Analyzing Assessments One of the responsibilities of a reading/literacy specialist is to select reading assessments that are appropriate and effective for the students being assessed. This means that the validity, reliability, and bias of the assessment needs to be considered.For this assignment, obtain the instructional testing documentation for three reading assessments that would be appropriate for the selected grade range (K-8 or 6-12). These are readily available from schools and districts.Create a 10-12 slide digital presentation for classroom teachers that analyzes each of the assessments in the following areas:ValidityReliabilityBiasHow to address concerns about validity, reliability, and bias in assessments.Include a title slide, reference slide, and presenter notes.Include in your presentation, a recommendation for the assessment you would most like to use. Discuss why you believe this assessment is the most effective, reliable , valid, and bias-free.The digital presentation should include graphics that are relevant to the content, visually appealing, and use space appropriately.Support your presentation with 3-5 scholarly resources.Analyzing Assessments
Masters of Arts in Reading, Grand Canyon University
REA: 510-0500: Survey of Reading Assessment
Leslie Foley
November 18, 2020
Assessment Definitions
Assessment: the process of gathering data to understand a students learning.
Validity: how well the assessment measures what has been taught to students.
Reliability: the ability of the assessment to produce consistent results.
Bias: something that penalizes the student
(DeVries, 2019)
HMH Into Reading: Module Assessment
Validity: Developed by HMH Into Reading Curriculum company.
Questions correlate directly to content taught in class.
Gives teachers a score based upon student answers to drive instruction.
Reliability:
Students are consistently scored based upon a predetermined right or wrong answers.
All students take the assessment online using their IPADs.
Questions are read to ever student.
(Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2020)
HMH Into Reading: Module Assessment
Bias: Focuses on validating cultural background with ethnic characters and stories.
Concerns: Students have a difficult time learning how to use the assessment.
(Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2020)
NWEA: MAP Assessment
Validity: Aligned with state standards and curriculum.
Statistically driven scores.
Adaptive questions allow for easier or harder questioning for a more valid scoring.
Reliability: Computer measured assessments.
Projects student growth using a formula.
Adaptive to student answers.
(NWEA, 2020)
NWEA: MAP Assessment
Bias: Stories include culturally responsive names and situations.
Accommodations can be made for students with IEP’s.
Concerns: Vocabulary may differ than that being taught within the classroom and district approved
curriculum.
Testing can be long.
Difficult for students to navigate when they are first learning how to use the computer.
(NWEA, 2020)
HMH Writing Rubric
Validity: Developed by HMH Into Reading curriculum company.
Purpose is clearly stated.
Criteria is easily observable and can be measured by the teacher.
Points reflect the assessments purpose based upon description of what is required.
Reliability:
Consistent scoring.
Consistent requirements expected of all students.
Scoring is consistent.
(University of Colorado- Denver, 2006)
HMH Writing Rubric
Bias: Educators easily stick to laid of requirements for scoring making personal thoughts
harder to punish students.
Specific language can allow for educators to be objective when grading.
Concerns: Scales can be ineffective if they are too extreme (pass/fail).
Language is inconsistent, negative, or vague.
(Austin, 2018)
Assessment Recommendation:
H.M.H Into Reading weekly module assessments and writing rubric.
Relevant to current learning standards.
Align directly with curriculum.
Results help drive instruction.
Little bias and concerns.
Questions?
Please contact me by phone: 402-415-3358 or by email at: amy.page@ops.org
Thank you for your time.
REFERENCES
Austin, E. (2018, August 7). Advantages and Disadvantages of Rubrics. The Graide Network.
https://www.thegraidenetwork.com/blog-all/2018/8/1/rubrics-friend-or-foe
DeVries, B. A. (2019). Literacy Assessment and Intervention for Classroom Teachers (5th ed.). Routledge.
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2020). HMH Classroom Assessment Products | Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. HMH
Classroom Assessment. https://www.hmhco.com/classroom-solutions/assessment
NWEA. (2020). MAP Growth: Precisely measure student growth and performance.
University of Colorado- Denver. (2006). Creating a Rubric. Creating a Rubric.
https://www.ucdenver.edu/faculty_staff/faculty/center-for-facultydevelopment/Documents/Tutorials/Rubrics/4_quality/5_rubric_rubric.htm
Course Code
REA-510
Class Code
REA-510-O500
Criteria
Criteria
Percentage
100.0%
Validity
15.0%
Reliability
15.0%
Bias
15.0%
Addressing Concerns
20.0%
Assessment Recommendation
15.0%
Visual Appeal
10.0%
Mechanics of Writing
5.0%
Format and Documentation of Sources (layout,
citations, footnotes, references, bibliography,
etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
5.0%
Total Weightage
100%
Assignment Title
Analyzing Assessments
No Submission (0.00%)
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Total Points
60.0
Insufficient (69.00%)
Inadequately analyzes the validity of each of the assessments.
Ineffectively analyzes the reliability of each of the
assessments.
Unconvincingly discusses the bias present in each of the
assessments.
Fails to analyze how to address concerns about validity,
reliability, and bias in assessments.
Includes a flawed recommendation for the assessment that
would most likely be used. Poorly discusses why this
assessment is the most effective, reliable, and bias-free.
There are few or no graphic elements. No variation in layout
or typography is evident.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede
communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or
sentence construction are used.
Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as
appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous
formatting errors.
Approaching (74.00%)
Unclearly analyzes the validity of each of the assessments.
Superficially analyzes the reliability of each of the
assessments.
Minimally discusses the bias present in each of the
assessments.
Partially analyzes how to address concerns about validity,
reliability, and bias in assessments.
Includes a shallow recommendation for the assessment that
would most likely be used. Somewhat discusses why this
assessment is the most effective, reliable, and bias-free.
Minimal use of graphic elements is evident. Elements do not
consistently contribute to the understanding of concepts,
ideas, and relationships. There is some variation in type size,
color, and layout.
Submission includes mechanical errors, but they do not
hinder comprehension. Effective sentence structures are
used, as well as some practice and content-related language.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, although some key formatting and citation errors are
present.
Acceptable (87.00%)
Clearly analyzes the validity of each of the assessments.
Effectively analyzes the reliability of each of the assessments.
Competently discusses the bias present in each of the
assessments.
Soundly analyzes how to address concerns about validity,
reliability, and bias in assessments.
Includes a suitable recommendation for the assessment that
would most likely be used. Solidly discusses why this
assessment is the most effective, reliable, and bias-free.
Thematic graphic elements are used, but not always in
context. Visual connections mostly contribute to the
understanding of concepts, ideas, and relationships.
Differences in type size or color are used well and
consistently.
Submission is largely free of mechanical errors, although a
few are present. A variety of effective sentence structures
and figures of speech are used, as well as appropriate
practice and content-related language.
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and
style, and format is mostly correct.
Target (100.00%)
Thoroughly analyzes the validity of each of the assessments.
Comprehensively analyzes the reliability of each of the
assessments.
Insightfully discusses the bias present in each of the
assessments.
Compellingly analyzes how to address concerns about
validity, reliability, and bias in assessments.
Includes a well-crafted recommendation for the assessment
that would most likely be used. Professionally discusses why
this assessment is the most effective, reliable, and bias-free.
The presentation is visually pleasing for the audience. There is
a good variety and use of graphics, colors, and fonts. The
arrangement of material is logically organized for
presentation.
Comments
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice
reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related
language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging.
Sources are documented completely and correctly, as
appropriate to assignment and style. Format is free of error.
Points Earned
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.