Artifact 4 Rationale

Evidence of Student Learning

The Evidence of Student Learning artifact required me to implement and document a
complete unit that included three consecutive lesson plans. This unit of instruction assessed how
instruction affected student achievement in the learning environment. The unit of instruction also
had to follow the Baltimore County Public Schools curriculum guidelines. The ESL focuses on
the objectives and content of the unit, the assessment plan, the plan of instruction, data analysis,
instructional decision-making, as well as a reflection and self-evaluation. This connects to CEC
standards 1 (Learner Development and Individual Learning Differences), 4 (Assessment), and 5
(Instructional Planning and Strategies).
I mastered the knowledge and skills in learner development and individual learning
differences (CEC standard 1) while completing the Evidence of Student Learning artifact. The
mastery of learner development and individual learning differences is an area of primary focus
within this artifact. The majority of students that were instructed during this unit plan were
struggling students and/or students with 504 plans or IEPs. With this in mind, all students
learner development and individual learning differences were taken into consideration by
accommodating students where they had deficits or learner preferences. Within the lesson plans,
such accommodations such as scaffolding, extra time, and reduced distractions were
implemented.
This artifact also required me to master the knowledge and skills in assessment (CEC
standard 4). Varieties of assessments were used such as a pre-assessment, formative assessment,
and a summative assessment, to assess students knowledge throughout the unit. The preassessment included the use of the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System (BAS).
This guided reading instructional unit needed the assistance of the BAS in identifying
instructional and independent reading levels that were appropriate for this guided reading group.
A variety of formative assessments were used to evaluate students learning, including
checklists, observations, interviews, and questioning, which determined if they were able to
comprehend what they were reading. Their ability to use appropriate strategies were also
determined using these formative assessments. The summative assessment evaluated the
students ability to use the strategies they learned throughout the unit. Students reread two stories
while using the various strategies demonstrated from the previous lessons including using
prediction, background knowledge, rereading, and retelling. With the knowledge and skills
obtained from using assessment in this artifact, I was able to monitor the progression of student
learning as well as where strengths and needs were evident.
My knowledge and skills in instructional planning and strategies (CEC standard 5) were
developed while completing this artifact. I used instructional planning and strategies when
developing my instructional unit plan. I learned to implement research-based strategies into
instructional planning. Research-based strategies such as reviewing background knowledge,
scaffolding, modeling, and guided practice were used to support instruction and learner

development. The needs and extra support these students needed made the use of these strategies
during instruction vital to adapting the content to their various learning styles and needs.
The students that were apart of my ESL were positively affected by my mastery of CEC
standards 1 (Learning Development and Individual Learner Differences), 4 (Assessment), and 5
(Instructional Planning and Strategies). With this mastery, students could be evaluated
individually for their specific needs and differences academically and behaviorally. Students
benefited from this as their needs and differences were able to be addressed individually, making
learner development a positive experience as well as academically obtainable. Learning to
affectively administer and analyze assessment positively affected my students learning
development. I was able to see whether they were obtaining the necessary content and skills for
the lesson. If they seemed to struggle or excel in specific areas, instruction could be adjusted to
address these areas of strength or need. Mastering instructional planning and strategies also
allowed me to address where students needed additional scaffolding, modeling, etc. Students
benefited by having the additional support, instructionally, to progress in understanding content
and mastering the goals and objectives set for the unit.