iRubric: Reading Case Study Analysis (Spring 2013) rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Reading Case Study Analysis (Spring 2013) Reading Case Study Analysis Benchmark assignment for E341 Reading and Language Arts Methods: Formal Reading Analysis (2013) Rubric Code: B53AW Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Education Type: Reading Grade Levels: Undergraduate, Graduate

Reading Assessment Descriptions
	Exemplary 1 pts	Meets Expectation 0.7 pts	Common Pitfalls 0.4 pts
Coding Oral Reading
1. Preparation of Materials 1 pts	Exemplary Prepared miscue forms accurately; text was appropriate and interesting; recorded the oral reading and retell	Meets Expectation Miscue forms prepared incorrectly; text was too difficult/easy	Common Pitfalls Miscue forms prepared incorrectly; text was inappropriate for student (level or interest); did not record oral reading and/or retell
2. Marking 1 pts	Exemplary Reader's oral reading is marked accurately throughout running record sheet. No errors while calculating student's errors, self-corrections, accurate words, repetitions, omissions, insertions, self-correction rate, and accuracy.	Meets Expectation Coding sheet is completely marked with some inaccuracies. Some errors while calculating student's errors, self-corrections, accurate words, repetitions, omissions, insertions, self-correction rate, and/or accuracy.	Common Pitfalls Many uncoded or incorrectly coded miscues. Major errors while calculating student's errors, self-corrections, accurate words, repetitions, omissions, insertions, self-correction rate, and/or accuracy.
3. Coding 1 pts	Exemplary Each miscue is coded appropriately for MSV in the error column and/or self-correction column	Meets Expectation All miscues are coded and most are coded appropriately	Common Pitfalls Coding difficulties or no coding at all
Reader's Strategies
4. & 5. Information/ Cueing Systems 2 pts	Exemplary Reader's use of cueing systems (MSV) calculated accurately; examples are provided and explained; clear patterns are identified	Meets Expectation Reader's use of cueing systems (MSV) calculated with few inaccuracies; examples are provided with little explanation	Common Pitfalls Errors in calculating cueing systems (MSV) produce inaccurate picture of reading; missing or incorrect examples; no explanation; incorrect patterns identified
6. Use of Cueing Systems 1 pts Overall Analysis of Reader’s Flexible Use of Cueing Systems	Exemplary Reader's ability to coordinate cueing systems (MSV) is effectively analyzed for instructional focus	Meets Expectation Reader's ability to coordinate cueing systems (MSV) is adequately analyzed; instructional focus is identified but may not be the most effective	Common Pitfalls Weak match between analysis and focus for instruction
7. Background of Reader 1 pts	Exemplary Thorough description of reader. Includes general reading behaviors, pertinent information from literacy interview, favorite genres/books, classroom reading activities, conversations, etc.	Meets Expectation Some background on reader is given; vague and unsubstantiated	Common Pitfalls Little information given about reader
8. Analyzing Literacy Practices 1 pts	Exemplary Analysis is informed by observations of reader's literacy practices; examples are provided and explained using academic language	Meets Expectation Reader's literacy practices are described but not integrated into analysis	Common Pitfalls Reader's literacy practices not observed/addressed
9. Fluency 1 pts	Exemplary Rubric is accurately highlighted to reflect student's fluency. Student's strengths and weaknesses are described using the dimensions of fluency when appropriate: phrasing, pausing, expression, intonation, rate, and stress. WPM is calculated correctly.	Meets Expectation Rubric is highlighted but may be incorrect in areas. Student's strengths and weaknesses in fluency are described generally, but descriptive academic vocabulary is limited. WPM may be calculated incorrectly.	Common Pitfalls Little description of fluency or inaccurate description of fluency. WPM may be calculated incorrectly
Assessing Comprehension
10. Comprehension Notes 1 pts	Exemplary Organized notes focused on student's retell and discussion after reading the text; clearly identified teacher prompts	Meets Expectation Some notes focused on student's retell and discussion after reading the text; few identified teacher prompts .	Common Pitfalls Limited notes focused on student's retell and discussion after reading the text; no identified teacher prompts. .
11 & 12. Comprehension Rubric 2 pts	Exemplary Thorough analysis of retelling for key ideas and supporting details that demonstrate how well reader comprehends. Comments are written using academic language; examples/quotes are appropriate examples of the respective types of thinking.	Meets Expectation Examines retelling for main idea, explains how details support main idea. Some comments are written using academic language; examples/quotes are appropriate examples of the various types of thinking.	Common Pitfalls Retelling not critically examined for key ideas; lists random details without examining overall comprehension. Comments do not reflect academic language; difficult to see connection between example/quote and respective type of thinking.
13. Comprehension Strategies 1 pts	Exemplary Identifies two comprehension strategies that the student needs support in; provides clear evidence for each.	Meets Expectation Identifies two comprehension strategies that the student needs support in; offers vague evidence.	Common Pitfalls Identifies two comprehension strategies that the student needs support in; provides no evidence.
Respond to the Reader
14. Whole Group Teaching Strategy 1 pts	Exemplary Recommendation effectively communicates your analysis and provides a description with enough detail for others to carry out or understand appropriate teaching responses; based on cueing system analysis and retelling; very specific in terms of concrete next steps for the reader; clear use of articles/books from course to inform response.	Meets Expectation Recommendation effectively communicates your analysis and describes an appropriate teaching response; identifies a teaching point and corresponding methods to teach something reader is ready to learn; based on cueing system analysis and retelling; little evidence that articles/books from course were used.	Common Pitfalls Recommendation lacks detail or does not connect prior analysis and teaching points; weak link between teaching response and cueing system analysis; description of teaching response is not specific; incidental focus or weak link between selected methods and teaching goal.
15. Small Group Teaching Strategy 1 pts	Exemplary Recommendation effectively communicates your analysis and provides a description with enough detail for others to carry out or understand appropriate teaching responses; based on cueing system analysis and retelling; very specific in terms of concrete next steps for the reader; clear use of articles/books from course to inform response.	Meets Expectation Recommendation effectively communicates your analysis and describes an appropriate teaching response; identifies a teaching point and corresponding methods to teach something reader is ready to learn; based on cueing system analysis and retelling; little evidence that articles/books from course were used.	Common Pitfalls Recommendation lacks detail or does not connect prior analysis and teaching points; weak link between teaching response and cueing system analysis; description of teaching response is not specific; incidental focus or weak link between selected methods and teaching goal.
16. One-On-One Teaching Strategy 1 pts	Exemplary Recommendation effectively communicates your analysis and provides a description with enough detail for others to carry out or understand appropriate teaching responses; based on cueing system analysis and retelling; very specific in terms of concrete next steps for the reader; clear use of articles/books from course to inform response.	Meets Expectation Recommendation effectively communicates your analysis and describes an appropriate teaching response; identifies a teaching point and corresponding methods to teach something reader is ready to learn; based on cueing system analysis and retelling; little evidence that articles/books from course were used.	Common Pitfalls Recommendation lacks detail or does not connect prior analysis and teaching points; weak link between teaching response and cueing system analysis; description of teaching response is not specific; incidental focus or weak link between selected methods and teaching goal.
17. Text Selection 1 pts	Exemplary Connects analysis of reader's strategies to book selection; describes how appropriate text features fit this reader; considers reader interests, comprehension strategies, and literacy resources	Meets Expectation Identifies text features and appropriate book selection that would support this reader; gives some explanation of choices	Common Pitfalls Minimal identification of text features; inappropriate match to identified needs
Reflection & Recommendation
18. & 19. Reflection 2 pts Self-Reflection & Professional Growth	Exemplary Insightful reflection and explanation that reveals how process of reading analysis developed your teaching skills. Insightful reflection that challenges your previous assumptions about reading.	Meets Expectation Some evidence of new learning about yourself as a reading teacher. Reveals your new understandings about the nature of reading or this reader's abilities.	Common Pitfalls Little recognition of own professional growth. Little evidence of critical thinking about common assumptions about reading.
Overview of Student 1 pts	Exemplary Response written in honest, professional, and positive tone with clear, specific, and convincing evidence to support conclusions.	Meets Expectation Response is written in positive and professional tone; links specific evidence to conclusions	Common Pitfalls Response limited by unsupported claims or uses overly general assertions such as "she's a good reader" or "he's a struggling reader"

Subjects:

Education

Types:

Reading

Discuss this rubric