iRubric: Reading Case Study Analysis rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Reading Case Study Analysis Reading Case Study Analysis Benchmark assignment for E340 Reading and Language Arts Methods: Intermediate Case Study (4-6) 2012 Rubric Code: S5WX7 Ready to use Private Rubric Subject: Education Type: Reading Grade Levels: Undergraduate, Graduate

Reading Assessment Descriptions
	Exemplary 1 pts	Meets Expectation 0.5 pts	Common Pitfalls 0 pts
Coding Oral Reading
Marking	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.
Coding	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
Cueing Systems	Exemplary Reader's use of cueing systems (MSV) calculated accurately; examples are provided and explained	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
Analyzing 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
Background of Reader	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.	Common Pitfalls Little information given about reader
Analyzing Literacy Practices	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
Fluency	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
Creating a Comprehension Map	Exemplary Organized comprehension map that outlines important points from passage in the three areas: 1.) Within the text, 2.) Beyond the text, 3.) About the text; includes ideas for prompts	Meets Expectation Comprehension map includes some important points from passage; few prompts.	Common Pitfalls Comprehension map not prepared in advance; not organized to fit genre; provides few details
Completed Comprehension Map	Exemplary Evidence of how comprehension map was used to keep track of student thinking; items on map are checked off and additional notes are recorded; clear what was unaided and what was prompted.	Meets Expectation Some evidence of how comprehension map was used to keep track of student thinking; few notes recorded.	Common Pitfalls No evidence of how comprehension map was used to keep track of student's thinking.
Thinking Within the Text	Exemplary Thorough analysis of retelling for key ideas and supporting details that demonstrates how well reader comprehends.	Meets Expectation Examines retelling for main idea, explains how details support main idea	Common Pitfalls Retelling not critically examined for key ideas; lists random details without examining overall comprehension
Thinking Beyond the Text	Exemplary Thorough analysis of child thinking beyond the text that demonstrates how well reader comprehends deeper meanings; discussion of what was unaided and what was prompted	Meets Expectation Some analysis of child thinking beyond the text.	Common Pitfalls Little analysis or explanation of child thinking beyond the text.
Thinking About the Text	Exemplary Thorough analysis of child thinking about the text; discussion of what was unaided and what was prompted	Meets Expectation Some analysis of child thinking about the text.	Common Pitfalls Little analysis or explanation of child thinking about the text.
Analyzing Reading Behaviors	Exemplary Comments are written using academic language; examples/quotes are appropriate examples of the respective types of thinking: predictions, connections, inferences, synthesizing, analyzing, and thinking critically.	Meets Expectation Some comments are written using academic language; examples/quotes are appropriate examples of the various types of thinking	Common Pitfalls Comments do not reflect academic language; difficult to see connection between example/quote and respective type of thinking.
Respond to the Reader
Teaching Strategies	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.
Text Selection	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
Professional Growth	Exemplary Insightful reflection and explanation that reveals how process of reading analysis developed your teaching skills	Meets Expectation Some evidence of new learning about yourself as a reading teacher	Common Pitfalls Little recognition of own professional growth
Insights about Reading	Exemplary Insightful reflection that challenges your previous assumptions about reading	Meets Expectation Reveals your new understandings about the nature of reading or this reader's abilities	Common Pitfalls Little evidence of critical thinking about common assumptions about reading
Overview of Student	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