr.3-4 . DIF: complex
details for supporting facts
2. Align ending elements, beginning elements, and bridge the gap.
What to learn? [objective(s) +
content] (thinking pat./Blooms)
SO: Word level: Generate verbs
about an event. Describe what a
person does at homecoming
FO1: Word Level: Students will
define and conjugate (level 1)
verbs used with the dative case
in the present tense and list
(level 1RECALL) the dative

How to learn? [process] (key

strategies, teachniques, etc.)
Think, Pair, Share, Square

Students look at pictures and

determine with partners which
verbs fits each picture. Define
by detail DIFF PROCESS:
Faster learners write out

Product + Assessment? (task

+ method for evidence)
T = Discuss in pairs, then fours
M= Teacher verbally corrects,
students correct each other
T = p.203 #3b,c homework
M= students self-correct in class
and see the correct answers on the
document camera as teacher
writes

pronouns..

sentence based on grammar box

with verbs describing action.
FO2: Word Level: Students will Students point to each of their
recall (level 1RECALL)
clothing items and say what
various items of clothing in
each item is in German with the
German
correct articles. VIS BOD VER
FO3: Sentence Level: Translate Read sentences written in
(level 2UNDERSTAND)
English, translate the verbs and
sentences that include verbs
nouns they will need, and finally
with the dative case.
construct the sentence.
FO4: Sentence Level: Students DIFF TASK Draw a picture of
will describe (level
favorite outfit and explain what
2UNDERSTAND) what
makes each piece of clothing
clothing items appeal to them.
appealing. OR Select a celebrity
whose style they admire and
explain why this is appealing.
OR choose a teacher and explain
why that Regis teacher can be
identified by his/her outfit
FO5: Sentence Level: Students DIFF TASK Students present a
will dramatize (level3APPLY)
skit about buying/picking out
a situation where a person is
clothes OR dramatize any realbuying clothes.
life situation involving clothes
to show evidence of proficiency.
FO6: Paragraph Level: Students State clothing items and use of
compare (level 4ANALYZE)
gefallen in a sentence. Compare
their clothing styles outside of
by degree
school with their clothing style
within the Regis dress code.
FO7: Paragraph Level: Students Write sentences with passen,
evaluate (level 5EVALUATE)
clothing items, and events.
appropriate clothing for certain Define by grouping
events or functions and explain
what happens if they were
inappropriate clothing Relate
cause and effect.
SLOs: Paragraph Level:Write
(level 6CREATE) about
clothing and styles and use
verbs with the dative case.

T = Students take clothing

vocabulary quiz
M= teacher corrected
T = Homework assignment with
English sentences that include
targeted vocabulary
M= Students self-correct
T = Students individually
verbally describe their preferred
clothing styles to the teacher
Define by illustration
M= teacher verbally corrects

T = Skits have 5 lines per

speaker and include 3 dative
verbs
M= Teacher corrects written
script and evaluates presentation
T = Fill in Venn-Diagram for
clothing styles in and out of
school
M= students correct in pairs

T = Students work in small

groups, write about appropriate
clothing for 4 different situations
or events, at least 2 sentences for
each event. Define by grouping
M= Teacher corrects grammar on
document camera after students
present
Writing includes intro, three
Sum. Task: Write a developed
supported points, and conclusion. paragraph within chapter 12 test
NEW PRACTICE: Paragraphs
Sum.Method: teacher corrected
collected and put into writing
portfolio kept by teacher.
Students assess at semester end.

5. Align learning to learners. (Align Five to Thrive) [LearningLearner] (Shown in chart.)

Paces challenging and contrasting activities to sustain diverse learner participation.

Differentiation. New practices. 6Cs. Connect content to relevant topics and/or challenges
with appeal to learner interests; cultures; past, present, future events; personal needs, etc.)
6. EA: Essential UNIT Answer/Understanding: lasting truth/principle/rule/insight to answer EQ.
Change pronoun and verb conjugation
7. EQ: Essential UNIT Question: Motivate/broaden learning beyond academics. (Student Appeal!)
How can a paragraph shift perspective?
8-10: Essential UNIT Connections:
8. ETh: Connect thinking patterns from EQ to EA: Define by grouping
9. EP: Connect content to students and expand perspectives based on diverse realities: Put
students in real-life settings in Germany.
10. EC: Connect learning to build integrity, empathy, insight: Students explain why clothing at
a football game would not be appropriate for at mass.
11. Quality checks: Appropriate challenges? Equitable? Some students cannot afford brandname clothing so I will avoid discussing brands of clothing and limit the vocabulary to pieces of
clothing in German.
Lesson plan excerpts to show term identification and applications:

CONTENT: (our
school festivities)

SUMMATIVE
OBJECTIVES:
Students will write
about and describe
clothing and styles
and use verbs with
the dative case.

STARTING
OBJECTIVE:
Students will
describe what
happens at
homecoming
Instructional Steps/
Teachniques:
Think, Pair, Share
Write sentences

FIRST FORMATIVE OBJECTIVE: Students will identify dative pronouns and

verbs used with dative pronouns.
Instructional steps:

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT:
This assessment evaluates
students ability to conjugate
regular and vowel changing verbs
in the present tense and correctly
identify dative personal pronouns.
Shows Blooms recall and
recognize

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT

Artifact C: Assessment Practices, Before-After Comparisons

Example of an Improved Assessment Method or Tool
Targeted Subject: German Topic: Unser Schulfest (our school festival)
Task: Summative Assessment
Quarter: 1 Students Age/Grade Level: 9th grade, Level 2 German
Performance Range of Students: Grade 8-9
Source: Self and Portfolio Deutsch Level 1 textbook
New Insights about Task and Assessment Purpose
1. Evaluation is final.
2. Terms must be present in summative assessment. Students are asked to give at least three
supporting details that answer the prompt.
3. Assessment should draw from real-life tasks to be authentic.
4. First time I considered having students show their thinking or reflection process (indirect)
rather than just a measure of work (direct)
5. Criteria: As a formative assessment, students should mark or code their answers to show their
evidence of learning. In a summative assessment, the marking or coding shows they have learned
and teacher can agree/disagree after students have self-corrected. A successful teacher teaches
students to self-assess with the same accuracy as the teacher--without help from the teacher.
How I improved the summative assessment:
At first I only included the textbook-generated summative assessment as my only
summative assessment. Since this textbook assessment did not require students to draw from a
real-life situation or write more than single, non-connected sentences, I chose to include an
additional prompt for students write a paragraph. By writing a paragraph, students are exposed to
an authentic assessment, demonstrate meeting literacy standards for all subjects, and demonstrate
higher levels of Blooms Taxonomy through writing.
Summative Task/Description: Students must complete the entire test including the paragraph
within 40 minutes. Summative written paragraph prompt in addition to vocabulary/grammar
assessment below:
Write a paragraph of at least 75 words that describes your clothing style by comparing the
clothing you typically wear to two of the following places:
-To school (in die Schule)
-At home (zu Hause)
-Halloween
-Mass (in die Masse)
-Jeans Day
-Regular Dress Code Day
*Criteria: Paragraph includes topic sentence that identifies the events, three appropriate clothing
items are discussed and validated, at least 75 words, 1 correctly used dative verb chosen from:
gefallen, stehen, passen. Words are spelled correctly, verbs are in second position, all nouns are
capitalized, and all sentences are complete.

Letter grades were given on a 90, 80, 70, 60 grading scale. Paragraph was worth 20 points and
checked for the above criteria. Paragraphs were then graded by subtracting the number of
different mistakes students made from the word count, multiplying this number by highest
possible score (20), and dividing this number by the total word count.

SUMMATIVE
ASSESSMENT
(p.1)

1) Criteria: words are

spelled correctly

2) Criteria: dative
pronoun is correctly
identified

3) Criteria: Answer is
correctly selected

SUMMATIVE
ASSESSMENT
(p.2)
4) Criteria: noun is
correctly identified
based on gender given
by welch- word

5) Criteria: Correct
welch- word, correctly
spelled and capitalized
noun, correct
conjugation, correct
dative pronoun or
adjective (.5 point for
each)

6) Criteria: verbs are

conjugated correctly for
pronoun given

Artifact D: Pre- and Post-Assessments of Student Performance for Independent Process

Background Information: Both the pre- and post-assessment data were gathered in the first
quarter from the German II class that includes 11 freshmen and one senior. For the pre-assessment task,
students wrote paragraphs that described how they celebrated their birthdays. For the post-assessment
task, students wrote paragraphs that described their clothing styles and compared what they wear to two
different places.
Arrows indicate first semester () or second semester () proficiency levels.
Italicized type distinguishes post-assessment additions (Learning Step 6) from the earlier preassessment (Learning Step 2).
Excerpts from standards are in quotations, followed by the grade level in parenthesis.
Unchanged ratings generally represent improvements within the same developmental range as the
pre-assessment unless otherwise noted.
Two Key Academic Content Standards (ACS #1 and #2) Guiding the Independent Targeted
Learning Unit
Source(s): Wisconsin Model Academic Standards for Foreign Language, pages 5-6, retrieved from
ttp://standards.dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/standards/pdf/fl.pdf
Two Academic Content Standards in Vertical Format:

C: PRESENTATIONAL: SPEAKING AND WRITING Content Standard Students in Wisconsin

will present information, concepts, and ideas to an audience of listeners or readers on a variety of
topics in a language other than their own
Beginning C.5. Forms of writing: Students will write personal journals and/or brief messages to
friends (postcard, letter, or e-mail)
Bridging Expectation: Use words for two topics expressed in a developed paragraph.
Developing C.5. Forms of writing: Students will write short compositions and letters
Table 8: Pre/Post Assessments of Content Learning Compared to PK-12 Vertical Standards
Skill
Grade Current Proficiency Level Based on PK-12+ Developmental Standards
Level
Level (proficiency = performance meets ALL expectations at and below the rating)
Lowest
ACS. #1: Topic ideas (clothing items, verbs: tragen, anhaben, kaufen) Separable
8
prefixes at ends of sentences (8)
to 8
ACS. #2: Development (structure of sentences: verb in second position) Verbs
conjugated correctly (8)
Median
ACS. #1: Brief messages include what students want to buy (verbs: wollen, kaufen)
8
ACS. #2: Development of sentences with a coordinating conjunction aber or und
to 9
Students do not change word order with coordinating conjunctions (9)
Highest 9
ACS. #1: Developed paragraphs include introduction and conclusion about topics
to 9 ACS. #2: Sentences contain dative verbs gefallen or passen without errors Students
use dative pronouns and correctly identify the subject and indirect object in
sentences that contain either verb (9)
Evidence sources: Summative paragraph assessment from previous unit
Area to improve: Verb in second position (conjugated)
Evidence sources: Summative paragraph from current unit during the week of October 12-16.
Most improved
Students correctly identified and/or self-corrected their verbs in second
area:
position, subjects, direct objects, and indirect objects in sentences.

Most Significant Comparison Evidence of Improvements in Content Learning Outcomes

Specific comparisons are in Artifact E. These examples summarize evidence of greatest gains.
1. Pre: Lowest student sample had five errors where the verb was not in second position.
2. Post: Lowest student sample had zero errors where the verb (or what the student thought was a
verb) was not in the second position.

Key Literacy Standards Guiding the Independent Targeted Learning Unit

Literacy Content Source
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Common Core State Standards for English
Language Arts. (2011). Retrieved from http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/common-core/pdf/elastds-app-a-revision.pdf
Vertical Literacy Content Standards:

Grade 1 Write informative/explanatory texts in which they name a topic, supply some facts about
the topic, and provide some sense of closure.
Grade 2 Write informative/explanatory texts in which they introduce a topic, use facts and
definitions to develop points, and provide a concluding statement or section.
Grade 3 Write informative/explanatory texts to examine a topic and convey ideas and
information clearly. a. Introduce a topic and group related information together; include
illustrations when useful to aiding comprehension. b. Develop the topic with facts, definitions,
and details. c. Use linking words and phrases (e.g., also, another, and, more, but) to connect ideas
within categories of information. d. Provide a concluding statement or section.
Literacy Conventions Source:
Summarized descriptors for speech and writing standards adapted from Wisconsin Early Learning
Model Standards and Wisconsin CCSS for Literacy in All Subjects available at
http://www.collaboratingpartners.com/documents/WMELS4thEdition_web_edit2.pdf and
http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/common-core/pdf/ela-stds-app-a-revision.pdf
Vertical Conventions Standards
C.EL, Row 7, Age 5-6/Kindergarten: Forms correct letters and pronounces correct letter
sounds, capital for I and names, use multi-word sentences
C.Grade 1: Names, city, day/month capitals, end punctuation, saying/spelling high-frequency
words
C.Grade 2: + commas before simple conjunctions, commas for a simple list/series, simple
apostrophes for 's possession and nt contractions, capitals for most proper nouns, spelling.
Speaking simple sentence structures correctly.
C.Grade 3: + writing commas/speaking pauses for introductory or inserted clause, title capitals,
addresses, simple dialogue/quotations, possessives, uses spelling rules for K-3 words
C.Grade 4: + writing/speaking complete sentences when expected, commas with conjunctions,
spelling

Table 9: Pre/Post Assessments of Literacy Skills Compared to PK-12 Vertical Standards

Skill
Grade Current Proficiency Level Based on PK-12+ Developmental Standards
Level
Level (proficiency = performance meets ALL expectations at and below the rating)
Lowest
Lit. Skills: Paragraphs include a topic sentence, 2-3 supporting facts about clothing
K
styles, and 1 concluding sentence
To 1
Lit. Conv.: Students capitalize all nouns and use mostly correct articles der, die and
das All words are spelled correctly At least 3 subject verb ideas (1)
Median
Lit. Skills: Paragraphs include a topic sentence, 2-3 supporting facts about clothing
2
styles in 2 or more sentences, and a developed conclusion
to 3
Lit. Conv.: Commas are used before coordinating conjunctions, apostrophes are used
correctly for German and possessive pronouns are used in both nominative and
accusative cases correctly most of the time SV ideas include 2 added phrases or 1
added clause (3)
Highest 3
Lit. Skills: Paragraphs include a topic sentence, 2-3 supporting facts about clothing
styles in 2 or more sentences, and a developed conclusion, but students also add 2-3
to 4
supporting details for each supporting fact
Lit. Conv.: Possessive pronouns are always used correctly in nominative and
accusative cases, all writing is in complete sentences and each sentence contains a
verb Uses combined clauses and avoids run-ons (4)
Evidence sources: Summative paragraph assessment from previous unit
Area to improve: Compare clothing styles with two different topic sentences.
Evidence sources: Summative paragraph from current unit during the week of October 12-16.
Most improved
Students compared two different clothing styles for two different environments.
area:
Most Significant Evidence of Improvements in Literacy Skills Outcomes
Specific comparisons are in Artifact E. These examples summarize evidence of greatest gains.
1. Pre: In the pre-assessment, students described only one idea and it was not evident that they
could correctly identify and use different parts of speech in German (verbs, subjects, objects).
2. Post: In the post-assessments students compared two different ideas and compared by
describing by grouping. They focused more on content because they could correctly use the different parts
of speech after they self-assessed their writing before they handed it in.

Artifact E: Comparison Examples of Lowest, Median Highest Student Performance

The scores for the following pre-assessment paragraphs were calculated based on the
following equation: Total number of correct words x Total possible number of points / Total
number of words = Score. Each paragraph was worth 15 points and graded according to this
equation. Incorrect words were marked as misspelled words, incorrect word order, incorrectly
conjugated verbs, or misused words. Grades were based on a 90% =A, 80%=B, 70%=C, and
60%=D scale. Incorrect words are highlighted below in yellow. The pre-assessment grades were
the final drafts for students after they had submitted rough drafts that the teacher corrected. The
post-assessment paragraphs were graded in the same way with the following exceptions: 1) The
number of different mistakes students made were subtracted from their word counts rather than
the number of mistakes as in the pre-assessments. 2) These grades were the rough draft grades
before students made corrections and wrote their final copies.
Pre-Assessment Lowest Student Performance: (50 words) 13.2/15 points = 88.00%
Am Morgen ich bis schlafe zwlf Uhr. Denn ich ein groes mache Frhstck. Ich muss in
die Schule gehen. Danach ich schwimmen gehen. Meine Familie singt glclichen Geburtstag und
dann wir haben Kuchen. Sie schenken ein Geschenk! Die Party ist eine Menge von Spa.
Endlich, ich zurck gehe ins Bett.
Post-Assessment Lowest Student Performance: (84 words) 16.19/20 = 80.95%

Pre-Assessment Median Student Performance: (71 words) 13.94/15 = 92.93%

Am Morgen schlafe ich aus. Ich esse Muffins und trinke Kaffee zum Frhstck. Am
Morgen habe ich eine banane. Meine Mutter und Vatter backen Frhstck. Ich habe eine Party
mit meiner Familie. Am Nachmittag meine Familie und ich essen, kochen und trinken Soda und
Wasser. Ich bekomme Hose, Schmuck, und Geld nach mein Geburtstag. Am Abend meine
Familie und ich singen und tanzen. Wir auch zuschauen Kinos. Meine Partei was gute.
Post-Assessment Median Student Performance: (77 words) 18.2/20 = 91.00%

Pre-Assessment Highest Student Performance: (94 words) 14.36/15 = 95.73%

Ich habe am vierten Juni Geburtstag. Am Morgen stehe ich spt auf. Meine Mutter und
mein Vater kochen Frhstck - Teekucken mit Beeren und Kaffee. Danach gehe ich in die
Schule. Ich gebe Kuchen und Bonbons zu meinen Freunden (und ein Dauerlutscher zu Herr
Nelson). Am Nachmittag feiere ich mit meinen Freunden. Wir essen Kuchen, Eis, und Pizza.
Meinen Freunden singen und sprechen alles gute!. Danach gehe ich nach Hause und
Abendessen essen mit meine Familie. Meine Mutter kochen ein Schokoladenkuchen und meine
Mutter, mein Vater, mein Bruder und meine Oma singen. Danach schlafe ich!
Post-Assessment Highest Student Performance: (132 words) 19.2./20 = 96.00%