Assessing English Language Learners.
Communication with families of ELLs can be challenging but it is vital for student success and family engagement. Many families may be unfamiliar with the standard practices of education in this country. Understanding assessment and how assessment data is used can be particularly difficult to discuss depending on the families’ previous experience with assessment in other educational settings.
Create a digital newsletter for families of ELLs to explain assessment practices. Consider how you communicate the information for non-native English-speaking families. Include the following in your newsletter:
- Description of each type of assessment (diagnostic, formative, and summative), including how and when each will be used to support English language instruction
- Explanation of alignment of the assessments to ELP and content standards and the use of assessment data to determine student progress in both language and content
- Description of testing accommodations for ELLs
- Discussion of how the data from assessments will be used to inform instructional decisions and planning, including enrichment and interventions
- Identify strategies to communicate timely and meaningful feedback with students and families, including student self-reflection strategies
Support your newsletter with a minimum of three scholarly resources.
Rubric Criteria
Collapse All Rubric CriteriaCollapse All
Types of Assessments
19 points
Criteria Description
Types of Assessments
5. Target
19 points
Description of each type of assessment (diagnostic, formative, and summative) is in-depth, and how and when each will be used is specific.
4. Acceptable
16.53 points
Description of each type of assessment (diagnostic, formative, and summative) is complete, and how and when each will be used is clear.
3. Approaching
14.06 points
Description of each type of assessment (diagnostic, formative, and summative) is lacking detail, and how and when each will be used is ambiguous.
2. Insufficient
13.11 points
Description of each type of assessment (diagnostic, formative, and summative) is insufficient, and how and when each will be used is inconsistent.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Alignment of Assessments to Standards
14.25 points
Criteria Description
Alignment of Assessments to Standards
5. Target
14.25 points
Explanation of alignment of the assessments to ELP and content standards is proficient and the use of assessment data to determine student progress in both language and content is convincing.
4. Acceptable
12.4 points
Explanation of alignment of the assessments to ELP and content standards is logical and the use of assessment data to determine student progress in both language and content is competent.
3. Approaching
10.55 points
Explanation of alignment of the assessments to ELP and content standards is unclear and the use of assessment data to determine student progress in both language and content is vague.
2. Insufficient
9.83 points
Explanation of alignment of the assessments to ELP and content standards is illogical and the use of assessment data to determine student progress in both language and content is unconvincing.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Testing Accommodations
14.25 points
Criteria Description
Testing Accommodations
5. Target
14.25 points
Description of testing accommodations for ELLs is thorough.
4. Acceptable
12.4 points
Description of testing accommodations for ELLs is reasonable.
3. Approaching
10.55 points
Description of testing accommodations for ELLs is cursory.
2. Insufficient
9.83 points
Description of testing accommodations for ELLs is confusing.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Use of Data to Inform Instruction
14.25 points
Criteria Description
Use of Data to Inform Instruction
5. Target
14.25 points
How the data from assessments will be used to inform instructional decisions and planning is advanced and creatively includes enrichment and interventions.
4. Acceptable
12.4 points
How the data from assessments will be used to inform instructional decisions and planning is detailed and effectively includes enrichment and interventions.
3. Approaching
10.55 points
How the data from assessments will be used to inform instructional decisions and planning is simplistic and minimally includes enrichment and interventions.
2. Insufficient
9.83 points
How the data from assessments will be used to inform instructional decisions and planning is convoluted or does not include enrichment and interventions.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Communicating Feedback
14.25 points
Criteria Description
Communicating Feedback
5. Target
14.25 points
Strategies to communicate timely and meaningful feedback with students and families are uniquely effective, including innovative student self-reflection strategies.
4. Acceptable
12.4 points
Strategies to communicate timely and meaningful feedback with students and families are effective, including relevant student self-reflection strategies.
3. Approaching
10.55 points
Strategies to communicate timely and meaningful feedback with students and families are ambiguous and include simple student self-reflection strategies.
2. Insufficient
9.83 points
Strategies to communicate timely and meaningful feedback with students and families are ineffective or does not include student self-reflection strategies.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Language Use and Audience Awareness
4.75 points
Criteria Description
Language Use and Audience Awareness
5. Target
4.75 points
Word choice is distinctive, creative and well-suited to purpose, discipline, scope, and audience of the presentation.
4. Acceptable
4.13 points
Word choice is reflective of the intended audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary, and communicates clearly.
3. Approaching
3.52 points
Some distracting inconsistencies or repetitions in word choice are present. Language is generally appropriate for the targeted audience.
2. Insufficient
3.28 points
Inappropriate word choice is evident. Language is not reflective of the targeted audience.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Layout
4.75 points
Criteria Description
Layout
5. Target
4.75 points
The layout is visually pleasing and contributes to the overall message with appropriate use of headings, subheadings, and white space. Text is appropriate in length for the target audience and to the point. The background and colors enhance the readability of the text.
4. Acceptable
4.13 points
The layout background and text complement each other and enable the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy to read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text.
3. Approaching
3.52 points
The layout shows some structure but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult due to lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold, or lack of appropriate indentations of text.
2. Insufficient
3.28 points
The layout is cluttered, confusing, and does not use spacing, headings, and subheadings to enhance the readability. The text is extremely difficult to read with long blocks of text, small point size for fonts, and inappropriate contrasting colors. Poor use of headings, subheadings, indentations, or bold formatting is evident.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Format/Documentation
4.75 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate APA style and formatting to document sources in citations and references.
5. Target
4.75 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated.
4. Acceptable
4.13 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Approaching
3.52 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.
2. Insufficient
3.28 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Mechanics of Writing
4.75 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.
5. Target
4.75 points
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.
4. Acceptable
4.13 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.
3. Approaching
3.52 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
2. Insufficient
3.28 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
1. No Submission
0 points
Not addressed.
Total95 points
