Disadvantages of teaching strategies gold

Analysis Of Assessment Tools

Assessment of students is a key element in creating appropriate instruction for students. Teachers must be able to administer assessments as well as determine a child’s strengths and areas for growth based on the results.

For this assignment, create a 12-15 slide digital presentation for teachers at an early learning center comparing two formal phonemic awareness assessment tools such as DIBELS, Developmental Reading Assessment, teaching strategies GOLD, High Scope, or COR.

In the presentation:

Present the advantages and disadvantages of each assessment tool, backed by research.
Evaluate the quality of each assessment and the validity of the data it would produce.
Explain how each assessment could be differentiated for a child with an oral language delay.
Include a title slide, reference slide, and presenter notes.
Support your presentation with 3-5 scholarly resources.

While APA format is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and in-text citations and references should be presented using APA documentation guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

Rubic_Print_Format
Course Code Class Code Assignment Title Total Points
ECE-540 ECE-540-O500 Analysis of Assessment Tools 60.0
Criteria Percentage No Submission (0.00%) Insufficient (69.00%) Approaching (74.00%) Acceptable (87.00%) Target (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Criteria 100.0%
Phonemic Assessment 1: Advantages and Disadvantages 15.0% Not addressed. Inadequately describes the advantages and disadvantages of both assessment tools. Minimally describes the advantages and disadvantages of both assessment tools. Clearly describes the advantages and disadvantages of both assessment tools. Expertly describes the advantages and disadvantages of both assessment tools.
Phonemic Assessment 1: Quality and Validity 15.0% Not addressed. Insufficiently explains the quality of the tools and the validity of the data both tools produce. Superficially explains the quality of the tools and the validity of the data both tools produce. Reasonably explains the quality of the tools and the validity of the data both tools produce. Thoroughly explains the quality of the tools and the validity of the data both tools produce.
Phonemic Assessment 2: Advantages and Disadvantages 15.0% Not addressed. Inadequately describes the advantages and disadvantages of both assessment tools. Minimally describes the advantages and disadvantages of both assessment tools. Clearly describes the advantages and disadvantages of both assessment tools. Expertly describes the advantages and disadvantages of both assessment tools.
Phonemic Assessment 2: 15.0% Not addressed. Insufficiently explains the quality of both tools and the validity of the data both tools produce. Superficially explains the quality of both tools and the validity of the data both tools produce. Reasonably explains the quality of both tools and the validity of the data both tools produce. Thoroughly explains the quality of both tools and the validity of the data both tools produce.
Differentiation 15.0% Not addressed. Implausibly describes how both assessment tools could be differentiated for a child with an oral language delay. Artificially describes how both assessment tools could be differentiated for a child with an oral language delay. Credibly describes how both assessment tools could be differentiated for a child with an oral language delay. Innovatively describes how both assessment tools could be differentiated for a child with an oral language delay.
Language Use and Audience Awareness (includes sentence construction, word choice, etc.) 5.0% Not addressed. Inappropriate word choice is evident. Language is not reflective of the targeted audience. Some distracting inconsistencies or repetitions in word choice are present. Language is designed for the targeted audience. Word choice is reflective of the intended audience, uses a variety of appropriate vocabulary, and communicates clearly. Word choice is distinctive, creative and well suited to purpose, discipline, scope, and audience of the presentation.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc.) 5.0% Not addressed. Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors are present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are documented completely and correctly, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Digital Presentation Layout 5.0% Not addressed. The layout shows some structure, but appears cluttered and busy or distracting with large gaps of white space or uses a distracting background. Overall readability is difficult with lengthy paragraphs, too many different fonts, dark or busy background, overuse of bold or lack of appropriate indentations of text. The layout uses horizontal and vertical white space appropriately. Sometimes the fonts are easy-to-read, but in a few places the use of fonts, italics, bold, long paragraphs, color, or busy background detracts and does not enhance readability. The layout background and text complement each other and enables the content to be easily read. The fonts are easy-to-read and point size varies appropriately for headings and text. 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 text.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use) 10.0% Not addressed. Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction are used. Submission includes mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. Includes some practice and content-related language. Submission is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few minor errors are present. Includes appropriate practice and content-related language. Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language.