Summative Course Assignment

IntercjntineytalMotoring

elm_500_summative_bar_rubric.docx

Home >Psychology homework help >Summative Course Assignment

Grand Canyon University – College of Education

Masters of Education in Elementary Education

ELM-500 Summative Course Assessment

Benchmark Assessment and Rubric

Assessment Instructions:

Summative Course Assessment

This benchmark assessment consists of a summative examination. The summative examination contains four short-answer questions and one essay question.

Part A, Short-answer: Answer the following questions in a 250-500-word response:

1. What are some of the factors that influence young children’s cognitive development according to the theories developed by Vygotsky?

2. Explain one way that scaffolding can be used by a teacher to promote student learning.

3. Describe a skill area that may be difficult for an elementary student with a mild cognitive impairment. Defend your answer.

4. Describe the developmental theories of Piaget in relation to cognitive development.

Part B, Essay: Several girls in your fifth-grade class are disengaged during math instruction and discussions. Citing a theory and/or theorists, write a 500-750-word essay in which you describe teaching strategies intended to encourage them to participate and develop more confidence in their abilities. Consider developments in a global and digital society as part of your response.

Standards/Competencies Assessed:

Standards and program competencies assessed in the benchmark assessment:

· InTASC: 1(d), 1(e)

· ACEI: 1

· ISTE-T: 3b

· COE Program Competencies: D1 C1.1

Scoring Rubric:

CATEGORY	NO EVIDENCE	NOMINAL EVIDENCE	UNACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE	ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE	TARGET EVIDENCE
CRITERIA	0	69	74	87	100
Part A, Q1. Vygostsky and Cognitive Development 15% InTASC 1(d), 1(e); ACEI 1 COE D1 C1.1		Submission has little or nothing to do with the main topic.	Submission addresses the prompt(s), but is overly simplistic. Few details and/or examples are given.	Submission provides basic but accurate explanation of key concepts relating to Vygotsky’s theories on how learning occurs. General supporting details and/or examples are included.	Submission thoroughly explains key concepts relating to Vygotsky’s theories on how learning occurs. Incorporates several distinctive supporting details and/or examples.
Part A, Q2. Scaffolding to Promote Learning 15% InTASC 1(d), 1(e); ACEI 1 COE D1 C1.1		Submission has little or nothing to do with the main topic.	Submission addresses the prompt(s), but is overly simplistic. Few details and/or examples are given.	Submission provides basic but accurate explanation of how scaffolding can be used to support learning. General supporting details and/or examples are included.	Submission thoroughly explains the purpose of scaffolding and one way it can be used to create learning experiences that meet the needs of individual and group learners. Incorporates insightful supporting details and/or examples.
Part A, Q3. Skill Development and Cognitive Impairment 15% InTASC 1(d), 1(e); ACEI 1 COE D1 C1.1		Submission has little or nothing to do with the main topic.	Submission addresses the prompt(s), but is overly simplistic. Few details and/or examples are given.	Submission provides basic but accurate description of a skill area that may be difficult for a student with a cognitive impairment. General supporting details and/or examples are included.	Submission thoroughly and clearly describes a skill area that may be difficult for a student with a cognitive impairment. Incorporates realistic and insightful supporting details and/or examples.
Part A, Q4. Piaget and Cognitive Development 15% InTASC 1(d), 1(e); ACEI 1 COE D1 C1.1		Submission has little or nothing to do with the main topic.	Submission addresses the prompt(s), but is overly simplistic. Few details and/or examples are given.	Submission provides basic but accurate description of Piaget’s theories in relation to cognitive development. General supporting details and/or examples are included.	Submission thoroughly and clearly describes Piaget’s theories in relation to cognitive development. Incorporates realistic, insightful supporting details and/or examples.
Part B, Math Strategies Essay 25% InTASC 1(d), 1(e); ACEI 1 ISTE-T: 3b COE D1 C1.1		Submission has little or nothing to do with the main topic.	Submission addresses the prompt(s), but is overly simplistic. Few details and/or examples are given.	Submission applies appropriate, theory-based strategies to address the case scenario. Incorporates developments in global and digital society. Basic supporting details and/or examples are included.	Submission applies well-developed, creative, theory-based strategies to address the case scenario. Includes well-developed integration of developments in global and digital society. Several realistic, insightful supporting details and/or examples are included.
Q5. Organization 10%		Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. Argument is illogical. Conclusion does not support the claim(s) made.	Purpose statement is vague, and claims do not thoroughly support it. Argument and conclusion are orderly, but present unconvincing justification of claims.	Purpose statement and conclusion are clear. Argument shows logical progression. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion.	Purpose statement and related conclusion are clear and convincing. Information is well organized and logical. Argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner.
Q5. Essay Mechanics 5%		Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Citations are riddled with errors or missing.	Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistent language and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is lacking. Citations are present, but contain several errors.	Submission includes a few mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. A variety of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language. Citations are complete with few errors.	Submission is nearly/completely free of mechanical errors and has a clear, logical conceptual framework. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging. Citations are complete and correct.