LING 702 Key Assessment-Error Analysis Task Rubric
Evaluation
Criteria
Ability to
assess
learner’s
needs
Alignment to
TESOL Standards
4.b.3. Assess
ELLs’ language
skills and
communicative
competence
using multiple
sources of
information
Ability to
apply
language
knowledge
1.a.2. Apply
knowledge of
phonology (the
sound system),
morphology (the
structure of
words), syntax
(phrase and
sentence
structure),
semantics
(word/sentence
meaning), and
pragmatics (the
effect of context
on language) to
help ELLs
develop oral,
reading, and
writing skills
Needs Improvement
Satisfactory
Exemplary
Candidate is not able to
identify the learner’s needs
completely.
Analysis of learners’ needs is
not based on the use of
multiple measures of is based
on a limited number of sources
of information to assess ELLs’
individual language skills and
communicative ability
Lexical vs. Grammatical:
Analysis shows a lack of
understanding of the
distinctions of these aspects of
language and/or errors are
incorrectly identified as lexical/
grammatical.
Candidates may be able to
recognize and describe
similarities and major
differences between English
and the native languages
spoken by their students.
Candidate identifies learner’s
needs successfully.
Analysis of learners’ needs is
based on assessing ELLs’
discrete and integrated ability
to use grammar, vocabulary,
listening, speaking, reading,
and writing to communicate
appropriately using
performance-based measures.
Lexical vs. Grammatical:
Analysis shows appropriate
understanding of the
distinction; errors are correctly
identified as lexical/
grammatical
Candidates apply knowledge of
developmental phonology,
morphology, syntax, semantics,
and pragmatics to identify
aspects of English that are
difficult for their students,
noting how ELLs’ L1 and
identity may affect their English
learning.
Candidates assist ELLs in
recognizing, using, and
acquiring
the English sound system and
other communication skills,
Candidate identifies learner’s needs
well.
Analysis of learners’ needs is based
on candidates’ use and/or creation of
multiple performance-based
measures to assess students’
language skills and communicative
competence across the curriculum
Lexical vs. Grammatical: Analysis
shows a sophisticated understanding
of the distinction; errors are
insightfully identified as
lexical/grammatical.
Candidates design instructional
strategies that incorporate their
knowledge of the English language
system to aid ELLs’ learning.
Candidates differentiate ELL learning
to accommodate challenging aspects
of English language acquisition.
Candidates help ELLs develop
strategies to monitor difficult aspects
of the English language system.
(including
mechanics) in
English.
Ability to
apply
knowledge of
language as a
system
Ability to
identify
errors for
correction
Ability to
Standard 1.a.1.
Demonstrates
knowledge of the
components of
language and
language as an
integrative
system.
1.a
1.b.5.
Error analysis shows a lack of
understanding or minimal
awareness of the components
of language (especially lexical
and grammatical) and language
as an integrative system.
Errors are inappropriately
chosen for correction; not
based on sound bases; or
explanation does not provide
adequate support
Explanations for remedying
thus enhancing oral skills.
Candidates teach syntactic
structures that ELLs need to
communicate effectively for
social and academic purposes.
Candidates incorporate a
variety of instructional
techniques to assist ELLs in
developing literacy skills.
Candidates provide ELLs with
timely input and sufficient
contextualized practice with
idioms, cognates, and
collocations.
Candidates design
contextualized instruction
using formal and informal
language to assist ELLs in using
and acquiring language for a
variety of purposes.
Error analysis shows an
adequate understanding and
ability to use the components
of language (especially lexical
and grammatical) and language
as an integrative system to
inform instruction with ELLs.
Error analysis shows a sophisticated
understanding and use of the
components of language (especially
lexical and grammatical) and
language as an integrative system to
create instructional plans for ELLs.
Errors are appropriately chosen
for correction based on
reasonable bases, and the
explanation supports it
Errors are insightfully chosen for
correction based on sound bases;
explanation provides strong support
Explanations for remedying
Explanations and exercises for
identify
needs of
individual
learners
Ability to
apply sociocultural,
psychological
, and political
knowledge
about
learners
Understand and
apply knowledge
of the role of
individual learner
variables in the
process of
learning English.
2.e. Understand
and apply
concepts about
the
interrelationship
between
language and
culture.
errors show a lack of
understanding of the student’s
needs and result in little or not
acquisition of the targeted
form
errors are appropriate for the
student and result in the
reasonable acquisition of the
targeted form
remedying errors show sophisticated
understanding of learners’ needs, are
well-suited for the particular student,
and result in high levels of learner
acquisition of the targeted form.
Explanations and exercises for
remedying errors show
candidates are only somewhat
aware of the sociocultural,
psychological, and political
variables within a community
of ELLs.
Candidates are somewhat
aware that cultural values and
beliefs have an effect on ELL
learning.
Candidates are aware of the
links between language and
culture.
Candidates design classroom
activities that enhance the
connection between home and
school culture and language.
Candidates act as advocates to
support students’ home culture
and heritage language.
Explanations and exercises for
remedying errors show
candidates understand the
complex social, psychological,
and political nature of learning
an L2 in school and integrate
this knowledge in their
teaching.
Candidates teach using a
variety of concepts about
culture, including acculturation,
assimilation, biculturalism, ,
and the dynamics of prejudice,
including stereotyping.
Candidates’ choice of
techniques and materials
reflect their knowledge of the
interdependence of language
and culture.
Candidates act as facilitators to
help students’ transition
between the home culture and
language and US and school
culture and language.
Explanations and exercises for
remedying errors show sophisticated
understanding of and are consistent
with this particular student’s cultural
background and beliefs, psychological
and/or political factors (interests,
motivation, etc.).
Candidates consistently design and
deliver instruction that incorporates
students’ cultural values and beliefs.
Ability to
plan/design
learning
experiences
based on
students’
language
proficiency
3.a.3. Plan
differentiated
learning
experiences
based on
assessment of
students’ English
and L1
proficiency
Exercises/examples show little
or no awareness of standardsbased materials, resources, and
technologies. Little or no
evidence of exercises/examples
having been chosen to teach
language that will support
students’ content learning.
Candidates are only somewhat
aware of students’ languae
proficiency, learning styles, and
prior knowledge when planning
ESL and content-learning
activities.
Ability to
plan material
that adjusts
to student
needs
3.a.5 Plan for
instruction that
embeds
assessment,
includes
scaffolding, and
provides reteaching when
necessary for
students to
successfully meet
learning
objectives.
Candidates are somewhat
aware of the need to assess
students’ degrees of mastery of
learning objectives along the
way.
Ability to
design
activities,
3.b.2.
Incorporate
activities, tasks,
Candidates are only somewhat
aware of the need for
authentic uses of academic
Exercises/examples are
standards-based materials,
resources, and technologies
and exhibit some evidence of
having been chosen to teach
language that will support
students’ content learning.
Candidates plan activities at
the appropriate language
levels, integrating students’
cultural backgrounds and
learning styles. Candidates use
students’ prior knowledge in
planning ESL and content
instruction.
Candidates plan material that
scaffolds and links students’
prior knowledge to newly
introduced learning objectives.
Candidates continually monitor
students’ progress toward
learning objectives with formal
and informal assessments.
Following formal and informal
assessments, candidates
reteach, using alternate
materials, techniques, and
assessments for students who
need additional time and
approaches to master learning
objectives.
Candidates plan for and
implement activities, tasks, and
assignments that develop
Exercises/examples reflect exemplary
standards-based ESL and content
materials, resources, and
technologies, and are chosen,
adapted, and used to effectively
teach language that will support
students’ content learning.
Candidates design multilevel
activities and are flexible in grouping
students to meet instructional needs
of linguistically and culturally diverse
student populations.
Candidates plan material that
insightfully integrates and matches
students’ prior knowledge to the
needs that were identified earlier.
Candidate makes necessary
adjustments to instruction for
students who present evidence that
additional or different instruction is
needed.
Candidates design and implement
activities, tasks, and assignments that
develop authentic uses of academic
tasks that
incorporate
authentic
language
Ability to
address
needs of
SIFEs and
students
with special
needs
Ability to
assess
effectiveness
of Instruction
and Impact
on student
learning
and assignments
that develop
authentic uses of
language as
students learn
academic
vocabulary and
content-area
material.
3.a.4.
As needed,
provide for
particular needs
of students with
interrupted
formal education
(SIFE) and
students with
special needs, as
appropriate to
the particular
student.
4.c.1. Use
performancebased
assessment tools
and tasks that
measure ELLs’
progress
language in ESL and contentarea learning and the need to
design activities and
assessments that incorporate
both.
authentic uses of academic
language as students access
content-area learning
objectives.
language as students access contentarea learning material.
Candidates collaborate with non-ESL
classroom teachers to develop
authentic uses of academic language
and activities in content areas.
Candidates are only somewhat
aware of the unique
characteristics that necessitate
the use of specialized teaching
strategies that SIFE and special
needs students have.
Candidates plan learning tasks
specific to the needs of SIFE
and students with special
needs.
Candidates plan ESL and
content instruction to meet
reading and writing needs of
SIFE and students with special
needs. Candidates plan
assessment of SIFE/special
needs competence with text.
Candidates design ways to motivate
and guide any SIFE and special needs
students to successful academic
experiences. Candidates design
visually supportive, textually-rich
environments using appropriate
materials that include students’
personal and shared experiences,
language, and culture.
Follow-up writing task/topic
were limited or not appropriate
for evaluating student’s
development and candidate’s
impact on student’s learning on
the points instructed in
feedback provided; analysis of
effectiveness of explanation
and practice were
inappropriately done in some
way; or final assessment was
omitted completely
Follow-up writing task/topic
were appropriate methods of
evaluating student’s
development and candidate’s
impact on student’s learning on
the points instructed in
feedback provided; analysis of
effectiveness of explanation
and practice were
appropriately done
Follow-up writing task/topic were
excellent methods of evaluating
student’s development and the
candidate’s impact on the student’s
learning on the points instructed in
feedback provided; analysis of
effectiveness of explanation and
practice were thoroughly and
insightfully done
Ability to
serve as
good
language
model
Ability to
reflect on
this
experience
and identify
social justice
implications
Ability to
give credit
for ideas
used
Ability to
maintain
confidentialit
y of student
work
1.a.4.
Demonstrate
proficiency in
English and serve
as a good
language model
for ELLs
5.b.5
Quality of writing is not always
appropriate for academic tasks;
does not reflect conventions of
organization, grammar,
mechanics, and register
Quality of writing is
appropriate for academic task;
reflects common conventions
of organization, grammar,
mechanics, and register
Write-up of the experience
shows inadequate reflection,
analysis of the experience, or
social justice implications
Write-up of the experience
shows adequate reflection,
analysis of the experience, &
social justice implications
5.a.3
Appropriate credit not always
given for citations; some errors
in bibliography or APA format
5.a.3
The student’s identity is either
not addressed or not kept
confidential in accordance with
IRB requirements.
Generally appropriate credit
given for citations; acceptable
bibliography & APA format
used
The student’s identity is kept
confidential.
Quality of writing demonstrates
candidate is a model of the English
language: writing is excellent &
flowing; consistently reflecting
accepted conventions of
organization, grammar, mechanics,
and register
Write-up of the experience shows
insightful reflection, analysis of the
experience, & social justice
implications
Appropriate credit given for citations;
flawless bibliography & APA format
used
The student’s identity is kept
confidential in strict accordance with
IRB requirements.