SPED 7720 & 7721: Assessment Portfolio Template

Your Name: _________________________ Date: ____________

Program: M.A.T or M.Ed.: ___________________________

*Be sure to attach the following in one PDF file:

Copy of the formative assessment with scoring criteria
Copy of the grading tool you created
Marked copies of the student’s work that reflect your evaluation and student feedback

Part A: Formative Assessment Report (write information under the headers below)

Basic information about the instrument (name, author, date, publisher, cost)

Purpose and intended population/setting of the instrument

Psychometric properties if available/applicable

Validity and Reliability of the instrument

Strategies for involving students, parents, and colleagues in the assessment process

Advantages and disadvantages of the instrument

Which concepts or domains does the assessment address?

What provisions (e.g., in terms of time and circumstances, tasks), if any, did you make on the assessment for individuals who have particular learning differences or needs?

What were the scoring criteria you used?

Part B: Description of your Learner

Description of your learner (include the following: initials for the student name, age, grade, setting, current level of the student, IEP goals, strengths, and challenges)

Does the learner require accommodations for testing? Why or why not?

How will you implement those accommodations?

Part C: Reflection on what you Learned about the Student from Evaluating their Performance (Use specific examples from the student’s work to illustrate your points; use the headers below)

Synthesis of the learner’s current levels of performance regarding the knowledge and skills on the assessment

What the learner still needs to learn about the subject area

Next steps for the learner, based on the assessment results and why

What, if anything, would you do to improve the assessment instruments?

Part D: Description of Ways in which You Involved Students in the Assessment:

Were students involved in the assessment?

Discuss opportunities for self-determination, self-monitoring, and reinforcement.

How did you communicate the information you learned through the assessment to the students?

What did they do with the information?

Part E: Discussion of how you Minimized Bias within your Self-Assessment Process.

Part F: Description of your Communication Plan – (Describe how you plan to communicate and involve test results to the student’s parents or guardians, colleagues, as well as the student being tested.)

SOLUTION

our Name: Jane Doe
Date: July 4, 2025

Program: M.A.T. – Special Education (Mild/Moderate Disabilities)

Part A: Formative Assessment Report

Basic information about the instrument
Name: Reading Fluency and Comprehension Rubric
Author: Teacher-created formative assessment based on Fountas & Pinnell benchmarks
Date: June 2025
Publisher: Teacher-created; no publisher
Cost: No cost; internally developed tool

Purpose and intended population/setting of the instrument
The purpose is to assess reading fluency (rate, accuracy, expression) and basic comprehension skills in elementary students. It is designed for students with mild to moderate disabilities in a small-group resource setting.

Psychometric properties if available/applicable
As a teacher-created formative assessment, no formal psychometric data is available. However, it aligns with validated rubrics used in research-based literacy instruction (e.g., Fountas & Pinnell).

Validity and Reliability of the instrument
The assessment demonstrates content validity by aligning with student IEP goals and common core standards in fluency and comprehension. Reliability was enhanced through rubric calibration with another teacher to ensure inter-rater agreement.

Strategies for involving students, parents, and colleagues in the assessment process
Students were involved in setting fluency goals and reviewing their progress via self-monitoring charts. Parents received updates through progress notes and samples of annotated work. Colleagues collaborated on modifying the reading passages to suit the student’s level.

Advantages and disadvantages of the instrument
Advantages: Immediate feedback, easily adaptable, aligns with IEP goals.
Disadvantages: Limited generalizability; results may vary based on teacher delivery and student motivation.

Which concepts or domains does the assessment address?
Fluency, decoding, oral reading expression, inferencing, and literal comprehension.

What provisions did you make on the assessment for individuals with particular learning differences?
The student received extended time, repeated directions, and was allowed to preview vocabulary words. Additionally, the reading passage was adapted to a lower reading level to match their current instructional level.

What were the scoring criteria you used?
A 4-point rubric for each area: fluency (rate/accuracy), prosody, literal comprehension, and inferencing. Specific descriptors were tied to each level of performance.

Part B: Description of Your Learner

Description of your learner
Student: A.J. (initials)
Age: 9
Grade: 3rd
Setting: Resource room pull-out, 4x/week
Current level: Reading at a late 1st-grade level
IEP Goals: Improve reading fluency to 65 WPM; answer 3/5 comprehension questions with 80% accuracy.
Strengths: High motivation, strong listening comprehension
Challenges: Struggles with decoding multisyllabic words, attention during longer tasks

Does the learner require accommodations for testing? Why or why not?
Yes. The student has a documented reading disability and ADHD. Accommodations are necessary to reduce cognitive overload and support sustained attention.

How will you implement those accommodations?
Use of simplified texts, oral reading support, clear directions repeated, and breaks between reading and comprehension sections.

Part C: Reflection on What You Learned About the Student

Synthesis of the learner’s current levels of performance
A.J. read the passage at 58 WPM with 91% accuracy. Expression was flat but consistent. He answered 3 out of 5 comprehension questions correctly, demonstrating strength in literal recall but difficulty with inferencing. His decoding errors were mostly phonetic misreads of multisyllabic words (e.g., “remembered” as “rembered”).

What the learner still needs to learn
A.J. needs targeted instruction in phonics for multisyllabic word reading and continued practice in making inferences and supporting answers with text evidence.

Next steps for the learner
Begin Wilson Reading System lessons to address decoding deficits. Introduce visual strategies (e.g., underlining clues) to support inferencing. Use repeated reading passages to build fluency and confidence.

What would you do to improve the assessment instruments?
Include a written response component to assess higher-order comprehension and adjust rubrics to better account for student use of strategies (e.g., rereading).

Part D: Description of Ways in Which You Involved Students

Were students involved in the assessment?
Yes. A.J. reviewed his fluency chart from the previous week and set a goal for his new reading. He also self-assessed his comprehension responses with a checklist.

Discuss opportunities for self-determination, self-monitoring, and reinforcement
The student selected his own reading passage from a set of teacher-approved texts. He used a self-monitoring sheet to track reading speed and marked his own graph. Praise and a small sticker reward reinforced effort and accuracy.

How did you communicate the information you learned to the student?
I used a conference format to show A.J. his fluency score compared to past results and praised improvement. I also reviewed comprehension errors and modeled better responses.

What did they do with the information?
A.J. reflected on his reading choices and committed to practicing decoding strategies at home using a provided reading list and flashcards.

Part E: Minimizing Bias in the Assessment

To minimize bias, the reading passage was culturally neutral and age-appropriate. I avoided texts with dialects or content that may disadvantage students from different backgrounds. Instructions were given both orally and visually. Additionally, rubric scoring was reviewed with another teacher to avoid subjective judgments.

Part F: Communication Plan

To Parents:
Assessment results and annotated work were shared via email with a brief summary of strengths, goals, and strategies to try at home.

To Colleagues:
Shared results during PLC meeting and sought suggestions for phonics-based intervention. Coordinated with speech therapist for language reinforcement.

To Student:
We met individually to review his progress, praise his effort, and establish a new fluency goal for the coming week. He charted it on his goal tracker.

SPED 7720 & 7721: Assessment Portfolio Rubric

	Level 1 Unacceptable Does not or inconsistently meet standards	Level 2 Developing Meets minimum standards	Level 3 Proficient Consistently meets standards	Level 4 Exemplary Consistently exceeds standards
Attachments: 1 – Copy of the formative assessment with scoring criteria 2 – Copy of the grading tool you created 3 – Marked copies of the student’s work that reflect your evaluation and student feedback	The candidate is missing pieces with multiple attachments. They may or may not be in one PDF file.	The candidate is missing pieces of the attachments. They may or may not be in one PDF file.	The candidate includes all attachments in their entirety in several files.	The candidate includes all attachments in their entirety in 1 PDF file.
Formative Assessment	The candidate used an assessment that may or may not include all relevant information for decision-making.	The candidate used one formative assessment that included relevant information for adequate decision-making. All information regarding the assessment from the directions is included.	The candidate used one formative assessment that included relevant information for good decision-making. All information regarding the assessment from the directions is included and is adequately discussed.	The candidate used one formative assessment that included relevant information for excellent decision-making. All information regarding the assessment from the directions is included and is comprehensive.
Clear Criteria	The criteria for assessment are not clear and limited feedback may make it difficult to establish goals for learning	The candidate provides clear criteria for assessment and provides some feedback that helps establish goals for learning.	The candidate provides clear criteria for assessment that provide feedback that addresses the instructional criteria.	The candidate provides clear criteria for assessment that allow for clear feedback to address the criteria and helps establish goals for learning.
Learner Differences	The assessment does not take a range of learners with different approaches to learning into account. There is an accommodation of the specific needs of the learner.	The candidate vaguely describes their learner in detail and includes how they provided accommodations for the learner and may include accommodations of the learner.	The candidate briefly describes their learner and includes how they provided accommodations for the learner and includes implementation that accommodates any specific needs of the learner.	The candidate describes their learner in detail and includes how they provided accommodations for the learner and includes implementation that accommodates any specific needs of the learner.
Marked Feedback on Assessment	The feedback on the assessment is vague or lacking.	The feedback on the assessment is general. Mostly check marks and Xs with little feedback.	The feedback on the assessment is adequate so that the learner can adequately understand their strengths within the assessment, as well as opportunities to improve.	The feedback on the assessment is comprehensive so that the learner can understand their strengths within the assessment, as well as opportunities to improve.
Reflection of Assessment Analysis	The candidate’s evaluation of student work is not entirely accurate, and no specific examples of student work are used that illustrate these conclusions.	The candidate evaluates student work and uses the information to develop concrete conclusions about the effectiveness of the teaching.	The candidate evaluates student work and uses the information to develop concrete conclusions about the learner’s knowledge. Specific examples of student work are used to illustrate these conclusions.	The candidate evaluates student work, and uses the information to develop concrete conclusions about learner knowledge. All parts of the reflection are addressed with specific examples.
Self-Assessment *(including) self-determination, self-monitoring, and reinforcement*	The candidate does not provide the learner with opportunities to self-assess. Nor, is feedback given improve their knowledge or skills.	The candidate provides the learner with opportunities to self-assess. OR The candidate provides the learner with feedback in order to improve their knowledge or skills. AND/OR Descriptions of self-determination, self-monitoring, and reinforcement are included.	The candidate provides the learner with opportunities to self-assess. AND/OR The candidate provides the learner with feedback in order to improve their knowledge or skills. AND/OR Descriptions of self-determination, self-monitoring, and reinforcement are included.	The candidate provides the learner with opportunities to self-assess. AND The candidate provides the learner with feedback in order to improve their knowledge or skills. AND Descriptions of self-determination, self-monitoring, and reinforcement are included.
Minimize Bias	The candidate either does not understand bias in assessment and/or did not demonstrate how he/she minimized bias.	The candidate vaguely demonstrates an understanding of the concept of bias in assessments and explains in detail how they minimized bias within this project.	The candidate demonstrates an understanding of the concept of bias in assessments and explains in detail how they minimized bias within this project.	The candidate clearly demonstrates an understanding of the concept of bias in assessments and explains in detail how they minimized bias within this project.
Communication Plan	The candidate either vaguely describes the communication plan or does not describe it at all.	The candidate vaguely describes their communication plan for explaining the results of the assessment to the learner and their family.	The candidate describes their communication plan for explaining the results of the assessment to the learner and their family.	The candidate clearly describes their communication plan for explaining the results of the assessment to the learner and their family.
Content	The content lacks a clear point of view, is not on topic, and lacks logical sequence.	The content is vague in conveying a point of view, does not stay on topic, and does not create a strong sense of purpose.	The content reflects a fairly logical progression of ideas and creates a strong sense of purpose.	The content is written clearly and concisely, with a very logical progression of ideas.
Writing Style / Grammar / APA	Errors in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, usage, and grammar repeatedly distract the reader, and major revision is needed. Style reads like a casual chat with friends, not professional APA style and mechanics for referencing used incorrectly or missing	Spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors distract or impair readability. The style of the paper is loose, almost casual, and not professional. APA style and mechanics for referencing used with many mistakes	The paper is clearly written with less than 4 errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling. The style of the paper is clear, clean, and readable, and professional. APA style and mechanics for referencing are used mostly correctly.	The paper is written with less than 2 errors in grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The style of the paper is professional. The candidate paid attention to what was said as well as how it was said. APA style and mechanics for referencing used correctly.