Missouri Pre-Service Teacher Assessment (MoPTA)
Library of Examples – Task 2
Example Task 2, Step 2, Textbox 2.2.2
Below are two examples of written responses to Textbox 2.2.2 as excerpted from the portfolios of two different
candidates. The candidate responses were not corrected or changed from what was submitted. One response was
scored at the Met/Exceeded Standards Level and the other response was scored at the Did Not Meet/Partially
Met Standards Level. This information is being provided for illustrative purposes only. These excerpts are not
templates for candidates to use to guarantee a successful score. Rather, they are examples that candidates can
use for comparison purposes to see the kinds of evidence that they may need to add to their own work.
Step 2: Administering the Assessment and Analyzing the Data
Textbox 2.2.2: Modifications to the Assessment
Met/Exceeded Standards Level
a. I would not make any modifications to this
process. The students will continue to be assessed
individually. All students will use the same process
to collect data regarding their WCPM, error, and
accuracy rate. Both activities are individual based.
The students will also be completing a graph
following each individual reading.
b. I will modify the assessment by choosing a reading
passage that the individual students can read with
some guidance and instruction. This will allow the
focus students to see their improvement in
fluency on the Reading Passage Graph. I will
modify the Reading Passage Graph for each
student. Students with reading levels that are
“well below average” will use the Reading Passage
Graph that starts at zero and increases in
increments of five to 60 words per minute.
Students with reading levels “below average” will use a graph that starts at zero words and increases in
increments of five to 120 correct words per minute. Students with reading levels “average”, “above
average”, and “well above average” will use a graph that starts at 80 words and increases by five to
200 correct words per minute.
The students will visually see their improvement in fluency by filling in the graph after each reading.
The different graphs will allow the students at different levels to feel proud of their hard work and
© 2015 MoDESE. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national
origin, age, or disability in its programs and activities. Inquiries related to Department programs and to the location of services, activities, and facilities
that are accessible by persons with disabilities may be directed to the Jefferson State Office Building, Office of the General Counsel, Coordinator – Civil
Rights Compliance (Title VI/Title IX/504/ADA/Age Act), 6th Floor, 205 Jefferson Street, P.O. Box 480, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0480; telephone
number 573-526-4757 or TTY 800-735-2966; email [email protected]
improvement as they increase their reading fluency and WCPM while increasing the students’
confidence in reading.
c. I would modify the data-collection method by requiring the students in the “well below average”,
“below average”, and “average” groups to record data more often than students in the “above
average” and “well above average” groups. These three groups need to improve their fluency and
practice will improve their reading.
I would also modify the data-collection method by teaching the “above average” and “well above
average” groups to calculate their error rate and accuracy percentage and how to chart their data
using different types of charts such as bar, line and pie charts.
Step 2: Administering the Assessment and Analyzing the Data
Textbox 2.2.2: Analysis of the Assessment Data and Student Learning for Each of the Two Focus Students
Did Not Meet/Partially Met Standards Level
a. Instead of an oral assessment, students could
be asked to circle the appropriate word to
complete a sentence. This would provide the
additional information that the student could
read the word and use it appropriately.
b. The only materials needed are the sight word
flashcards and the spreadsheet to track the
words students know. The straightforwardness
of this assessment makes it practical and easy
to administer, so no modifications are needed.
c. The data will be collected through an oral
assessment and kept in a weekly log. This is the
most efficient way of tracking the accumulation
of sight word recognition, so no modification is
needed.
Suggestions for Use
After writing your own rough draft response to the guiding prompts, ask the question, “Which parts of these
examples are closest to what I have written?” Then read the 4 levels of the matching rubric (labeled with the
textbox number) and decide which best matches your response. Use this information as you revise your own
written commentary.
Lastly, using your work and/or these examples as reference, consider what you believe would be appropriate
artifacts for this textbox.