Running head: DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 1

Domain B Literature Review

Ashlynn Griffith
National University
DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 2

Abstract
The following literature review provides the rationale for my artifact selection in Domain B of

my Professional Development Quest Portfolio. All the artifacts demonstrate my progress in

collecting assessment data, analyzing the data, and using my analysis to guide my instruction in

order to improve student learning. Within this review, I will also introduce my plan for

improvement within this domain by sharing the insight that I gained by working through the

Visible Learning process and reading the article recommended by my school district, “Three

Indicators of Assessment-Capable Learners.”

DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 3

Domain B of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession contains standards for

TPE 2: Monitoring Student Learning During Instruction and TPE 3: Interpretation and Use of

Assessments (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013). In my portfolio, I included five

different BTSA documents that demonstrated my growth in assessing, interpreting assessment

data, and using the assessment data in my instructional planning. The first two artifacts are a pre

and post-assessment analysis in a third-grade unit on multiplication and division. My third and

fourth artifacts are a pre and post-assessment analysis in a third-grade geometry unit. The final

artifact is my culminating project in my second year of BTSA that shows a pre-assessment,

numerous formative assessments, and a post-assessment for a fourth-grade fraction unit. I

included these artifacts in chronological order in order to demonstrate my progress in assessing

and analyzing student assessment data.

I selected the multiplication and division pre and post-assessment that I completed during

my first year in BTSA as a Domain B artifact because it is my first sample of collecting and

analyzing data as a teacher. At this point in my career, I had one year of experience as an intern

and I was still learning “how to accurately interpret assessment results of individuals and groups

in order to develop and modify instruction” (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013). With

my pre-assessment, I tested my students on their prerequisite skills before we began a unit on

multiplication and division. In this assessment, the students needed to fluently add and subtract,

compare addition and subtraction, find missing factors in a multiplication problem, and fluently

multiply. At the time of this pre-assessment, only 19% of my class met or exceeded the

prerequisite standard, by 70% was approaching the standard. Because my students performed so

poorly on the prerequisite skills, the data showed me that I needed to spend more time teaching

the prerequisite skills before I could dive deeper in the content standards. When developing a
DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 4

working portfolio and documenting planning, delivery, and assessment of instruction , it is

encouraged to include “samples of assessment tools used to diagnose learning needs”

(Costantino, 2009, p. 46-47). Based on my assessment data, my students needed additional

practice with the second-grade skills before I could confidently move on to the division

standards. Although this took additional instruction time, my students would have a better

opportunity to master the content standards if I retaught the prerequisite skills for a few more

days before introducing the concept of division.

In my post-assessment student work analysis, I analyzed a post-assessment given at the

end of a unit on multiplication and division. This assessment was more challenging than the pre-

assessment because it assessed the content standards, not pre-requisite skills. The students were

expected to explain how to use an array to solve a division problem, explain how to use equal

groups to solve a division problem, find the quotient to a division equation, find unknown factors

in a multiplication equation, and solve a division problem when presented with a word problem.

At the time of this assessment, 44% of my class had met the grade level standard and 26% were

approaching the standard. Considering how many students had not met standards for the

prerequisite skills required for this unit, this still showed significant growth in a one-month

period of instruction. The low percentage of students showing mastery, however, showed me that

some of the skills within the standard needed to be reviewed and retaught throughout the year.

I completed the Geometry pre and post-assessment three months after I completed the

multiplication and division student work analysis. By this point, I had more experience teaching

third grade standards and I had a better understanding of the needs of my students. I had also

matured to a point in my teaching instruction that I could “understand the purposes and uses of

different types of diagnostic instruments, including entry level, progress-monitoring and

DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 5

summative assessments” Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2013). The pre-assessment was

given prior beginning our first Geometry unit. The pre-assessment tested the students on their

ability to identify triangles and rectangles, count the number of sides of a given shape, and

identify shapes with a given number of sides. At the time of this assessment, none of the students

had met or exceeded the standard, but 85% were approaching the standard for prerequisite skills.

This showed me that my students needed additional practice with the second-grade geometry

standards before we could move on to the more complex third-grade standards.

In my analysis of the summative assessment, I assessed the students on their mastery of

the Geometry standard after three weeks of instruction. The post-assessment assessed the

students' ability to: demonstrate understanding of vocabulary words (angle, polygon, and right

angle), identify angles as right, less than right, or greater than right, Identify the number of sides

and angle a polygon has, use the number of sides and angles of a polygon to correctly name the

polygon, identify shapes as closed or open, demonstrate an understanding of the attributes that

classify a plane shape as a polygon, and demonstrate an understanding of intersecting and

perpendicular lines. The post-assessment showed that 23% of students exceeded the standard and

31% met the standard. This showed a lot of progress because 0% of the students had met the

prerequisite standards at the beginning of the unit. However, I knew at this time that my students

needed additional instruction in the form of whole-class review and small group instruction.

My final artifact for Domain B is my final project that I presented at the end of my

second and final year of BTSA in Clovis Unified. I selected this as an artifact to demonstrate my

ability to “purposefully use ongoing, multiple, and, where appropriate, differentiated assessment

options to collect evidence of individual and whole class learning…” (Commission on Teacher

Credentialing, 2013). This artifact serves as a “An overview of a long-range unit of instruction”
DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 6

and gives a clear picture of the assessment tools that I used throughout an entire unit, not just a

pre-assessment and summative assessment (Costantino, 2009, p. 47). This project demonstrated

my students' growth in the areas of collaboration and problem solving at the beginning of a

fourth-grade fractions unit. At the beginning of the unit, only one student showed a thorough

understanding when presented with a multi-step fraction problem and most of my class showed

minimal understanding. I planned to improve my students' understanding of the concepts by

using a group collaboration rubric and creating problem solving templates that the students

would work on regularly in a collaborative group. Throughout the unit, I administered several

formative assessments to track the students' progress. By the end of the unit, the summative

assessment showed that 22 of my students had a thorough or adequate understanding of the

concepts, 8 had a partial understanding, and only 2 had a minimal understanding. My students

showed tremendous growth throughout this unit and they were prepared for the subsequent unit

of instruction that continued with fractions.

After reviewing my artifacts from my first two years of BTSA, I can see that I had been

forming an understanding of the teacher’s role in administering multiple assessments, analyzing

the results, and then planning instruction according to the students’ performance. At this point in

my career, I feel that I regularly meet or exceed standards in this area. My current goal is to

continue exploring John Hattie’s Visible Learning materials and learn how to teach my students

to be “assessment-capable Visible Learners.” In my artifacts, I did a lot of the analysis of

assessments behind the scenes and did not include my students in the process. Now, I want my

students to be able to “predict their performance (and grades), take ownership of their learning,

and become their own (and others’) teachers” (Corwin Connect, 2018). This is very difficult to

do with eight and nine-year-old’s because they are very dependent on adult feedback, but with
DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 7

proper training I can help move my students in this direction so that they can continue to

progress and grow as Visible Learners throughout their education career. In order to achieve this

goal, my primary focus will be to “commit to learning intentions and success criteria” (Corwin

Connect, 2018). I want to introduce our learning intention during the pre-assessment process so

that students are aware of what they will be expected to know once we start the unit. I want to

share pre-assessment data with my students so that they can see where they are on their road to

meeting their success criteria. I also want my students to have a clear understanding of what they

are learning, why they are learning it, and how they will know that they have learned it. I want

my students to be able to track their progress with each success criteria, or content skill,

throughout a unit and celebrate their progress once they have mastered their learning intention.

This will take a lot of effort on my part in order to clearly identify my learning intentions and

success criteria, create assessments that line up with my success criteria, commit to assessing

frequently, provide feedback to students in a timely manner, and create systems in my classroom

for tracking progress throughout a unit. However, I think the hard work will pay off if I can teach

my students to be assessment-capable Visible Learners.

Throughout my career, I have continued to grow in my ability to assess the learning of

my students. In my first year of BTSA, I gained a better understanding of how to use pre and

post-assessments within a unit. In my second year of BTSA, I started becoming more intentional

with formative assessments throughout a unit, in addition to pre and post-assessments. Now, I

am committed to learning as much as I can about Visible Learning and how to teach students to

be assessment-capable. I am hopeful that I will continue to grow in this area and consistently

demonstrate mastery in the area of assessing my students’ learning and using those assessments

to guide my instruction in a way that meets the needs of all students.

DOMAIN B LITERATURE REVIEW 8

References

Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2013, March). California Teaching Performance

Expectations [PDF]. Commission on Teacher Credentialing.

Corwin Connect. (2018, September 24). 3 Indicators of Assessment-Capable Visible Learners

[PDF]. Corwin Connect.

Costantino, P. M., & De Lorenzo, M. N. (2009). Developing a Professional Teaching Portfolio:

A Guide for Success (Third ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.