Assessment 5: Impact on Student Learning Paper
SEDC 451/751/771
A brief description of the assessment and its use in the program
The Impact on Student Learning Paper requires candidates to analyze their effect on student
learning by focusing on three students: one with strong content knowledge, one with average
understanding, and one struggling with content knowledge. (One student should be an English
Language Learner or have identified special needs if possible). Candidates will prepare a paper
that describes the context and characteristics for each student, analyzes students’ reading and
writing skills using assessment tools (including samples of student work); and outlines and reflects
on individual strategies for facilitating students’ growth in identified key areas. The purpose of the
assignment is to prepare candidates to reflect on their pedagogical strategies and measure the effect
of candidate instruction on students’ academic growth.
A description of how this assessment specifically aligns with the standards
NCTE Standards Assessed
2.3 Candidates demonstrate reflective practice, involvement in professional organizations, and
collaboration with both faculty and other candidates.
3.1 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of, and skills in the use of, the English language.
media and technology in contemporary culture.
3.7 Candidates demonstrate knowledge of research theory and findings in English language arts.
The key assessment aligns with the standards in the following ways:
Key Assessment Task
Describe the pedagogical strategies have you tried with this student and
the pedagogical strategies are you going to try. Explain why you selected
these pedagogical strategies with this student, explain the theoretical
rationale for using them (including research theory and findings in
English language arts).
Describe how you collaborated with other teachers (at the school and/or
at Hunter) to identify appropriate strategies for teaching the student.
The writing is free of errors in Standard English and the syntax is
appropriately complex.
Alignment with
Standard
3.7
2.3
3.1
Description of the Assignment
You will write a paper that addresses your impact on student learning. After reviewing the work
of the entire class, select three students as subjects for three “case studies.” (One with strong
content knowledge, one with average understanding, and one struggling with content
knowledge/skills.) If possible, one student must be an English Language Learner or have
identified special needs. Each case study should include the following elements, as well as
evidence of a pre- and post-assessment that demonstrates the impact of instruction on learning.
Characteristics of Each Student (Including information from home contact if possible)
Who is this student?
 Describe the student’s history (learning/personal), needs and interests
 Why did you select this student?
 What are your goals with this student?
Description of Pre-Assessments (One reading and one writing assessment for each student):
Explain how you administered the assessments and why you chose each assessment. Include
specific detail about what information you learned and refer to specific evidence from the
assessment (e.g. students’ writing, comments shared during a reading conference) to support
your analysis.
Potential assessment tools may include:
 6 traits of writing rubric
 Assignment rubrics
 Student writing samples
 Notes from individual conferences
 Fluency rubric
 Reading Conference
 Reading interview
 Writing interview
 Any other reading/writing assessments that are used at your school
Pedagogical Strategies with Each Student:
Based on information from your pre-assessments, describe the pedagogical strategies you
implemented to support each student based on his/her needs.
 What pedagogical strategies did you implement with this student?
 Why these pedagogical strategies with this student? What is the theoretical rationale for
using them? (Standard 3.7) You must cite program readings and research.
 How have you collaborated with other teachers (at the school and/or at Hunter) to
identify appropriate strategies for teaching this student?
Description of Impact on Student Learning from Post-Assessments and Reflection
(Standard 2.3)


What evidence do you have that your strategy impacted student learning? What do your
post-assessments (for reading and writing) of each student’s work reveal about his/her
learning?
What are your “next steps” with each student?
Conclusion
 What have you learned about teaching the full range of secondary students from this
exercise?
Additional items to consider for your paper:
 You must attach all assessment tools and/or samples of students’ work before and
after (pre- and post) as Appendices and label these in the body of your paper.
 Employ a strength over deficit model: You must demonstrate a strength over deficit
approach to using language to construct your case study participants. Examples of such
language do not include/include:
Deficit perspective
“Anna lacks the ability to…”
“Anna is a poor reader who cannot…”
“Anna is disrespectful…”
“
Strength over deficit perspective
“Anna struggles with…”
“Anna is a motivated reader but finds it
difficult to…”
“Anna has a tendency to show frustration in in
class when reading more difficult texts…”

Use a pseudonym for the names of students and schools

Include a bibliography of all sources using APA
The scoring guide for the assessment
Below Standard
Description of
Description is sketchy and does
Each Student
not provide a full description of
the student, his/her history, the
15% of grade
rationale for selecting the student
for assignment and the teacher’s goals for the
student.
Pedagogical
Strategies with
Each Student
30% of grade
for assignment
Standard 3.7
Assessments of
each Student’s
Work (Before
and After)
20% of grade
for assignment
Pedagogical strategies do not
appear well related to the
student’s needs or the teacher’s
goals for the student. The
rationale for using them is not
fully provided, there is little
description of past strategies, and
there is little or no reference to
theory underlying the strategies,
including research theory and
findings in English language arts.
There is scant description of the
materials or other resources used
to support instruction. The
writing includes multiple errors
and lacks fluency and/or complex
syntax.
Student work (either before or
after sample or both) is missing or
incomplete. Samples do not
appear to relate to the pedagogical
strategies described. The samples
do not represent before and after
work of an individual student
and/or are poorly described.
At Standard
There is an adequate description of the
student including his/her history, the
rationale for selecting the student the
teacher’s goals for the student. The
description is appropriately detailed, and
the teacher’s goals relate to the
description of the student.
Pedagogical strategies are appropriately
related to the student’s needs and the
teacher’s goals for the student. The
rationale for using them is fully provided
and makes appropriate reference to
theoretical underpinnings of the pedagogy
selected including research theory and
findings in English language arts.
Collaborations with other teachers are
well described and relevant to identifying
appropriate strategies. Materials and
resources used as part of instruction are
well described and relate to the strategies
and goals. (Std 3.7)
Above Standard
The description of the student provides rich level
of salient detail that is well documented. The
rationale for selecting the student and the
teacher’s goals for the student are extremely well
described. The teacher’s goals are very well
tailored to the student’s needs as described.
Student work, both before and after, is
included and clearly relates to the
pedagogical strategies described.
Descriptions and rationales for each
assessment are clear and relevant.
Student work, both before and after, is included
and strongly relates to the pedagogical strategies
described. Descriptions and rationales for each
assessment are clear, relevant, and
comprehensive.
Pedagogical strategies are extremely well related
to the student’s needs and the teacher’s goals for
the student and demonstrate great skill in
selecting pedagogical strategies to meet this
student’s needs. There is detailed description of
past strategies and their impact. The rational for
the strategies selected is extremely well thought
out and makes insightful and salient reference to
the theoretical underpinnings of the instructional
approaches selected including thoughtful use of
research theory and findings in English language
arts. Collaborations with other teachers are
extremely well described and highly relevant to
identifying appropriate strategies. Materials and
resources are very well described and are well
tailored to the strategies and goals. (Std 2.3, 3.7)
Reflection and
Conclusion
30% of grade
for assignment
Standard 2.3
Use of standard
written English
Standard 3.1
5% of grade for
assignment
Below Standard
The reflection does not discuss all
the required material; detail is
sketchy and there is little evidence
of insight about the student’s
learning. There is little or no
description of next steps with the
student or of implications for
teaching secondary English. The
student does not adequately
demonstrate reflective practice in
describing and analyzing work
with the student.
The writing includes multiple
errors and lacks fluency and/or
complex syntax
At Standard
The reflection discusses all the required
material; there is adequate detail. The
reflection provides evidence of insight
about the student’s learning, about next
steps, and about the implications for
teaching secondary English more
generally. The student demonstrates
reflective practice in describing an
analyzing work with the student.
(Standard 2.3)
Above Standard
The reflection discusses all the required material
and demonstrates exceptional insight about the
student’s learning, about next steps, and about the
implications for teaching secondary English more
generally. The student demonstrates highly
reflective practice in describing and analyzing
work with the student. (Standard 2.3)
The writing is almost entirely free of
errors in standard English and the syntax
is appropriately complex. (Standard 3.1)
The writing is free of errors in standard English
and is lively and fluent. (Standard 3.1)