Individual Student Totals (SUM Column)
Exemplary All 12 student SUMs are calculated correctly.
4 pts
Proficient Most student SUMs are calculated correctly (10-11).
3 pts
Developing Some student SUMs are calculated correctly (7-9).
2 pts
Unacceptable Few or no student SUMs are calculated correctly (<7).
1 pts
/4 pts
Student Percentages (% Column)
Exemplary All 12 student percentages are calculated correctly.
4 pts
Proficient Most student percentages are calculated correctly (10-11).
3 pts
Developing Some student percentages are calculated correctly (7-9).
2 pts
Unacceptable Few or no student percentages are calculated correctly (<7).
1 pts
/4 pts
Question Totals (SUM Row)
Exemplary All 12 question SUMs are calculated correctly.
4 pts
Proficient Most question SUMs are calculated correctly (10-11).
3 pts
Developing Some question SUMs are calculated correctly (7-9).
2 pts
Unacceptable Few or no question SUMs are calculated correctly (<7).
1 pts
/4 pts
Whole Class Percentages by Question
Exemplary All 12 whole class percentages are calculated correctly.
4 pts
Proficient Most whole class percentages are calculated correctly (10-11).
3 pts
Developing Some whole class percentages are calculated correctly (7-9).
2 pts
Unacceptable Few or no whole class percentages are calculated correctly (<7).
1 pts
/4 pts
Category Grouping Calculations (Facts, Concepts, Reasoning)
Exemplary All category groupings calculated correctly.
4 pts
Proficient Most category groupings calculated correctly with 1-2 minor errors.
3 pts
Developing Some category groupings calculated with multiple errors.
2 pts
Unacceptable Few or no category groupings calculated correctly.
1 pts
/4 pts
Subgroup Calculations (Gender, Race, Special Populations)
Exemplary All subgroup calculations are accurate.
4 pts
Proficient Most subgroup calculations are accurate with 1 minor error.
3 pts
Developing Subgroup calculations are accurate with 2 minor errors.
2 pts
Unacceptable Few or no subgroup calculations are accurate.
1 pts
/4 pts
Data Recording & Calculations
Exemplary All pre-test and post-test percentages are accurately recorded.
4 pts
Proficient Most pre-test and post-test percentages are accurately recorded.
3 pts
Developing Some pre-test and post-test percentages are recorded with multiple errors.
2 pts
Unacceptable Data recording is incomplete or largely inaccurate.
1 pts
/4 pts
Identifying Easiest Questions (Q1)
Exemplary Clearly identifies the easiest questions for both pre-test and post-test with specific data evidence.
4 pts
Proficient Identifies easiest questions for both pre-test and post-test with adequate data support. Provides reasonable justification with some reference to percentages. Shows understanding of question accessibility
3 pts
Developing Identifies some easy questions but missing pre-test or post-test analysis. Provides weak justification with limited data support. Shows minimal understanding of what makes questions easy
2 pts
Unacceptable Does not clearly identify easiest questions or provides no justification. Missing analysis for both pre-test and post-test. Does not use data to support claims
1 pts
/4 pts
Identifying Most Difficult Questions (Q2)
Exemplary Clearly identifies the most difficult questions for both pre-test and post-test with specific data evidence. Provides strong, insightful justification using percentages and patterns. Demonstrates deep understanding of factors that make questions challenging
4 pts
Proficient Identifies most difficult questions for both pre-test and post-test with adequate data support. Provides reasonable justification with some reference to percentages. Shows understanding of question difficulty
3 pts
Developing Identifies some difficult questions but missing pre-test or post-test analysis. Provides weak justification with limited data support. Shows minimal understanding of what makes questions difficult
2 pts
Unacceptable Does not clearly identify most difficult questions or provides no justification. Missing analysis for both pre-test and post-test. Does not use data to support claims
1 pts
/4 pts
Learning Target Analysis (Q3)
Exemplary Accurately analyzes differences in learning targets between pre-test and post-test. Clearly identifies which items measure the same learning targets with specific evidence from the assessment. Provides thorough explanation of how they determined matching targets. Demonstrates strong understanding of learning target alignment
4 pts
Proficient Analyzes differences in learning targets with some accuracy. Identifies most items measuring the same targets with some evidence. Provides adequate explanation of determination process. Shows good understanding of learning target alignment
3 pts
Developing Partially analyzes learning target differences with limited accuracy. Identifies few matching items with weak evidence. Provides minimal explanation of how targets were determined. Shows basic understanding of learning target alignment
2 pts
Unacceptable Does not meaningfully analyze learning target differences. Does not identify which items measure the same targets. Provides no explanation of determination process. Shows little to no understanding of learning target alignment
1 pts
/4 pts
DOK Level Analysis (Q4)
Exemplary Accurately identifies differences in DOK levels between pre-test and post-test. Correctly identifies the DOK level for each item with clear, specific explanations. Provides thorough justification for each DOK determination using assessment characteristics. Demonstrates strong understanding of DOK framework
4 pts
Proficient Identifies differences in DOK levels with reasonable accuracy. Correctly identifies most DOK levels with adequate explanations. Provides reasonable justification for DOK determinations. Shows good understanding of DOK framework
3 pts
Developing Partially identifies DOK level differences with limited accuracy. Correctly identifies some DOK levels but with weak explanations. Provides minimal justification for determinations. Shows basic understanding of DOK framework
2 pts
Unacceptable Does not meaningfully analyze DOK level differences. Incorrectly identifies DOK levels or does not attempt identification. Provides no justification for determinations. Shows little to no understanding of DOK framework
1 pts
/4 pts
Student Performance Discussion Based on DOK (Q5)
Exemplary Provides thorough, insightful discussion of student performance based on DOK levels for both pre-test and post-test. Makes clear connections between performance patterns and DOK complexity. Uses specific data and percentages to support analysis. Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of how DOK relates to student achievement
4 pts
Proficient Discusses student performance based on DOK levels for both pre-test and post-test with adequate depth. Makes reasonable connections between performance and DOK complexity. Uses some data to support analysis. Shows good understanding of DOK and student achievement relationship
3 pts
Developing Discusses student performance superficially with limited connection to DOK levels. Makes weak connections between performance and DOK complexity. Uses minimal data to support analysis. Shows basic understanding of DOK and achievement relationship
2 pts
Unacceptable Does not meaningfully discuss student performance based on DOK levels. Makes no clear connections between performance and DOK complexity. Does not use data to support analysis. Shows little to no understanding of DOK and achievement relationship
1 pts
/4 pts
Instructional Planning & Next Steps (Q6)
Exemplary Provides detailed, specific instructional next steps for both pre-test and post-test data. Clearly identifies appropriate student groupings (whole class, small groups, individuals) with rationale. Specifies which learning targets need re-teaching and explains why. Differentiates instructional approaches for different subgroups based on their performance. Plans are directly connected to the data analysis and are pedagogically sound. Addresses equity considerations for diverse learners
4 pts
Proficient Provides reasonable instructional next steps for both pre-test and post-test. Identifies student groupings with some rationale. Specifies learning targets that need re-teaching. Shows some differentiation based on subgroup performance. Plans are generally connected to data and are appropriate. Mentions diverse learner needs
3 pts
Developing Provides vague or general instructional next steps. Identifies groupings without clear rationale. Mentions learning targets but without specific re-teaching plans. Limited differentiation for different subgroups. Plans have weak connection to data analysis. Minimal consideration of diverse learner needs
2 pts
Unacceptable Does not provide meaningful instructional next steps or plans are inappropriate. Does not identify appropriate groupings. Does not specify learning targets for re-teaching. No differentiation based on subgroup performance. Plans are not connected to data. Does not consider diverse learner needs
1 pts
/4 pts
Critical Analysis & Reflection (Q7)
Exemplary Identifies multiple important considerations beyond the basic data (e.g., assessment validity, student engagement, testing conditions, external factors, assessment bias, opportunity to learn). Demonstrates critical thinking about limitations of the data. Considers both pre-test and post-test contexts thoughtfully. Shows awareness of factors that might influence interpretation (cultural considerations, language barriers, test anxiety, etc.). Reflects on the broader implications for teaching and learning
4 pts
Proficient Identifies several important considerations beyond basic data. Shows some critical thinking about data limitations. Addresses both pre-test and post-test contexts. Mentions factors that might influence interpretation. Shows some reflection on implications for teaching
3 pts
Developing Identifies one or two considerations but with limited depth. Limited critical thinking about data limitations. Addresses only one testing context (pre or post). Minimal discussion of influencing factors. Limited reflection on teaching implications
2 pts
Unacceptable Does not identify meaningful additional considerations or responses are superficial. No critical thinking about data limitations. Does not address testing contexts thoughtfully. Does not discuss factors that might influence data. No reflection on teaching implications
1 pts
/4 pts
Writing Mechanics
Exemplary Zero repeated errors in grammar, usage, mechanics, and spelling
4 pts
Proficient One or Two repeated errors in grammar, usage, spelling and/or mechanics
3 pts
Developing Three or Four repeated errors in grammar, usage, spelling and/or mechanics
2 pts
Unacceptable Five or more repeated errors in grammar, usage, spelling and/or mechanics
1 pts
/4 pts
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.