id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/npjoOnRTRguuHar7AlzTug
name: Analytic Phonics
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/npjoOnRTRguuHar7AlzTug/image
description: Educator effectively provides analytic phonics instruction to diverse learners so they understand the relationship of sounds to written words.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Decoding and Word Recognition
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1022_200610032021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan that explicitly teaches word analysis strategies and the application of learned patterns to the decoding of new words. # Method Components ### Overview The main focus of early reading instruction is to teach children the foundational skills that allow them to read independently. Analytic phonics programs teach whole-word approaches that encourage students to identify and analyze letter combinations into identifiable, standard phonetic or orthographic (spelling) patterns. The establishment of these patterns allows students to process chunks of words quickly, along with any new parts of a word, to automatically identify the word. Once a child can identify word patterns to read whole words, they can begin to pay attention to the meaning of the word and words within sentence structures, which allows for the development of reading comprehension. ### Components of Analytic Phonics Instruction In order to support young students in becoming independent readers, a systematic approach to moving students from the mechanical task of decoding to automatic word recognition is recommended. The research literature recommends the following for exemplary analytic phonics instruction: 1. **Teach students to identify and analyze parts and patterns within whole words**. A more advanced form of decoding, word analysis skills allow students to condense the sound, symbol, and meaning packaging into larger chunks of a word, as opposed to analyzing letter by letter. This advanced application of decoding mechanics allows greater ease and speed of the reading process for younger readers. 2. **Teach students to apply established orthographic patterns to support memory of whole words**. With repeated practice and exposure to established word parts and patterns, young students will begin to identify both known and new words with greater speed and ease. Additionally, in applying established patterns to known and new words, the brain i…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Achieve the Core. (n.d.) *Foundational skills observation tool*. [https://achievethecore.org/aligned/observing-reading-foundational-skills-instruction/ ](https://achievethecore.org/aligned/observing-reading-foundational-skills-instruction/)This article offers a practical tool for observing and offering feedback around foundational skill instruction in the classroom setting. * Moats, L. C. (2005/06, Winter). How spelling supports reading: And why it is more regular than you think.*American Educator*, 12–43.[](https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Moats.pdf) <https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Moats.pdf> This research article addresses the relationship between spelling and reading, purporting that learning to spell both aids and enhances a student’s ability to both read and write. * National Reading Panel (2000). *Phonics instruction*.[](http://www.ldonline.org/article/254/) <http://www.ldonline.org/article/254/> Excerpted from National Reading Panel Report of the National Reading Panel. (April, 2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. * Spycher, P. (2017). *Developing foundational reading skills in the early grades: Teaching decoding skills through small-group lessons*. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.[](https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Developing-Foundational-Reading-Skills-in-the-Early-Grades.pdf) <https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Developing-Foundational-Reading-Skills-in-the-Early-Grades.pdf> This research report addresses the instruction and development of reading skills, focusing on decoding in order to help students become independent readers. * Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2020). *Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction* (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pears…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Florida Center for Reading Research. (n.d.). Onset and rime slide. Retrieved from: <https://fcrr.org/student-center-activities/kindergarten-and-first-grade> This resource offers ready-made learning activities for students to practice identifying words using onset and rime. * Liepzig, D. H. (n.d.). Word study: Learning word patterns.[](https://www.readingrockets.org/article/word-study-learning-word-patterns) <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/word-study-learning-word-patterns> This article addresses the approach of word study as a means to developing spelling in students and offers practical classroom application to do so. * Reading Rockets. (n.d.). *Onset/rime games*. Retrieved from [https://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/onset\_rime](https://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/onset_rime) This resource offers ready-made learning games for students to practice identifying words using onset and rime. * Reading Rockets. (n.d.) *Phonics and decoding*. Retrieved from <https://www.readingrockets.org/reading-topics/phonics-and-decoding> This website provides a significant number of resources—articles, videos, instructional support strategies—that target the concepts of phonics and decoding. * Reading Rockets. (n.d.). Shanahan on literacy: Which is best? Analytic or synthetic phonics? Retrieved from <https://www.readingrockets.org/blogs/shanahan-literacy/which-best-analytic-or-synthetic-phonics> This blog article from nationally recognized literacy expert Timothy Shanahan offers perspective on the difference between approaching phonics instruction from an integrated model of blending analytic or synthetic stances. * Student Achievement Partners. (January 2018). *Understand foundational skills*.[](about%3Ablank) <https://achievethecore.org/category/1205/understand-foundational-skills> Learn how phonological awareness and phonics connect to early reading through this 7-part mini-course that dives into the content of literacy foundational skills, with an emphasis on p…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What activities did you and your students engage with in order to become more proficient with analytic phonics? Please describe the learning activities and strategies, and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students increased their level of understanding around analytic phonics? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan used to support student fluency. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include: * Fostering identification and analysis of word parts and patterns * Making meaningful connections between identified word parts, patterns, and whole words to new words * Fostering recognition of whole words to read with automaticity **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute annotated video/audio of whole group instruction. The video/audio should include the following annotations: * You guiding students in routines that foster identification and analysis of word parts and patterns * You helping students make meaningful connections between word parts and patterns to the identification of new words * You guiding students in routines that foster automaticity in reading * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding, focusing attention on the educator, asking questions, or think-pair-share. **Artifact 3: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of 2 or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Assessment Samples + Upload work samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student submit assessment examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward increased levels of fluency. Include work samples with your feedback.
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on engaging your students in analytic phonics instruction, using the following questions to guide you: - What was the impact of the instruction that targeted analytic phonics on your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video/Audio
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/PKayRiSYQKGjazpHNMPvbg
name: Developing Print Concepts
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/PKayRiSYQKGjazpHNMPvbg/image
description: Educator demonstrates a strong understanding of planning and instruction of print concepts. Educator effectively provides print awareness instruction to diverse learners, so they understand the concepts of print.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Foundational Skills
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1012_351725082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator designs and implements a print concepts lesson with one or more of the skills explicitly modeled. # Method Components ### Overview Literacy development begins early in a child’s life, and there is a strong correlation with school achievement. Language and literacy experiences for children are usually a good indicator of how a child will read. Early literacy predictors include print knowledge (knowing print has rules, letters are important symbols, letters correspond to sounds, etc.), oral language, and alphabetic code (alphabet knowledge, phonological/phonemic awareness) which is the ability to discriminate sounds in words. In early literacy development, it is crucial for educators to have a mutual respect and support for the diversity of children’s families, cultures, and linguistic backgrounds in order to build foundational literacy skills. To effectively teach print concepts and build literacy skills in young students, it is imperative to include key components of print concepts. ### Components of Print Concepts Experiences that children have with words greatly impact their ability to understand what they read. Since reading requires the comprehension of texts, the skills that children bring influences their understanding and how they make sense of what is read. A child’s experience and exposure to books and other forms of print significantly influences their ability to understand what they read and hear. Some ways that children can experience books and other forms of print include reading with adults, sharing their experiences with siblings or friends, and also viewing books and other printed materials with a partner. ### Print Awareness Print awareness is a child’s understanding about the characteristics of print. This includes print color, background color, font and letter style, letter case, spatial arrangement, embedding, size of print, variation in print features, color of print as compared to pictures, and amount of print as compa…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Early Literacy Task Force, Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators General Education Leadership Network. (2019). *Essential instructional practices in early literacy grades K–3*. [https://literacyessentials.org/downloads/gelndocs/k-3\_literacy\_essentials.pdf](https://literacyessentials.org/downloads/gelndocs/k-3_literacy_essentials.pdf) This article includes research on how educators can include techniques into their lesson plans to enhance early literacy print concepts. * Kosanovich, M., & Verhagen, C. (2012). *Building the foundation: A suggested progression of sub-skills to achieve the reading standards: Foundational skills in the Common Core State Standards*. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. <https://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Building%20the%20Foundation.pdf> This document includes different charts providing information in the four areas of reading: print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency in relation to the Common Core State Standards. * Strickland, D. S., & Riley-Ayers, S. (2006). *Early literacy: Policy and practice in the preschool years*. National Institute for Early Education Research. <http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/10.pdf> This document highlights the fact that evidence shows that a child’s early learning experiences are linked with many positive factors. * Swanson, E., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Petscher, Y., Heckert, J., Cavanaugh, C., Kraft, G., & Tackett, K. (2011). A synthesis of read-aloud interventions on early reading outcomes among preschool through third graders at risk for reading difficulties. *Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44*(3), 258–275. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3319370/> This research article provides a synthesis of read-aloud interventions on early reading outcomes. * Texas Education Agency. (n.d.). *Print awareness: Guidelines for instruction*. Retrieved from <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/pri…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Kindergarten Teacher Reading Academy. (n.d.). *Print Awareness*. Retrieved from [https://buildingrti.utexas.org/sites/default/files/documents/KTRA\_PrintAwareness.pdf](https://buildingrti.utexas.org/sites/default/files/documents/KTRA_PrintAwareness.pdf) This source includes a sample lesson plan and assessment checklists for print concepts development. * Early Literacy Task Force, Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators General Education Leadership Network. (2019). *Self-reflection and planning guide: Essential practices in early literacy K–3*. [https://literacyessentials.org/downloads/literacy\_essentials/essential-practices-in-early-literacy-k-to-3-self-reflection\_3\_13\_19.pdf](https://literacyessentials.org/downloads/literacy_essentials/essential-practices-in-early-literacy-k-to-3-self-reflection_3_13_19.pdf) This resource includes templates that educators can utilize to help track how the strategies are working with their students. * Reading Rockets. (2004). *Concepts of print assessment*. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/concepts-print-assessment> An informal assessment of the concepts of print, including what the assessment measures, when it should be assessed, examples of questions, and the age or grade at which the assessment should be mastered. * PBS Learning Media. (n.d.). *Print concepts: Grades K-1 introductory video*. <https://whyy.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/194b0a8e-3ad6-4236-8a1a-721ce7cf2c24/print-concepts-grades-k-1/> This module explores the essential elements for teaching print concepts. * Reading Rockets. (2002). *Print awareness: Guidelines for instruction*. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/print-awareness-guidelines-instruction> These guidelines share an in-depth list for this foundational instruction. ### Definition * Diverse learners: Learners who bring a broad array of learning preferences, background knowledge, experiences, identities, and educational variability and may vary linguistically, socio-cult…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What print concept learning activities or strategies did you include in your lesson in order to increase print awareness? Be sure to include any planning considerations for the whole group, small group, or individual students in your lesson. Include any strategies or planning considerations for student engagement.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students increased their proficiency in the print concepts? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following artifacts: **Artifact 1: Print Concepts Lesson Plan and Rationale** Upload your print concepts lesson plan used to support student learning. The lesson plan should include educator directions for skill implementation. The lesson should include at least one print concept skills that addressed: * Oral rhymes and alliteration * Words in a sentence * Syllables in words * Onset and rime in words, or individual phonemes in words (depending on your students’ level from prior assessments) The rationale should include the following (150-word limit): * How did you select or develop this particular lesson? * How do you plan to support diverse learners throughout the lesson **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video** Upload a 10–15 minute annotated video/audio of whole group print concepts instruction. The video/audio should include annotations for the following: * Educator modeling how to produce the targeted skill (e.g. author of a text, title page, etc.) * Educator providing directions for clear student expectations * Students practicing the specific skill and receiving educator feedback * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding, focusing attention on the educator, asking questions, or think-pair-share. **Artifact 3: Pre/Post Assessments** Choose a small group of diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * A rationale explaining what information you used from your students’ pre-assessments. + Explain how your pre-and post-assessments helped you to determine where to begin instruction. + Include information you gathered from the post-assessments that you completed when you were assessing your students’ print concepts skills. * Pre-assessments: Upload one pre-assessment from each of your small group students. * Post-assessments: Upload a post-assessment from each of your small…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on teaching print concepts using the following questions to guide you: - How does planning for and teaching print awareness in your lesson help monitor student progress in this area? - How will you use students’ progress to shape and inform your instruction in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Print Concepts Lesson Plan and Rationale
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video/Audio
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Pre/Post Assessments
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Ovt44a1pQ4uaAk2MaasWIg
name: Facilitating Effective Tier 1 Reading Instruction
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Ovt44a1pQ4uaAk2MaasWIg/image
description: Educator plans and facilitates an effective reading lesson implementing the key components of Tier 1 instruction.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Meeting the Literacy Instructional Needs of Every Learner
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1006_511828082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator will create and deliver a quality Tier 1 reading lesson which includes the major components of effective reading instruction. # Method Components ### Overview Reading is an extremely complex skill. This vital skill fosters academic success and also aids in one’s ability to be a life-long learner. To become a successful reader, students must develop foundational reading skills (print concepts, phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency and oral language development). Additionally, students must receive quality instruction in the areas of vocabulary, reading comprehension and writing. This quality Tier 1 instruction is aligned to grade-level standards and exposes **all students** to grade-level content. ### Components of Effective Tier 1 Reading Instruction When planning a reading lesson that focuses on one or more of the five essential elements of reading identified by the National Reading Panel, include these major components when planning and delivering quality Tier 1 instruction. It is important to determine and include the diverse needs of individual students. Lessons should have opportunities to differentiate and provide targeted instruction to students’ needs. **Component #1: Selecting High-Quality Text and Materials** For teaching Tier 1 reading, planning should begin with choosing high-quality text at the appropriate text complexity level that allows for the teaching of grade-level standards. * Educators should be intentional when selecting such resources as big books, letter tiles, picture cards, etc. * Classroom tools used to teach foundational skills should reflect high-quality, research-based instructional materials. * Appropriate materials allow an educator to teach grade-level appropriate skills such as rhyme, concept of print and letter identification, and address beginning comprehension skills (i.e., character, setting, sequence) using high-quality text. For teaching vocabulary, skills, strategies, and conte…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Baker, S.K., Fien, F., Nelson, N. J., Petscher, Y., Sayko, S., & Turtura, J. (2017). *Learning to read: “The simple view of reading”*. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy. <https://improvingliteracy.org/brief/learning-read-simple-view-reading> This resources provides information on the development of reading and progressing through phonics, fluency and comprehension. * Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). *Choosing Words to Teach. In Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction (15–30)*. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Retrieved from <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/choosing-words-teach> This resource provides information on the Tiered-approached vocabulary words. The researchers provide guidance on what words should be taught. * Biemiller, A. (2015). Which words are worth teaching? *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 41*(3), 9–11. <https://app.box.com/s/rw7rvttc3ylq6ct6vc0qofm2cikekq73> This resource also provides selection criteria for vocabulary instruction. * Center on Instruction. (2012). Building the foundation: A suggested progression of sub-skills to achieve the reading standards: Foundational skills in the common core state standards. <https://www.centeroninstruction.org/building-the-foundation---a-suggested-progression-of-sub-skills-to-achieve-the-reading-standards-foundational-skills-in-the-common-core-state-standards> This document is based on an analysis that determined the sub-skills students need to achieve in each of the Foundational Skills (K–5) in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). It contains five sections, each targeting one grade level in Print Concepts, Phonological Awareness, Phonics and Word Recognition, and Fluency. It also includes instructional examples aligned to the sub-skills, giving teachers samples of activity types that facilitate acquisition of the sub-skills. Each chart inc…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Achieve the Core. (n.d.) Lesson Planning Tool. <https://achievethecore.org/lesson-planning-tool/> This lesson planning tool guides teachers through a series of prompts about the lesson content, structure, and activities to ensure the shifts required by college- and career-ready standards are central to the lesson. * Achieve the Core. (n.d.) *Instructional practice guide*. [https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Instructional%20Practice%20Guide\_ELA\_K-2\_Reading-Listening.pdf](https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Instructional%20Practice%20Guide_ELA_K-2_Reading-Listening.pdf) This instructional practice guide evaluation tool (K–2) can be used by educators as a self-reflection tool to ensure all of the key components are included. * Achieve the Core. (n.d.) *Instructional practice guide*. [https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Instructional%20Practice%20Guide\_ELA\_3-12.pdf](https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Instructional%20Practice%20Guide_ELA_3-12.pdf) This instructional practice guide evaluation tool (3–12) can be used by educators as a self-reflection tool to ensure all of the key components are included. * Achieve the Core. (n.d.) *Text complexity*. <https://achievethecore.org/page/2725/text-complexity> The resource provides information on text complexity and what should be considered when selecting high-quality texts. * Florida Center for Reading Research. (n.d.). *Student Center Activities*. Retrieved from <https://fcrr.org/student-center-activities> This educator-friendly website includes ready-made literacy activities for all of the key areas of literacy instruction. Activities can be used in whole group, small group, or centers. * The IRIS Center. (2006). *RTI (part 3): Reading instruction*. Retrieved from <https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti03-reading/> This is a self-paced module (approx. 1.5 hours) focusing on the key components of the Response to Intervention (RTI). * Student Achievement Partners. (April 2018). *Foundati…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Describe the activity or lesson you planned. What was included? Why did you choose this lesson? Where does the lesson fit within the overall unit of instruction? How did you determine which of the five essential elements of effective reading instruction to address during this lesson?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How did this lesson impact student learning? Share how you assessed if students gained understanding. How did you determine that the lesson was effective?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your annotated lesson plan that focuses on Tier 1 reading instruction. The annotation should include details about planning that may not be observable during the teaching of the lesson. The lesson plan should include how data was used to make decisions, what standard(s) is being addressed, what scaffolds and accommodations are included, etc. The lesson plan should include: * Setting the lesson’s purpose * Introduction to the text * Building background * Teaching key vocabulary * Teaching comprehension strategies * Text-dependent questions, activities, and tasks * Connecting reading and writing * Explicit and systematic teaching of grade-level foundational skills * Assessments (before, during, and after the instruction) **Artifact 2: Whole Group Tier 1 Instruction** Upload a 20–30 minute annotated video or audio with annotations of the whole group instruction of this lesson. The annotations should include the following: * Educator discussing the purpose of the lesson * Educator introducing the text and building background * Educator explicitly teaching key vocabulary and comprehension strategies * Educator employing text-dependent questions and/or activities * Educator connecting reading and writing * Educator offering supports and/or accommodations to meet the needs of a diverse group of students * Students are engaged and have an opportunity to interact with the educator, text, and classmates * Educator formally and/or informally assessing for understanding before, during, and/or after the lesson **Artifact 3: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of two or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners). Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the dat…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on your Tier 1 reading lesson. Include the following: - Explain the impact of student learning with the group of diverse learners identified in Artifact 3. - What do you think worked well in this lesson and what would you do differently? - What are your next steps? What will you focus on next with this group of students?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 300
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Tier 1 Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Student Work
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/iEEPdT9VTHK207ZS44-aBg
name: Fluency for Foundational Skills
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/iEEPdT9VTHK207ZS44-aBg/image
description: Educator effectively provides fluency instruction to diverse learners so they understand the relationship of fluency on comprehension.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Decoding and Word Recognition
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1021_521828082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan that incorporates research-based strategies to directly target fluency as a critical component in the development of reading comprehension. # Method Components ### Overview The process of reading requires the combination of two distinct but dependent skills: word recognition and comprehension. Automatic word recognition has been shown to be a prerequisite to comprehension, which is the ultimate goal of reading. In addition to automatic word recognition, fluency has a direct impact upon the evolving establishment and refinement of comprehension. Fluency is the development and application of appropriate “prosodic features”—intonation, tone, stress, and rhythm—that build word recognition. The development of direct instructional strategies that target automatic word recognition and fluency are critical to supporting developing readers. ### Components of Fluency Development Hook and Jones (2004) identify both word and text-level instructional elements as contributing to the development of fluent readers. At the word level, effective instruction targets automaticity (or the ability to read whole words without decoding), the prerequisite of fluency. When focused on automaticity, instruction guides students to identify, recognize, and establish patterns within words and word parts in order to recognize words by sight, without having to decode letter by letter in order to read the word. Example instructional approaches that target the development of automaticity (and thus foster fluency) include: * “word attack” strategies that highlight the identification of standardized word patterns * sight word practice * identifying six syllable types for application to new words * syllabic accenting to focus on the correct word pronunciation. At the text level, approaches to effective instruction focus on the mechanics of fluency—speed, intonation, phrasing— to guide early readers to the end goal of the meaning making of c…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (2017). *An update to compiled ORF norms* (Technical Report No. 1702). Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/fluency-norms-chart-2017-update> This article shares the results of a 2017 study on oral reading fluency, including an update of the ORF norms for grades 1–6. * Hook, P. E., & Jones, S. D. (2004). The importance of automaticity and fluency for efficient reading comprehension. *Perspectives*,17–22.[](https://eps.schoolspecialty.com/EPS/media/Site-Resources/downloads/articles/Importance_Automaticity_Fluency.pdf) [https://eps.schoolspecialty.com/EPS/media/Site-Resources/downloads/articles/Importance\_Automaticity\_Fluency.pdf](https://eps.schoolspecialty.com/EPS/media/Site-Resources/downloads/articles/Importance_Automaticity_Fluency.pdf) This article details the relationship among the literacy skills of automaticity, fluency, and comprehension and offers practical approaches to developing the two prerequisite skills in order to develop comprehension. * Kim, Y. S., Al Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Folsom, J. S., & Gruelich, L. (2014). The contributions of vocabulary and letter writing automaticity to word reading and spelling for kindergartners. *Reading and writing, 27*(2), 237–253. Retrieved from <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED602453.pdf> This study examines how foundations in vocabulary and letter writing automaticity can be more impactful in the development of word reading and spelling than other, traditionally held, code-based skills. * Wolf, G. M. (2016). Sound reading: Teaching preschool children print-to-sound processing. *Early Childhood Education Journal, 44*(1), 11–19. Retrieved from <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733470/> This study examined the development of letter sound reading and CVC word decoding in preschool children when provided with specific, research-based decoding interventions. * Kuhn, M. R., & Levy, L. (2015). *Developing…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Ehri, L.C. (2013). *Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning*. Retrieved from <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356> This article investigates the relationship among the application of spelling patterns to identify words by sight, pronounce these words, and later incorporate these words into vocabulary memory. * Minnesota Literacy Council. (n.d.).*Reading for fluency strategies*.[](https://www.literacymn.org/sites/default/files/curriculum/routine_2_reading_for_fluency_strategies.pdf) [https://www.literacymn.org/sites/default/files/curriculum/routine\_2\_reading\_for\_fluency\_strategies.pdf](https://www.literacymn.org/sites/default/files/curriculum/routine_2_reading_for_fluency_strategies.pdf) This article provides practical, classroom-based instructional strategies that target the development of both automaticity and fluency in early readers. * National Center on Intensive Intervention. (n.d.). *Literacy strategies to support intensifying interventions*. Retrieved from <https://intensiveintervention.org/intervention-resources/literacy-strategies#fluency> This resource offers a series of lessons designed to target and support students’ fluency development in terms of accuracy and pace. * Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D.J. (2003). Fluency: The bridge from decoding to reading comprehension. Retrieved from [http://www.eduplace.com/state/author/pik\_chard\_fluency.pdf](http://www.eduplace.com/state/author/pik_chard_fluency.pdf) This article provides both analysis of, and instructional approaches to, linking the process of decoding to comprehension by focusing on fluency development. * Reading Rockets. (n.d.). *Fluency.* Retrieved from <https://www.readingrockets.org/reading-topics/fluency> This website provides a significant number of resources—articles, videos, instructional support strategies—that target the concept of fluency building. * Wolf, G. (2018). Developing reading automa…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What activities did you and your students engage in to develop greater fluency? Please describe the learning activities and strategies, and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students increased their level of fluency? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your intervention or lesson plan used to support student fluency. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include evidence of approaches that: * Foster automatic word recognition * Make meaningful connections to and among word patterns * Foster elements that contribute to fluent reading **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10–20 annotated minute video/audio of whole group instruction. The video/audio should include the following annotations: * Guiding students in routines that foster automatic word recognition * Helping students make meaningful connections to practice and application of word recognition in reading * Guiding students in routines that foster elements of fluency, including accuracy, rate, intonation, and phrasing * Student engagement, including asking/answering questions or small group interaction **Artifact 3: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of 2 or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Assessment Samples + Upload work samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit assessment examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward increased levels of fluency. Include work samples with your feedback.
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on engaging your students in instruction to target fluency, using the following questions to help guide you: - What was the impact of the instruction that targeted fluency on your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video/Audio
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/lXg2l3-vQq6qRre5Tmt2Ag
name: Letter-Sound Relationships
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/lXg2l3-vQq6qRre5Tmt2Ag/image
description: Educator effectively provides alphabetic principle of letter–sound correspondence instruction to diverse learners so they understand the relationship of sounds to written words
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Decoding and Word Recognition
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1020_082328082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan that explicitly teaches the essential components of the alphabetic principle to the decoding of new words. # Method Components ### Overview Connecting letters with their sounds to read and write is called the alphabetic principle. Alphabetic understanding is knowing that visual symbols of the alphabet (letters) represent corresponding speech sounds (phonemes), which is a critical skill for reading words in texts. Mastering the alphabetic principle allows children to become fluent readers. Being a fluent reader frees students from focusing on decoding words in order to place their attention on comprehension of texts, which is the primary purpose of reading. ### Components of the Alphabetic Principle Instruction The alphabetic principle has two parts: 1. Alphabetic understanding is knowing that words are made up of letters that represent the sounds of speech. 2. Phonological recoding is knowing how to translate the letters in printed words into the sounds they make to read and pronounce the words accurately. The alphabetic principle is critical in reading and understanding the meaning of text. In typical reading development, children learn to use the alphabetic principle fluently and automatically. This allows them to focus their attention on understanding the meaning of the text, which is the primary purpose of reading. The research literature recommends the following for exemplary alphabetic principle instruction: 1. **Implementing routines**. This allows for students to gain confidence and comfort with the reading process and move through the process at their own rate. 2. **Fostering alphabetic understanding**. Teaching letters in relationship to what a particular student needs to learn next about letter features, formation, discrimination, and sound correspondences 3. **Applying phonological recoding**. Applying the understanding of letter–sound relationships (e.g., alphabetic understanding) to figure…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Baker, S. K., Santiago, R. T., Masser, J., Nelson, N. J., & Turtura, J. (2018). *The alphabetic principle: From phonological awareness to reading words*. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy. Retrieved from <https://improvingliteracy.org/brief/alphabetic-principle-phonological-awareness-reading-words> This brief explains why the alphabetic principle is a critical skill that involves connecting letters with their sounds to read and write. Authors explain that explicit phonics instruction and extensive practice are important when teaching children to learn the alphabetic principle. * Duke, N. K., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (Win 2018–2019). Phonics faux pas: Avoiding instructional missteps in teaching letter–sound relationships.*American Educator, 42*(4), 12–16.[](https://www.aft.org/ae/winter2018-2019/duke_mesmer) [https://www.aft.org/ae/winter2018-2019/duke\_mesmer](https://www.aft.org/ae/winter2018-2019/duke_mesmer) In this article, the authors focus on seven missteps in early reading instruction that educators should pay attention to when teaching letter–sound relationships. * International Literacy Association. (2019). *Meeting the challenges of early literacy phonics instruction* [Literacy leadership brief]. Newark, DE: Author. <https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-meeting-challenges-early-literacy-phonics-instruction.pdf> This document describes in detail the instructional components of a systematic and explicit phonics lesson. * Kaye, E. L. & Lose, M. K. ( 2019). As easy as ABC? Teaching and learning about letters in early literacy. *The Reading Teacher, 72*(5), 599–610.[](https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/trtr.1768) <https://ila.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/trtr.1768> In this article, the authors argue for the following components of an exemplary literacy lesson: (a) asse…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * ASCD. (2020). *Alphabetic principle and English learners*. Retrieved April 29, 2020, from <http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/108002/chapters/Phonics-and-Word-Study.aspx> This book chapter explains the best approach for teaching phonics to English learners. * Hayes, L., & Flanigan, K. (2014). *Developing word recognition*. New York, NY: Guilford Press. This text shows clearly that automating letter–sound relationships is essential for a child to move from emergent reading to beginning reading. The rationale is clear and the activities recommended are consistent with research. The text approaches letter–sound knowledge within a diet of activities. * Education.com Learning Library. (2020). [https://www.education.com/resources/letter-sounds/ ](https://www.education.com/resources/letter-sounds/)This is a learning library that contains printable worksheets, online games, guided lessons, sample lesson plans and more to help teachers plan their letter–sound relationship lessons. * Newman, S. B. (2020). Early literacy: Connecting letters and sounds. Retrieved July 17, 2020, from [https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/early-literacy-connecting-letters-and-sounds/ ](https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/early-literacy-connecting-letters-and-sounds/)This brief blog introduces some specific activities educators can use to help children learn to make letter–sound correspondences. ### Synthetic Phonics * The FIVE from FIVE Reading Project. (2019, October 15).*What is systematic synthetic phonics?* <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuCuND7k5jc> Systematic synthetic phonics teaches children to use the relationships between letters and sounds to decode words and read them accurately and fluently. This video explains how. Created using mysimpleshow. Sign up at <http://www.mysimpleshow.com> and create your own simpleshow video for free. * Shanahan, T. (2018, August 8). *Synthetic phonics or systematic phonics? What does research rea…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What activities did you and your students engage in to become more proficient in letter–sound relationships? Please describe the learning activities and strategies, and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students increased their proficiency in the alphabetic principle? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan used to support student learning on letter–sound relationships. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include: * Routines * Meaningful connections * Fostering letter–sound correspondence **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute annotated video/audio of whole group instruction. The video/audio should include the following annotations: * You working with a few sounds at a time by teaching each letter of the alphabet and its corresponding sound * You helping students make meaningful connections between new letters they are learning and words or letters they already know * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding, focusing attention on the educator, asking questions, or think-pair-share. **Artifact 3: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of 2 or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Assessment Samples + Upload work samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student submit assessment examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward learning the alphabetic principle. Include work samples with your feedback.
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on teaching the alphabetic principle to your students, using the following questions to guide you: - What was the impact of teaching letter–sound relationships to your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video/Audio
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Student Work
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/DNTdiJknSPGc8dCkBBzLJw
name: Phonemic Awareness
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/DNTdiJknSPGc8dCkBBzLJw/image
description: Educator effectively provides phonemic awareness instruction to diverse learners, so they understand the relationship of sounds within the spoken language.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Foundational Skills
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1011_061928082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator designs and implements a phonemic awareness lesson with one or more of the phonemic awareness skills explicitly modeled. # Method Components ### Overview: What is Phonemic Awareness? Phonemic awareness is a subgroup of phonological awareness which focuses only on the smallest unit of speech that can be combined to make words. Some phonemes correspond to letters (each letter in the word bat is a separate phoneme, as in /b/ /a/ /t/), and others, groups of letters (the word day consists of two phonemes, /d/ from d and /ā/ from “ay”). There are 44 phonemes in the English language. These include consonant sounds, as well as the varied short and long vowel sounds (such as the /e/ heard in “edge” versus the /ē/ heard in “be”). In addition, some phonemes consist of digraphs, which are represented by two-, three-, or four-letter combinations that represent one sound (such as “ch,” “tch,” and “eigh”). Phonemic awareness is entirely oral. This means students do not need to know spelling patterns and words but can work entirely on oral discrimination of sound (Student Achievement Partners, 2018). Phonemic awareness is an essential early reading skill. It is a linguistic component that builds a foundation for alphabetic knowledge (sound to letter) for developing readers. Phonemic awareness is a cognitive skill that consists of three pieces: 1. The first piece concerns a linguistic unit, **the phoneme**: the smallest unit of sound within our language system. 2. The second concerns the explicit, **conscious awareness** of that unit: the ability to notice, think about, or manipulate individual phonemes (sounds) in words. It is the ability to understand that sounds in spoken language work together to make words. This term is used to refer to the highest level of phonological awareness—an awareness of individual phonemes in words. 3. The third involves the ability to **explicitly manipulate** such units. Phonemic awareness is thus the ability to consciously …
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Student Achievement Partners. (April 2018). Foundational skills guidance documents: Grades K–2. <https://achievethecore.org/category/1206/ela-literacy-foundational-skills> This guide outlines the essential instructional components to teach early reading skills. It is intended to provide teachers with best practices to support the explicit teaching of foundational skills: print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency. * Florida Center for Reading Research. (n.d.). *Phonemic awareness instructional routines*. [https://fcrr.org/sites/g/files/upcbnu2836/files/media/projects/empowering-teachers/routines/routinesPA\_K1.html](https://fcrr.org/sites/g/files/upcbnu2836/files/media/projects/empowering-teachers/routines/routinesPA_K1.html) This site offers background information on the five components of reading, as well as sound instructional routines for phonemic awareness by grade and target skill. * Hoover, W. A. (2002, December). *The importance of phonemic awareness in learning to read*. *SEDL Letter 14*(3). <http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v14n03/3.html> This document describes the importance of phonemic awareness in learning to read, and relationships between reading skills and their impact on reading success. * Uhry, J. K. (2013). The role of phonemic awareness in learning to read and spell successfully. *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 39*(1), 11–16. <https://app.box.com/s/2c3ueir6hasfeg405l5oefk8mcyslbg6> This document provides research on the impact of phonemic awareness instruction as well as suggestions for instructional practices. * University of Oregon. (n.d.). The Continuum of Phonemic Awareness Skills. *Big ideas in beginning reading: Phonemic awareness*. [http://reading.uoregon.edu/big\_ideas/pa/pa\_sequence.php](http://reading.uoregon.edu/big_ideas/pa/pa_sequence.php) This link provides a visual model for the phonemic awareness continuum of skills (easy to difficult). * Moats, L.C. (2020). *Speech to print: La…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. *Building phonological and phonemic awareness*. <https://iupui-lis.libguides.com/c.php?g=990151> The brief article and video illustrates the differences between phonological and phonemic awareness. * The Florida Center for Reading Research. (2006; revised July 2007). <https://fcrr.org/student-center-activities/second-and-third-grade#sca5> This document provides a number of pre-created lesson materials and visual aids for teaching elements of phonemic awareness. * Excerpt from Murray, B. (2009). *Making friends with phonemes*. The Reading Genie. Auburn University. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/making-friends-phonemes> This article provides ideas for teaching phonemic awareness. * Reading Rockets: Elkonin Boxes [https://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/elkonin\_boxes](https://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/elkonin_boxes) This resource shows how to use Elkonin Boxes to Segment (Phonemic Awareness). * Equipped for Reading Success: 8/15/19 Phonological Awareness Screening Test <https://www.thepasttest.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/PAST-Forms-A-B-C-and-D-August-2019-update.pdf> – Assessment <https://www.thepasttest.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Chapter-11-Instructions-for-the-PAST.pdf> – Instructions This assessment acts as a screener for the broader Phonological Awareness skills, as well as more specific Phonemic Awareness skills, with specific scripts for assessing. * Bohren, A. (2018, February 7). *Phonemic awareness: The sounds of reading*. Cognifit: Mental, physical health and neuroscience. <https://blog.cognifit.com/phonemic-awareness/> CogniFit is a healthcare company, founded in 1999 by Professor Shlomo Breznitz [1] and oriented to assess and improve cognitive health. * *Advanced phonemic awareness: Webinar*. Kendore Learning/Syllables Learning Center. (2020, March 25). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqR\_O8WswXo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqR_O8WswXo) Learn effective and interactive adva…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What learning activities or strategies did you include in your lesson in order to increase phonemic awareness? Be sure to include any planning considerations for the whole group, small group, or individual students in your lesson. Include any strategies or planning considerations for student engagement.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know if students in your classroom are making progress in this area (phonemic awareness) based on your instruction? Consider pre-assessment data, ongoing targeted instruction, and/or any post-assessment data that may show progress over time.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Phonemic Awareness Lesson Plan and Rationale** Upload your phonemic awareness lesson plan used to support student learning. The lesson plan should include educator directions for skill implementation. The lesson should include at least one of the following phonemic awareness skills being addressed: * Isolation * Deletion * Addition * Categorization * Substitution * Segmentation * Blending The rationale should Include the following (150-word limit): * How did you select or develop this particular lesson? * How do you plan to support diverse learners throughout the lesson **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video** Upload a 10–15 minute annotated video/audio of whole group phonemic awareness instruction. The video/audio should include annotations for the following: * Educator modeling how to produce the targeted skill (e.g., segmenting and blending words, isolating sounds in words, etc.) * Educator providing directions for clear student expectations * Students practicing the specific skill and receiving educator feedback * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding, focusing attention on the educator, asking questions, or think-pair-share. **Artifact 3: Pre/Post Assessments** Choose a small group of diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resource section for definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * A rationale explaining what information you used from your students’ pre-assessments. + Explain how your pre- and post-assessments helped you to determine where to begin instruction. + Include information you gathered from the post-assessments that you completed when you were assessing your students’ phonemic awareness skills. * Pre-assessments: Upload one pre-assessment from each of your small group students. * Post-assessments: Upload a post-assessment from each of your small group of students to show how th…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection using the following questions as a guide: - What was the impact of assessing, planning for, and implementing a phonemic awareness lesson with students in your classroom? - How will you use students’ progress to shape and inform your instruction in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Phonemic Awareness Lesson Plan and Rationale
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video/Audio
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Pre/Post Assessments
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/jQGd8kqrQZKG6xmolYNqQQ
name: Phonological Awareness
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/jQGd8kqrQZKG6xmolYNqQQ/image
description: Educator effectively provides phonological awareness instruction to diverse learners, so they understand the relationship of sounds within the spoken language.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Foundational Skills
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1010_071928082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a phonological awareness lesson with one or more of the phonological awareness skills explicitly modeled. # Method Components ### Overview “Phonological awareness is made up of a group of skills. The most sophisticated—and latest to develop—is called phonemic awareness.” (Johnson, K.) The purpose is to help children notice phonemes (or a unit of sound) in words and then later understand how phonemes in words are related to letters of the alphabet. Phonological awareness is considered to be a multilevel skill that students develop over a length of time. ### Components of Phonological Awareness Phonological awareness is focused on sounds in words and is the basis for later reading, even before print is introduced. When educators are planning to teach phonological awareness, it is important to think about the learning process from simple to more complex skills. (Achieve the Core, 2018) A phoneme is a basic unit of sound in the English language. It is the foundation for decoding and spelling. Letters are used to represent sounds which are in written words. This is known as phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness along with basic alphabet knowledge enables children to understand how letters and sounds work together to form spoken and written words. As a student is developing phonological awareness skills, it is important to plan instruction based on the student’s needs. The structure below indicates the continuum of skills from simple to more complex as a student progresses. 1. **Oral rhymes and alliteration**—recognizing the beginning and ending sounds of words. * Example: The end of the word match sounds just like batch. These words are rhyming words. 2. **Words in sentences**—listening and counting the number of words that are read or heard. * Example: “The dog jumped up and down.” There are six words in that sentence. 3. **Syllables in words**—breaking words up into chunks; hearing and then counting these separate part…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Achieve the Core. (2018). Foundational skills guidance documents: Grades K–2. <https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Foundational%20Skills%20Guidance%20Document.pdf> The document explains the phases that a child goes through as they are beginning to read and each step in the process is thoroughly explained in detail and relevant examples are provided. * Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Development of phonological awareness. *Current directions in psychological science, 14*(5), 255–259. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254081715\_Development\_of\_Phonological\_Awareness](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254081715_Development_of_Phonological_Awareness) The research explains how children acquire phonological awareness skills over a length of time in multiple stages of learning and development. * International Literacy Association. (2020). *Phonological awareness in early childhood literacy development* [Position statement and research brief]. Newark, DE: Author. [https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/9457\_Phonological\_Awareness\_1-2020\_Final.pdf](https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/9457_Phonological_Awareness_1-2020_Final.pdf) The article explains how children develop phonological awareness over a period of time. Also, the author explains how to expose children to a broad range of language experiences and opportunities. * Student Achievement Partners. (n.d.). *Foundational Skills Mini-Course: Module 2 – Phonological Awareness*. Retrieved from: <https://achievethecore.org/page/3142/foundational-skills-mini-course-module-2-phonological-awareness> The author of this resource focuses on explaining how literacy foundational skills impact a student’s phonological awareness abilities. * Torgesen, J. K., & Mathes, P. G. (2002). *Assessment and instruction in phonological awareness*. Florida Department of Education. <http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7690/urlt/0070131-phonoma…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Achieve the Core. (2018). Foundational skills guidance documents: Grades K–2. <https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Foundational%20Skills%20Guidance%20Document.pdf> Included in this document are resources to help track students’ foundational skills, formative assessments to test a student’s phonological awareness, and a phonological awareness diagnostic tracker. * Baker, S. K., Beattie, T., Nelson, N. J., & Turtura, J. (2018).*How we learn to read: The critical role of phonological awareness*. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy. <https://improvingliteracy.org/brief/how-we-learn-read-critical-role-phonological-awareness> Several methods and strategies are introduced to provide educators with practical ideas of how they can teach phonological awareness to prepare students for early reading. * Chard, D. J., & Dickson, S. V. (1999). Phonological awareness: Instructional and assessment guidelines. *Intervention in School and Clinic, 34*(5),261–270. <http://www.ldonline.org/article/6254/> In the article are many different methods that educators can utilize to assess a student’s phonological awareness using many different tools and a variety of assessments. * Student Achievement Partners. (January 2018). *Understand foundational skills*. <https://achievethecore.org/category/1205/understand-foundational-skills> Learn how phonological awareness and phonics connect to early reading through this 7-part mini-course that dives into the content of literacy foundational skills, with an emphasis on phonological awareness, phonics, and how these connect to early reading. Instructional guidelines and concrete recommendations for teacher practice are also explored. * National Center on Improving Literacy. (2018). *How we learn to read: The critical role of phonological awareness*. <https://improvingliteracy.org/brief/how-we-learn-read-critical-rol…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What component(s) did your students engage with in your lesson plan to increase their phonological awareness skills? What data was used to assess your students’ readiness for the particular activities?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know if your students’ phonological awareness skills were enhanced through your teaching? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates that your students are progressing?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following artifacts: **Artifact 1: Phonological Awareness Lesson Plan and Rationale** Upload your phonological awareness lesson plan used to support student learning. The lesson plan should include educator directions for skill implementation. The lesson should include at least one of the following phonological awareness components: * Oral rhymes and alliteration * Words in a sentence * Syllables in words * Onset and rime in words, or individual phonemes in words (depending on your students’ level from prior assessments) The rationale should include the following (150-word limit): * How did you select or develop this particular lesson? * How do you plan to support diverse learners throughout the lesson **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video** Upload a 10–15 minute annotated video/audio of whole group phonological awareness instruction. The video/audio should include annotations for the following: * Educator modeling how to produce the targeted skill (e.g., words in a sentence, counting syllables, etc.) * Educator providing directions for clear student expectations * Students practicing the specific skill and receiving educator feedback * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding, focusing attention on the educator, asking questions, or think-pair-share. **Artifact 3: Pre/Post Assessments** Choose a small group of diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * A rationale explaining what information you used from your students’ pre-assessments. + Explain how your pre- and post-assessments helped you to determine where to begin instruction. + Include information you gathered from the post-assessments that you completed when you were assessing your students’ phonological awareness skills. * Pre-assessments: Upload one pre-assessment from each of your small group students. * Post-a…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on teaching phonological awareness to your students using the following questions to guide you: - How did teaching your students phonological awareness help them grow as learners? - What strategies can you incorporate into your daily English Language Arts instruction to enhance students’ phonological awareness skills?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Phonological Awareness Lesson Plan and Rationale
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video/Audio
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Pre/Post Assessments
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/PP0pmcmKQzKg6Mu4Ejfytg
name: Providing Explicit Instruction
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/PP0pmcmKQzKg6Mu4Ejfytg/image
description: Educator designs and delivers explicit instruction utilizing the gradual release model to ensure students’ understanding of new skill(s) and concepts.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Meeting the Literacy Instructional Needs of Every Learner
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1007_551828082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops a lesson that includes specific learning goal(s), explicit and systematic instruction, modeling and scaffolding, teaching of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, and frequent feedback. # Method Components ### Overview Explicit and systematic instruction is evidenced-based instruction proven to support students’ acquisition of literacy skills. Students are taught how to be aware of their use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies, then use those strategies to self-monitor and self-evaluate their own thinking when learning new skills and concepts. Explicit instruction supports students’ active participation in learning literacy skills by requiring frequent responses followed by additional modeling and corrective feedback. This process, along with many opportunities for purposeful practice, aids in an increased retention rate and depth of understanding of literacy skills being taught. ### Components of Explicit Instruction **Specific learning goals** * Develop a learning goal that focuses on “critical content”, which is defined by skills or concepts that are essential to students’ understanding and academic success. Each lesson’s specific learning goal should be evident to both educator(s) and students. * Create mapping – that is, create a logical sequence of lessons in a unit – to reach the goal. A lesson using explicit instructional strategies is highly structured and breaks learning into more manageable chunks, with the educator presenting small amounts of new information through explaining, modeling, and demonstrating. * Explicit instructional practices include educator scaffolding and opportunities for guided and independent practice. Effective practices do not rely on sharing too much information at once, but focus on small amounts of new material with frequent checks of understanding. **Cognitive and metacognitive strategies** As educators provide explicit instruction, it is important to teach students strategies that sup…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Fisher, Douglas. (n.d.). *Effective Use of the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model*. [http://srhscollaborationsuite.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/4/0/38407301/douglas\_fisher.pdf](http://srhscollaborationsuite.weebly.com/uploads/3/8/4/0/38407301/douglas_fisher.pdf) This article highlights the components of the gradual release of responsibility model and how this model can be used. * Kennedy, M. J., Peeples, K. N., Romig, J. E., Mathews, H. M., Rodgers, W. J. (2018). *High-leverage practice #16: Use explicit instruction*. Retrieved from <https://highleveragepractices.org/701-2/>. This video highlights explicit instruction in action in the classroom. * LD@School. (n.d.). *Planning and teaching with explicit instruction*. <https://www.ldatschool.ca/planning-teaching-explicit-instruction/> This research article explains the ways to plan and teach with explicit instruction in the classroom. * National Center on Intensive Intervention. *Intensive Intervention Course Content: Features of Explicit Instruction*. (n.d.). Retrieved from <https://intensiveintervention.org/intensive-intervention-features-explicit-instruction> Presented by the National Center on Intensive Intervention, this course includes four modules centered around the topic of explicit instruction. Specific topics include modeling and practicing to help students reach academic goals; supporting practices – using effective methods to elicit frequent responses; providing immediate specific feedback and maintaining a brisk pace; and use of explicit instruction to support students’ academic needs. * Rosenshine, B. (2012, Spring). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. *American Educator*, 12–39. <https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/Rosenshine.pdf> An article on 10 research-based principles of instruction written for educators. First the article gives an overview and explanation of each principle and then goes on to give specific examples for implementati…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * National Center on Intensive Intervention. *Intensive Intervention Course Content: Features of Explicit Instruction*. (n.d.). Retrieved from <https://intensiveintervention.org/intensive-intervention-features-explicit-instruction> Presented by the National Center on Intensive Intervention, this course includes four modules centered around the topic of explicit instruction. Specific topics include modeling and practicing to help students reach academic goals; supporting practices – using effective methods to elicit frequent responses; providing immediate specific feedback and maintaining a brisk pace; and use of explicit instruction to support students’ academic needs. * National Center on Improving Literacy. (2020). What are the characteristics of effective literacy instruction <https://improvingliteracy.org/ask-an-expert/what-are-characteristics-effective-literacy-instruction> In this “Ask the Expert” series, the video and accompanying transcript outline elements of effective literacy instruction, including Explicit Instruction. * Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C. S., Roberts, G. (2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531907.pdf> This reference provides specific information on intensifying instruction to support the learning needs of struggling students. Activities and suggestions to accompany the research are provided as well. * Student Achievement Partners. (April 2018). Foundational Skills Guidance Documents: Grades K–2 <https://achievethecore.org/category/1206/ela-literacy-foundational-skills> This guide outlines the essential instructional components to teach early reading skills. It is intended to provide teachers with best practices to support the explicit teaching of foundational skills: print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency. * Studen…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: How did the use of explicit instruction practices impact student learning? How do you know you have effectively used the supporting practices? What evidence did you collect to support this? How did you determine which skills and/or concepts to address during this lesson?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Describe the activity and lesson you planned. What classroom data did you use to develop the learning goal? Provide a description of the strategies you incorporated that are components of explicit instruction.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Lesson Plan** Upload an annotated lesson plan used to support student learning. The lesson should include rationale and explanation for instructional decisions based on student needs and data. The lesson should include the following elements of instructional strategies and practices that are embodied in planning for explicit instruction: * Lesson introduction and hook * Setting the purpose of the daily lesson * Build vocabulary and background knowledge * Teach and support students focusing on skills/strategies * Student engagement * Check for understanding * Provide timely feedback * Assessment **Artifact 2: Whole Class Instruction** Upload a 20–30 minute annotated video or audio with annotations that captures: * Lesson introduction and hook * Clear explanation of the purpose of the lesson * Modeling and guided practice that are reflective of the elements of explicit instruction * Use of scaffolds and differentiation strategies to meet the needs of diverse learners * Opportunities for student engagement – with both the educator and other students * Multiple opportunities to check for understanding and provide student feedback **Artifact 3: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of two or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports and/or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Assessment Samples + Upload work samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit work examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward the lesson goal. Include …
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Explain the impact on student learning with the group of learners identified in Artifact 3. For example, if the lesson was a reteach of a particular skill, compare student work from a previous assessment to the work from this lesson to determine whether the use of explicit instructional strategies improved student understanding. The impact on student learning could also be determined by examining the results of a pre- and post-assessment on the skill that was taught.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
      questions:
        text: - What explicit instruction strategies worked well in this lesson and what would you do differently? - What are your next steps? What will you focus on next with this group of students?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Class Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/YXyshxIJSJedW_44b-4RBg
name: Screening, Diagnostic, and Progress Monitoring Assessment
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/YXyshxIJSJedW_44b-4RBg/image
description: Educator understands the purpose and use of screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessments and data to plan and make instructional decisions for teaching reading to a diverse group of students in whole group instruction.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Meeting the Literacy Instructional Needs of Every Learner
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1008_031928082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator uses an assessment system to generate useful data in order to plan and make instructional decisions to support and evaluate student progress. # Method Components ### Overview Assessment is an essential element in meeting the needs of all students. Reliable and valid data from screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessments helps an educator make important instructional decisions for levels of student support and the focus of instruction (targeted skill areas) and it provides insight into how students respond to instruction. It is important to have an understanding of the purpose of each assessment and how the assessment process helps to guide reading instruction. ### Components of the Assessment Process Screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessments are considered formative measures of assessment. This assessment process is best viewed as recurring, or cyclical , as educators are frequently planning and adjusting their instruction based on this assessment data. ### Screening Usually the first step in the assessment process is to administer a screener to all students. This is a brief assessment that helps to identify students who may be at risk for reading failure. It is a good first step in helping to identify such students but does not indicate which specific skills to target during instruction. Screeners should be administered at regular intervals. A regular assessment schedule is just as important for those students who meet or exceed benchmarks to help ensure that they continue to show progress in reading. Appropriate universal screening tools should: * be selected to target reading skills such as word recognition, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension * be selected to provide an indication of overall reading achievement * be quick to administer and score * be reliable and valid. ### Diagnostic Assessments A diagnostic assessment is a follow-up tool, based on screening, that educators can use to gather more infor…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Center on Response to Intervention. (n.d.). *Screening briefs*. (Archived) Retrieved from <https://bit.ly/2CZUKtU> These four documents will help to develop a deeper understanding of the assessment process. * National Center on Improving Literacy (2019). *Best Practices in universal screening*. Retrieved from <https://improvingliteracy.org/brief/best-practices-universal-screening#body> This document shares best practices when establishing a screening protocol. * Pentimonti, J. M., Walker, M. A., & Edmonds, R. Z. (2017). The selection and use of screening and progress monitoring tools in data-based decision making within an MTSS framework. *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 43*(3), 34–40. [http://www.onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=425075&article\_id=2836414&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5](http://www.onlinedigeditions.com/publication/?i=425075&article_id=2836414&view=articleBrowser&ver=html5) This publication includes information on universal screening tools. * The IRIS Center (2005, Rev. 2019). *Progress monitoring: Reading*. Retrieved from <https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/pmr/> This resource introduces users to progress monitoring and how this assessment can help to inform instruction. * Walpole, Sharon, & McKenna, Michael C. (2017). “Using Assessments to Guide Differentiation”, (pages 19–41). In *How to plan differentiated reading instruction* (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. This chapter offers an approach to an assessment system to help plan targeted instruction tailored to each student’s needs.
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Coyne, M. D., Capozzoli-Oldham, A., Cuticelli, M., & Ware, S. M. (2015). A word selection grid: Choosing vocabulary to teach. *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 41*(3), 52–56. <https://app.box.com/s/rw7rvttc3ylq6ct6vc0qofm2cikekq73> This article focuses on assessment practices specific to vocabulary instruction or intervention. * Farrall, M. L. (2013). The assessment of written syntax. *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 39*(3), 31–36. <https://app.box.com/s/6rn9i3zl6blle2qhasudaj84zb9gkvhs> This resource addresses the challenges of using a single assessment to address student needs in written syntax for instruction or remediation. It offers examples of informal assessments of writing skills, and other assessments that could be used to measure aspects of syntax, along with signs and behaviors of children at risk for challenges in writing. * Florida Center of Reading Research. (2006). *Empowering teachers*. Retrieved from <https://fcrr.org/sites/g/files/upcbnu2836/files/media/projects/empowering-teachers/index.html> This resource provides instructional routines to use during small group instruction. * Glaser, Deborah. (2019) *Planning the small group lesson*. Achieve the Core. <https://achievethecore.org/aligned/planning-small-group-reading-lesson/> This resource will explain a small group lesson framework. * National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2018). *Academic Progress Monitoring Tools Chart*. Retrieved from <https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/chart/progress-monitoring> This tools chart presents information about academic progress monitoring tools. * National Center on Improving Literacy. (2019). *Four questions to ask after universal screening*. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy. <https://improvingliteracy.org/brief/four-questions-ask-after-universal-screening> This resource offers a decision-making framework to …
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Describe your school-wide assessment system, including information about your current screeners, diagnostic assessments, and progress monitoring tools used, and when these assessments take place.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a description of your role in the assessment process, including information about your responsibilities for screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessments.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a description of what happens in your school and classroom after screening and diagnostics assessments are completed. Include information about: - the data used to develop a reading instructional plan - how the data is used to plan for differentiation - how the data aligns to the differentiated reading activities planned for a student or group of students.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a brief description of instructional planning of activities to target students’ needs. How did you know the assessment process was effective?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Assessment Process Graphic** Upload a chart or flowchart that graphically represents the assessment process used in your school. This should include: 1. Assessments used in helping to determine reading instruction, identified as screening, diagnostic, or progress monitoring assessment 2. Steps to represent the flow of the assessment process 3. Relevant questions to be answered to help to identify next steps in the assessment process and to identify the support students need during reading instruction. **Artifact 2: Instructional Plan** Upload an instructional plan for differentiated reading instruction that would be followed as a result of the data generated through the assessment process. Submit the following as part of the instructional plan: * Rationale for the plan + What data you used to make the decision for a differentiated instructional plan. * A description of the instructional plan + The instructional focus for the plan + The instructional strategies used + The progress monitoring assessment used. **Artifact 3: Evaluation of Student Progress** After frequent and regular progress monitoring that results in multiple and reliable data points (at least six data points), upload a progress monitoring graphic of one diverse learner (see Resources section for definition of diverse learner) (name omitted) that has received differentiated instruction. Along with the graphic, provide a narrative that identifies the progress monitoring tool used, what targeted instruction this student was receiving, and what the data tells you about this student’s progress. Include what the next steps in instruction would look like based on this data.
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on how using screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessments has affected your current practice and how attaining this competency might impact your practice in the future.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Assessment Process Graphic
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Instructional Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Evaluation of Student Progress
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/inUOlb6mQfG_E4fOy6iXtg
name: Supporting Families in Student Literacy Development
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/inUOlb6mQfG_E4fOy6iXtg/image
description: Educator understands and utilizes effective strategies to support families in their child(ren)’s literacy development.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Meeting the Literacy Instructional Needs of Every Learner
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1009_410525082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator utilizes effective strategies to develop a plan for engaging and supporting families in their child(ren)’s early literacy development. # Method Components ### Overview Development of early literacy skills begins at home. Families help build these skills by talking to their children regularly. When children hear and engage in conversations, through their interactions with speaking and listening to others, they develop good oral language skills, and when children engage in regular discourse with adults and their peers, they are building their cognitive skills, which helps with reading comprehension. Children also develop good oral language and literacy skills when they participate in interactive read-aloud. When children are read to at home and see other family members reading, they begin to understand the purpose of written words. In addition to the use of oral language and interactive read-aloud, families should encourage their child(ren) to write regularly at home. This can be demonstrated by making grocery lists together or writing an email together for a family member. The work of supporting student literacy development is an essential partnership between families and educators and is an important piece of a child’s successful language and literacy development. These areas of literacy and language development can be supported in a variety of ways through the home/school connection. Families may not often know about activities that can be done at home to support language and literacy development. For this reason, it is essential that educators reach out to families to share ideas, activities, and strategies supporting the specific language and literacy development appropriate for the age and developmental level of their child(ren). ### Components of Supporting Families in Student Literacy Development According to Van Voorhis (2013), support for families is most effective when it: * Involves shared experiences such as dialogic reading or f…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2006). *A child becomes a reader: Proven ideas from research for parents*. RMC Research Corporation: Portsmouth, NH. <https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/documents/readingk-3.pdf#search=A-Child-Becomes-a-Reader%3A-Proven-Ideas-from-Research-for-Parents> This resource provides families with a brief summary of the power in supporting literacy development at home, as well as a series of specific activities for families to support children up through third grade. * Genishi, C. (1998). *Young children's oral language development*. ERIC Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. This article presents an overview of the process and mechanics of language development, along with implications for practice. * NCTE. (2018). *Parents as partners in promoting writing among children and youth*. Urbana, IL: NCTE. * Van Voorhis, F. L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. L., & Lloyd, C. M. (2013). *The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8: A focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and social-emotional skills*. Retrieved from <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED545474.pdf> A synthesis of research and activities of proven strategies to support the connection between families and school in math and literacy. * Weiner, J. (2014). Bridging the cultural gap: Communication with families of culturally and linguistically diverse students. *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 40*(4), 39–43. <https://app.box.com/s/dfveh4gj5evo50bpv3a7wjgnk1nyiiw5> Intended for educators, this article provides ideas for ways to support culturally inclusive classrooms both for children and their families. In addition to the research behind the need for this support, very specific strategies are included.
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Kosanovich, M., Lee, L., & Foorman, B. (2020). *A kindergarten teacher’s guide to supporting family involvement in foundational reading skills* (REL 2020-016). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from <https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/projects/project.asp?projectID=5674> Meant for use by educators, this guide is designed specifically to provide ideas for support to families in kindergarten. Additional guides are being developed to support educators in their work through grade 3 as well. * National Center on Improving Literacy. (2019). *Route to reading: Help your child fuel up*. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy. <https://improvingliteracy.org/brief/route-reading-help-your-child-fuel> A guide for caregivers, written to help families understand the link between speech sounds and literacy development. * Ohio Department of Education. (n.d.). *Partnering with families to improve literacy skills (K–5)*. <https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Other-Resources/Family-and-Community-Engagement/Framework-for-Building-Partnerships-Among-Schools/Literacy.pdf.aspx> A resource guide for educators providing specific steps for partnering with families in support of literacy development in grades 1-3 * Reade, A. (2017). *Supporting your child’s literacy development at home*. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy. <https://improvingliteracy.org/brief/supporting-your-childs-literacy-development-home> A parent’s guide, available in both Spanish and English, explaining ways to support a child’s literacy development at home. * The Meadows Center for Preventing …
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a description of at least two family activities you have planned and implemented to support the literacy development of your students. Describe the activities and strategies you used. Include information on what specific classroom or school target group data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a description of how the family support activity was successful. Be sure to include specific information related to how you measured success, such as survey response data, anecdotes or conversations.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Review of Need and Annotated Planning Tool** Identify, review, and summarize the data sources that led you to determining the focus for the workshops or supports. **Artifact 2: Annotated Family Activity** Upload your planning documents (agenda, schedule, overview) for at least two different workshops or supports you provided. The submission should address the following: * Annotate the documents, including explanations and rationale for inclusion of each activity. * Articulate the literacy learning supported by the activities. * Articulate the rationale for the planning of the actual support and the reasons for each activity or element of the workshop/support. * Family engagement opportunities identified: What families will actually be doing with the resource or activity. * The planning documents, which include: + Specific Goals for support for families + Specific Literacy Development areas targeted by the workshop or learning. * Photographs or video clips should accompany the submission highlighting specific goals for support of families and specific literacy development area (for example, a picture of a station from a literacy activity night on fluency would show the type of activity as well as the topic). If the activity is a resource for families, a PDF or image of the resource should be submitted. * Method of data collection for family feedback, such as a survey. Note: Be sure to include photographs or video clips as further evidence. **Artifact 3: Family Workshop or Activity** Survey or follow up responses from participants supporting diverse learners and families. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this group of diverse families for support? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you provide to meet the ne…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on providing families involvement activities and learning to support literacy development. Use the following questions to guide you: - What was the impact of teaching specifics about literacy development strategies to families? - How will crafting these workshops and supports affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Review of Need and Annotated Planning Tool
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Annotated Family Activity
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Family Workshop or Activity
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/clKKDXa1SSOoHctvhATwbw
name: Synthetic Phonics
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/clKKDXa1SSOoHctvhATwbw/image
description: Educator effectively provides synthetic phonics instruction to diverse learners so they understand the relationship of sounds to written words.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Decoding and Word Recognition
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1019_132322032021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops a lesson plan that includes explicit and systematic instruction of letter/sound correspondences and segmenting and blending letter sounds to form and read words in texts. # Method Components ### Overview Learning the relationship between letters and sounds is non-negotiable when learning to read in an alphabetic writing system; this is most successfully achieved through phonics instruction. Synthetic phonics instruction teaches letter–sound correspondences individually and in a specified sequence, and children are taught early to blend (synthesize, hence the termsynthetic) individual phonemes to make words. ### Components of Synthetic Phonics Instruction **Phonological Awareness** Phonological awareness is a broad term used for all things related to the sounds of spoken language. Phonological awareness is entirely oral and forms the building blocks for later reading before print is even introduced. Phonological awareness is a broad skill that includes identifying and manipulating units of oral language—parts such as words, syllables, and onsets and rimes. Phonemic awareness refers to the specific ability to focus on and manipulate individual sounds (phonemes) in spoken words. Phonemes are the smallest unit of sound within words. Phonemic awareness has a direct and significant effect on learning to read and spell. Phonics consists of learning sound and spelling patterns in a distinct sequence that allows students to recognize the sounds letters make in print. ***Phonemic awareness connects directly to phonics***, as students must be able to hear the sounds in order to recognize them in written form. The sound and spelling patterns taught each week build on one another and, in turn, allow students to decode new and more complicated words. While the scope and sequence for teaching phonics can vary from program to program, you must follow a carefully designed progression to ensure that your students are building their knowledge systema…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Achieve the Core. (2018). Foundational skills guidance documents: Grades K–2. <https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Foundational%20Skills%20Guidance%20Document.pdf> This guide outlines essential instructional components to teach early reading skills. This document provides educators of kindergarten, first, and second grades with best practices to support the explicit teaching of foundational skills: print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word recognition, and fluency. This document should be used along with instructional materials that provide explicit and systematic instruction and practice. * Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. *Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19*(1), 5–51.[](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100618772271) <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100618772271> A review of the research literature about learning to read. It explains why phonics instruction is central to learning in a writing system such as English. * Chard, D. J., & Osborn, J. (1999). Phonics and word recognition instruction in early reading programs: Guidelines for accessibility. *Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14*(2), 107–117. <http://www.ldonline.org/article/6316/> This article examines the content and instructional plans of phonics and word recognition to be used with children with reading disabilities. Information is provided about the content of effective word-recognition instruction. * Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). *Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade*. (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dep…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Florida Center for Reading Research. (2007). *Instructional planning guide for grade 1 phonics*. <https://www.fcrr.org/student-center-activities/kindergarten-and-first-grade> An example instructional planning checklist for educators to use when planning a standards-aligned phonics lesson. * Gibbs, A., Reed, D. K., & Zimmerman, L. (2018, November). *Teaching letter–sound correspondences and syllable types for word identification*. Retrieved from <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/letter-sound-correspondences-syllable-types> This resource offers educators example lesson plans for phonics instruction. It includes links to supplemental material for educators. * Kosanovich, M., & Verhagen, C. (2012). *Building the foundation: A suggested progression of sub-skills to achieve the reading standards: Foundational skills in the Common Core State Standards*. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. <https://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Building%20the%20Foundation.pdf> This document explains the developmental sequence of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), including phonics. The document is divided into five sections, one for each grade level K–5, with grades 4–5 combined. Within each section, there is information on the standard, sub-skills and instructional examples, along with grade level expectations. * Synthetic Phonics. (n.d.) *The English alphabetic code—with audio*.[](https://syntheticphonics.com/the-english-alphabetic-code-with-audio/) <https://syntheticphonics.com/the-english-alphabetic-code-with-audio/> This chart can be used as a formative assessment tool for educators to assess phoneme knowledge. This webpage also contains “classroom-size” display charts with this information. * Phonics International. (n.d.). *Alphabetic code charts*.[](https://www.alphabeticcodecharts.com/free_charts.html) [https://www.alphabeticcodecharts.com/free\_charts.html](https://www.alphabeticcodecharts.com/free_charts.html) This resource may be helpfu…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What activities did you and your students engage in to become more proficient in synthetic phonics? Please describe the learning activities and strategies, and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students increased their proficiency in letter–sound correspondence and blending to read words in text? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan used to support student learning on synthetic phonics. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include: * Introduction * Modeling * Guided practice * Independent practice **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute annotated video/audio of the whole group instruction. The video/audio should include the following annotations: * Giving the lesson objective: to identify sounds in a word and how to represent those sounds with letters, so that they can read the word. * Modelling behavior 4–5 times or until students have an understanding of the procedures. * Providing an opportunity for student engagement, including asking/answering questions or small-group interaction. * Giving students an opportunity for independent practice while providing immediate and specific feedback. * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding, focusing attention on the educator, asking questions, or think-pair-share. **Artifact 3: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of 2 or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Assessment Samples + Upload work samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit assessment examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward learning the synthetic phonics. Include work samples…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on teaching synthetic phonics to your students, using the following questions to guide you: - What was the impact of teaching synthetic phonics to your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video/Audio
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/7vWGgQrvSg6gdVQPyRWZ4A
name: Teaching High-Frequency Words
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/7vWGgQrvSg6gdVQPyRWZ4A/image
description: Educator demonstrates the effective implementation of using graphophonemic knowledge to teach high-frequency words (HFW) in groups of words with similar patterns.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Decoding and Word Recognition
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1018_091928082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops a lesson plan to teach high-frequency words that includes current research-based strategies to teach these words. # Method Components ### Overview High-Frequency Words (HFW) are commonly referred to as “sight words.” These are words that students encounter frequently in their reading and often have irregular spelling patterns. Teachers commonly teach these words holistically through rote learning. ### Components of High-Frequency Word Instruction Duke and Mesmer (2016) recommend the following for exemplary high-frequency word instruction: 1. **High-frequency words should be taught in conjunction with phonemic awareness, individual letter–sound relationships, and a concept of word** (e.g., Flanagan, 2007). Much of high-frequency word instruction occurs too early—before children have essential literacy components in place. Without a concept of word and an understanding that letters represent sounds which form words’ alphabetic, students may begin to hold the misunderstanding that words are unsystematic, without a predictable relationship between written letters and spoken sounds. High-frequency word instruction should occur at a similar pace as instruction in phonics. 2. **Ask students to use graphophonemic analysis to read high-frequency words** (Ehri, 2005). However, it is important to ensure that instruction matches the children’s developmental stage (e.g., Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2012). For example, if working with an emergent reader who is just beginning to understand consonant sounds, focus them on just the first letter in a high-frequency word. When working with a full alphabetic reader (students who can decode unfamiliar words and store fully analyzed sight words in memory), teach the specific sounds in each word, including words that are not spelled using common letter–sound correspondences. For example, for the word “was”, teach /w/ /u/ /z/. That is, pronounce each sound in isolation in the word. This type …
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Duke, N. K., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2016, June). Teach “sight words” as you would other words. <https://literacyworldwide.org/blog%2Fliteracy-daily%2F2016%2F06%2F23%2Fteach-ldquo-sight-words-rdquo-as-you-would-other-words> This article recommends teachers approach the teaching of high-frequency words, or “sight words,” in the same manner as the teaching of other words. The authors recommend teaching all words through graphophonemic analysis along with teaching similar patterned words in groups (e.g., love, above, come). * Farrell, L., Hunter, M., & Osenga, T. (2019). A new love, above, come model for teaching high-frequency words. [](https://www.readingrockets.org/article/new-model-teaching-high-frequency-words) <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/new-model-teaching-high-frequency-words> This document offers a new model for teaching high-frequency words and encourages teachers to rethink teaching high-frequency words in ways other than rote memorization. The authors suggest that high-frequency word instruction should be integrated into phonics lessons, as this allows students to use their knowledge of applying spelling patterns to these words. * Gaskins, I. W. (2004). Word detectives. *Educational Leadership, 61*(6), 70–73. This article describes successful word learning at a school for struggling readers. The educators taught decoding by analogy. They asked students to segment words into sounds, compare the sounds to the letters, and then determine which letter or letters make each sound. In doing this, words are analyzed, stored in memory and then easily retrieved when decoding by analogy. * Hinzman, M., & Reed, D. K. (2018).*Teaching sight words as a part of comprehensive reading instruction*. <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/teaching-sight-words> This source suggests that sight words should be taught alongside systematic phonics instruction. They also suggest that new sight words should be taught in isolation, with brief but frequent instruction. Further…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Lyon, Cheryl. *Sight words: An evidence-based literacy strategy*. <https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/for-educators/teaching-strategies/how-to-teach-sight-words> Lesson plan to teach high-frequency words aligned with current research. Also, includes a video as a model lesson for teachers. * Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). *Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade* (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: <http://whatworks.ed.gov>[](https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_070516.pdf) [https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc\_foundationalreading\_070516.pdf](https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_070516.pdf) This is a practice guide developed for educators teaching foundational skills to support reading for understanding in grades Kindergarten through Grade 3. This guide provides instructional recommendations that can be implemented in conjunction with existing standards or curricula. Teachers can use the guide when planning instruction to support the development of foundational reading skills among students in diverse contexts. * Hinzman, M., & Reed, D. K. (2018).*Teaching sight words as a part of comprehensive reading instruction*.[](https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/teaching-sight-words) <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/teaching-sight-words> This resource provides a research-based sight word strategy for teacher use. * Duke, N. K., & Mesmer, H. A. (2016). Teach “sight words” as you would other words. <https://www.literacyworldwide.org/blog/literacy-now/2016/06/23/teach-ldquo-sight-words-rdq…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What activities did you and your students engage with in order to increase high-frequency word knowledge? Please describe the learning activities and strategies, and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students increased their high-frequency word knowledge? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete the micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan used to support student learning of high-frequency words. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include: * Introduction of new HFWs * Teaching in combination with phonics and in connection with students’ spelling stages * Practice with spelling and spelling patterns * Connection to text **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute annotated video/audio of whole group instruction. The video/audio or transcript should include the following annotations: * You introducing the new HFWs for the day’s lesson * You teaching the lesson in connection with phonics and students’ spelling stages * You guiding students in practice with spelling and spelling patterns while offering immediate and specific feedback * Students engaged in meaningful and connected text with you offering immediate and specific feedback related to HFW instruction * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding , focusing attention on the educator, asking questions, or think-pair-share. **Artifact 3: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of 2 or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Assessment Samples + Upload work samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student submit assessment examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress t…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on your high-frequency word instruction, using the following questions to guide you: - What was the impact of the instruction that targeted HFW knowledge on your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction Video/Audio
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/4lLG77qTTXWOK5kfvuHF_g
name: UDL: Goals and Assessment
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/4lLG77qTTXWOK5kfvuHF_g/image
description: Educator understands the importance of developing clear and flexible goals and assessments aligned to that goal.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Universal Design for Learning
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1013_161928082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator shows purposeful planning in developing goals and assessments to support the varied needs in the classroom. The planning shows an understanding of the need to develop clear and flexible goals that are aligned to the standards, as well as the need to develop assessments that are aligned to a learning goal that will accurately measure student progress and alert the educator if modifications to the learning activities are needed. # Method Components ### Overview In his study, Visible Learning, John Hattie determined learning goals to be a specific teaching strategy that has a significant effect on student learning. Couple that with a flexible assessment of that learning goal, and the likelihood that a student masters a learning goal is maximized. ### Clear and Flexible Goals While using the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework to design learning goals in the classroom, it is important to form goals that: * **Separate the means from the ends**: This involves separating the learning goals from the means of achieving them. If goals are too specific, with only one way to achieve the goal, students who cannot achieve the goal in that manner are excluded from the goal. In other cases, the goal is not rigorous enough, and students are not offered an appropriate level of challenge. Learning goals need to be expressed in a flexible way, offer optional paths for achieving the goals, convey success criteria, and allow students to help with determining the goals. An example of this is with a goal that incorporates students being able to “cite evidence from the text.” If we look at the verb “cite,” students can do this in many different ways. Some may choose to highlight the information in the text. Others may choose to include information in a graphic organizer, point to the information, or record themselves explaining the information. * **Challenge all students**: It is important to offer goals that allow all students to be challenged and suppor…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: ### General UDL * Bodrova, E., Leong, D.J., & Akhutina, T.V. (2011). When everything new is well-forgotten old: Vygotsky/Luria insights in the development of executive functions. In R. M. Lerner, J. V. Lerner, E. P. Bowers, S. Lewin-Bizan, S. Gestsdottir, & J.B. Urban (Eds.), *Thriving in childhood and adolescence: The role of self-regulation process: New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 133*, 11–28. [http://luria.ucsd.edu/EverythingNew\_is\_Well-ForgottenOld.pdf](http://luria.ucsd.edu/EverythingNew_is_Well-ForgottenOld.pdf) This article looks at the concept of “extra-cortical organization of higher mental functions'' proposed by Lev Vygotsky and expanded by Alexander Luria. It uses the example of self-regulation in terms of executive functioning and provides data from the Tools of the Mind Project. * Hammond, Z., & Jackson, Y. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. This book discusses neuroscience research to offer an innovative approach for designing and implementing brain-compatible culturally responsive instruction. * Hattie, J. (2018). Hattie ranking: 252 influences on student achievement. Retrieved from <https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/> This article looks at how John Hattie developed a way of synthesizing various influences in different meta-analyses according to their effect size. In this study, he ranked 252 influences related to learning outcomes from very positive effects to very negative effects based on the average effect size of 0.40. * Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. <http://www.cast.org/our-work/publications/2014/universal-design-learning-theory-practice-udl-meyer.html#.XxBd0JNKj5Y> In this free, downloadable e-book, Meyer, Rose and Gor…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: ### General UDL * Hattie, J. (2018, March 28). Hattie effect size list: 256 influences related to achievement. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from [https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/](https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/https://visible-learning.org/hattie-ranking-influences-effect-sizes-learning-achievement/) John Hattie’s Visible Learning study ranks the 256 most influential effects on education. * Ralabate, P. (2015) *Step-by-step lesson planning using UDL* (Video). YouTube. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndlhp9xmrUo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndlhp9xmrUohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndlhp9xmrUo) This video walks through the steps of lesson planning with UDL, from setting goals to assessment. ### Goals * CAST. (2015). Top 10 UDL tips for developing learning goals. Retrieved January 22, 2019, from <http://castprofessionallearning.org/project/free-top-10-udl-tips-for-developing-learning-goals/>. CAST provides tips for developing learning goals. Only by clarifying what we want students to accomplish can we begin to consider what assessments, methods, and materials will be most effective. * CAST. (2018) UDL Guidepoint: Checkpoint 6.1 Guide to appropriate goal-setting. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from <http://udlguidelines.cast.org/action-expression/executive-functions/goal-setting/goal-setting> Checkpoint 6.1 describes appropriate goal setting in the UDL framework. * Smith, Z. (2015). Using common core standards to support all learners. (Video). YouTube. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBNnYBwTemk&list=PLiEEVaszwWmAS1aa1qYhYfrRYOGGDyX01&index=18&t=0s> This is a recorded presentation from the 2015 Inclusion Collaborative State Conference in Santa Clara, CA. Zach Smith describes how to use the Common Core Standards in a UDL environment. * Streagle, K. (2014, September 26). *UDL goal setting mini lecture* (Video). YouTube. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiTLGSHw7js…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a description of the lesson you and your students engaged in that shows evidence of: - Planned lesson with clear and flexible goals aligned to standards - Flexible assessments aligned to goal - How you made the goal clear and flexible to students - How the assessment was flexible to allow for goal mastery in different ways.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 200
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **two pieces of evidence**. Artifact 1 is required, and you will choose to submit either Artifact 2a or Artifact 2b for your second piece of evidence. **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)** Upload a lesson plan that is evidence of planning for clear, flexible, standards-based goals that align to the assessment. The lesson can be in a format of your choosing. Annotations of the lesson (voice recording, written or digital text, etc.) should include explanations about strategies used to support goals and assessments that may not be evident to the assessor. The lesson should include planning in: * Clear and flexible goals * Options for flexible assessment *Choose **one** of the following to submit*: **Artifact 2a: Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute video/audio of class instruction. The video/audio should include: * Sharing of a clear and flexible goal that is aligned to the standard * Flexible assessment of the learning goal **Artifact 2b: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of three or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners). Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Assessment Samples + Upload work samples from three students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit work examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward the lesson goal. Include work samples with your feedback.
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Educator Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a self-reflection of your lesson’s goals and assessment. Be sure to include: - What went well - How your students were able to meet the goal of the lesson - Evidence that demonstrates student mastery of the goal - Barriers that still exist within the lesson - How you would eliminate barriers for the next lesson.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 200
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on the importance of writing clear and flexible goals and options for assessment aligned to that goal in your classroom, using the following questions to guide you: - How did writing clear and flexible goals and assessments aligned to that goal affect how you see your students as expert learners? - How will writing clear and flexible goals and assessments aligned to that goal affect your lesson planning in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2a: Whole Class Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2b: Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each submitted component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Ft5mS61rSFuyPyPB3uaB-A
name: UDL: Multiple Means of Action & Expression
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Ft5mS61rSFuyPyPB3uaB-A/image
description: Educator understands the importance of developing expert learners who are strategic and goal-directed by offering options for physical action, expression and communication, and executive functions.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Universal Design for Learning
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1014_332225082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator shows evidence of purposeful planning for variability by providing options for physical action, expression and communication, and executive functions. # Method Components ### Overview The strategic networks located in the frontal lobes of the brain are responsible for the ability to act skillfully and strategically. When one plans, executes, and monitors an action, the strategic networks are being utilized. Executive functions, simple motor movements that develop into elaborate and fluent skills, and simple voluntary motor movements are the core of these networks. Because learners differ in the way they function strategically, it is important to remember to offer a variety of opportunities for students to show what they know. Meyer, Rose, and Gordon (2014) say that it is in this area that educators need to support the development of expertise in executive functions, such as goal setting, monitoring one’s progress and adjusting approaches as needed, strategy development, and managing information and resources. The principle encourages educators to include physical interactions, the use of high- and low-tech tools, and structures that lead to self-management. The Principle of Multiple Means of Action & Expression is centered around three guidelines: * Provide options for physical action * Provide options for executive functions * Provide options for expression and communication ### Providing Option for Physical Action Providing Options for Physical Action allows students to express their knowledge in a variety of ways. Whether students need physical tools due to a disability or communication devices to help them participate in a discussion, this guideline deals with time constraints of a task, how students respond to information, and how they participate within a lesson. The checkpoints that fall under this guideline are varying the methods for response and navigation and optimizing access to tools and assistive technologies. * **Varying the …
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: ### General UDL * CAST: Provide multiple means of Action & Expression. (2018, January 12). Retrieved May 14, 2020, from <http://udlguidelines.cast.org/action-expression> CAST provides an explanation of providing multiple means of action and expression, which allows for learners to differ in the ways that they can navigate a learning environment and express what they know. * McDonald, A., & Campbell, H., (2020). UDL implementation in the math classroom: Practical applications for Monday’s lessons. Retrieved June 18, 2020. [https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMcDonald\_Campbell\_2017.pdf](https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMcDonald_Campbell_2017.pdf) This article gives an overview of ways to hit the checkpoints in a math classroom. * Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. In this free, downloadable e-book, Meyer, Rose and Gordon discuss the UDL principles and practices since 2002. Included are contributions from CAST's research and implementation teams, as well as their collaborators in schools, universities, and research settings. * *Multiple Means of Action & Expression*. (2015). Retrieved from <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-EsS6Cbkj4> This video gives an overview of the UDL guideline and its checkpoints. * Ralabate, P. (2017, December 11). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/universal-design-learning-meeting-needs-all-students> The author, a speech pathologist, discusses UDL and how this framework meets the needs of all students. * Redford, K. (2019, February 19). When it comes to universal design for learning, don't wait to be an expert. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from <https://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2018/…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: ### Options for Physical Action * Nieves, K. (2019, July 30). 10 Student-tested Chrome extensions. Retrieved from <https://www.edutopia.org/article/10-student-tested-chrome-extensions> This article discusses the benefits of using Google Chrome, and it’s easy to customize with these extensions that really benefit students. * Provide options for physical action. (2018, December 11). Retrieved May 14, 2020, from <https://www.inclusive.tki.org.nz/guides/universal-design-for-learning/provide-options-for-physical-action> This website gives suggestions for providing options for perceptions. * Text-to-speech technology: What it is and how it works. (2019, October 16). Retrieved May 14, 2020, from <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/text-speech-technology-what-it-and-how-it-works> This article discusses the benefits of allowing students to use text-to-speech technology to help with reading and writing. * McDonald, A., & Campbell, H. (2020). Building on a firm foundation: Supporting students with more intensive support needs in UDL environments. Retrieved June 18. 2020, from [https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMcDonald\_Campbell\_2017.pdf](https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMcDonald_Campbell_2017.pdf). This article gives a case study of a child with intensive support needs in a UDL classroom. ### Options for Expression & Communication * Díaz, P. (2020, January 28). A way to promote student voice—Literally. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from <https://www.edutopia.org/article/way-promote-student-voice-literally> One educator describes how technology allows students to communicate their ideas. * Kaplinsky, R. (2019, December 26). Getting to the heart of what students know in math. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from <https://www.edutopia.org/article/getting-heart-what-students-know-math> This article describes how to give students…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a description of the lesson in which you and your students engaged that shows evidence of planning for providing Multiple Means of Action & Expression. Please describe: - The learning activities and checkpoints that were incorporated (i.e., options for physical action, expression and communication, and executive functions). - Why you chose these activities and strategies - What barriers you hoped to eliminate by using these activities and strategies.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 200
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit two pieces of evidence. Artifact 1 is required, and you will choose to submit either Artifact 2a or Artifact 2b for your second piece of evidence. **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)** Upload a lesson plan that is evidence of planning for providing Multiple Means of Action and Expression to allow for variability in the way students show what they know and navigate the learning environment. The lesson can be in the format of your choosing. Annotations of the lesson (voice recording, written or digital text, etc.) should include explanations about the various strategies used to address variability while allowing for students to express what they have learned that may not be evident to the assessor. The lesson should include planning for Multiple Means of Action and Expression in: * Providing options for physical action * Providing options for expression and communication * Providing options for executive functions *Choose **one** of the following to submit*: **Artifact 2a: Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute video/audio of class instruction. The video/audio should include strategies used to: * Provide options for physical action * Provide options for expression and communication * Provide options for executive functions **Artifact 2b: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of three or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners). Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s) * Assessment Samples + Upload work samples from three students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit work examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other pr…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Educator Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a self-reflection of your lesson and activities. Be sure to include: - What went well - How your students were able to stay engaged throughout the lesson - Evidence collected that demonstrates attainment of the learning goals - Barriers that exist within the lesson - How you would eliminate barriers for the next lesson, being sure to include specific checkpoints related to Multiple Means of Action and Expression.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 200
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on the importance of providing Multiple Means of Action and Expression to reduce barriers among the students you serve, using the following questions to guide you: - How did providing Multiple Means of Action and Expression affect how you see your students as expert students? - How will addressing representation affect your lesson planning in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2a: Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2b: Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/vV3Hi4dSSeydGahapv2hyg
name: UDL: Multiple Means of Engagement
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/vV3Hi4dSSeydGahapv2hyg/image
description: Educator understands the importance of developing expert learners who are purposeful and motivated, by offering options for recruiting students’ interest, helping them to sustain effort and persistence, and providing options for their self-regulation.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Universal Design for Learning
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1015_272228082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator shows evidence of purposeful planning for variability by providing options for recruiting the students' interest, sustaining effort and persistence, as well as self-regulation. # Method Components ### Overview The affective networks, located in the center of the brain, allow us to engage in learning. Often called the “why” of learning, the paths in these networks allow us to evaluate patterns and develop an emotional significance to those patterns. They allow us to monitor our environment to set our priorities, motivate and engage ourselves, and monitor our behavior. The affective networks help students to initiate actions and respond based on feelings about what is perceived, and react based on memories, needs, and emotions. An example of this is when a person smells a certain smell or hears a particular sound and it triggers a memory from their past. This memory could dictate their responses or feelings about the current situation. These networks are closely tied to engagement in the classroom, and designing for the affective networks helps to ensure that students are emotionally connected to the information we are presenting and are able to actively express their knowledge of what was learned. The principle of engagement is organized around three guidelines that are incorporated in the UDL graphic organizer: * Options for recruiting interest * Options for sustaining effort and persistence * Options for self-regulation ### Recruiting Interest Offering options for recruiting interest helps educators gain student interest by tapping into their personal experiences, learning preferences, and interests. Within this guideline, teachers use the three checkpoints to **optimize choice and autonomy**, **optimize relevance and authenticity,** and **minimize threats and distractions**. These guidelines allow students to make choices so they are more likely to become fully engaged in the curriculum. It asks them to find relevance in the goal of the l…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: ### General UDL * Bodrova, E., Leong, D. J., & Akhutina, T. V. (2011). When everything new is well-forgotten old: Vygotsky/Luria insights in the development of executive functions. In R. M. Lerner, J. V. Lerner, E. P. Bowers, S. Lewin-Bizan, S. Gestsdottir, & J. B. Urban (Eds.), *Thriving in childhood and adolescence: The role of self-regulation process: New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 133*, 11–28. * Learning by Design, LLC. (2013). Barriers to learning. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from <http://easternshoreudl.weebly.com/barriers-to-learning.html> This site gives an overview of planning with UDL in mind, by considering the barriers in the curriculum and then providing ideas for how to eliminate those barriers. * McDonald, A. and Campbell, H., (2020). UDL implementation in the math classroom: Practical applications for Monday’s lessons. Retrieved June 18, 2020. [https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMcDonald\_Campbell\_2017.pdf](https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMcDonald_Campbell_2017.pdf) This article gives an overview of ways to hit the checkpoints in a math classroom. * Multiple means of engagement. (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2020, from <http://stemteachingtools.org/sp/multiple-means-of-engagement> STEM teaching tools provide an explanation of giving multiple means of engagement in STEM classrooms. * Nelson, L. (2014). *Design and deliver: Planning and teaching using universal design for learning*. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. This book gives guidance for how to plan and teach your lessons using UDL. * Provide multiple means of engagement. (2018, January 12). Retrieved May 12, 2020, from <http://udlguidelines.cast.org/engagement> CAST provides an overview of this principle with an explanation of each checkpoint. * Top 10 UDL tips for engagement. (2014). Retrieved May 12, 2020, from <http:…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: ### Options for Recruiting Interest * Alber, R. (2014, March 31). 5 ways to give your students more voice and choice. Retrieved May 12, 2020, from <https://www.edutopia.org/blog/five-strategies-more-voice-choice-students-rebecca-alber> This article describes strategies to provide student choice in your classroom. * Bogdan, P. (2011, March 29). Student-centered learning environments: How and why. Retrieved May 4, 2020, from <https://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-centered-learning-environments-paul-bogdan> Paul Bogdan was a traditional style teacher and reflects on his change to a more student-centered classroom. * Degner, J. (2020). How Universal Design for Learning creates culturally accessible classrooms. *Education Week Teacher*. Retrieved June 18, 2020, from <https://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2016/11/14/udl-creates-cultural-competency-in-classroom.html>. This article discusses strategies to use UDL as a framework for creating culturally accessible classrooms. * Learner-centered environments. (2015). Retrieved May 4, 2020, from <http://lighthouse.bcps.org/learner-centered-environments.html> Baltimore County Public Schools highlight specific ways in which they make their classrooms student-centered. * Learning environments. (2020). Retrieved May 4, 2020, from <https://www.edutopia.org/topic/learning-environments> This site gives examples of how to make a difference in your classroom learning environment by optimizing seating arrangements, classroom decor, and even building design. * McClaskey, K. (2020). Developing the expert learner through the stages of personalized learning. Retrieved June 18, 2020, from [https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMcClaskey\_2017.pdf](https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMcClaskey_2017.pdf). This article discusses the stages a student goes through to take ownership of their learni…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a description of the lesson you and your students engaged in that shows evidence of planning for providing Multiple Means of Engagement. Please describe: - The learning activities and checkpoints that were incorporated (i.e., Options for Perception, Sustaining Effort and Persistence, and Self-Regulation) - Why you chose to use these activities and strategies - What barriers you hoped to eliminate through these activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 200
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **three pieces of evidence**. Artifact 1 is required, and you will choose to submit two artifacts from the options of Artifact 2a, Artifact 2b, and Artifact 2c for your second and third pieces of evidence. **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)** Upload a lesson plan that is evidence of planning for providing Multiple Means of Engagement. The lesson can be in the format of your choosing. Annotations of the lesson (voice recording, written or digital text, etc.) should include explanations about strategies used to support engagement that may not be evident to the assessor. The lesson should include planning for engagement in: * Providing options for recruiting interest * Providing options for sustaining effort and persistence * Providing options for self-regulation *Choose **two** of the following to submit*: **Artifact 2a: Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute video/audio of class instruction. The video/audio should include strategies used to: * Provide options for recruiting interest * Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence * Provide options for self-regulation **Artifact 2b: Classroom Environment** Upload a representation of the layout of your classroom that shows consideration in the areas of providing options for recruiting interest, sustaining effort and persistence, and self-regulation. Include explanations about the design’s purpose and how providing the students options for engagement drove the design. Also include a video or images that show the classroom design in action. **Artifact 2c: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of three or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners). Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports o…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Educator Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a self-reflection of your lesson and activities to include: - What went well - How your students were able to stay engaged throughout the lesson - Description of evidence you collected that demonstrates attainment of the learning goals - Barriers that still exist within the lesson - How you would eliminate barriers for the next lesson, being sure to include specific checkpoints related to Multiple Means of Engagement.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 200
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on the importance of providing Multiple Means of Engagement to reduce barriers among the students you serve, using the following questions to guide you: - How did providing Multiple Means of Engagement affect how you see your students as expert learners? - How will addressing engagement affect your lesson planning in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2a: Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2b: Classroom Environment
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2c: Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/P5oTwvRVR2253GzBZrvL1g
name: UDL: Multiple Means of Representation
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/P5oTwvRVR2253GzBZrvL1g/image
description: Educator understands the importance of developing expert learners who are resourceful and knowledgeable by offering options for perception, language and symbols, and comprehension.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Universal Design for Learning
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1016_552025082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator shows evidence of purposeful planning for variability in the classroom by providing options for perception, language and symbols, and comprehension. # Method Components ### Overview According to Meyer, Rose and Gordon (2014), the recognition networks, the networks in the brain responsible for sensing and perceiving information in the environment and transforming it into usable knowledge, require: * constructing knowledge by perceiving information in the environment * recognizing predictive patterns in that information * understanding and integrating any new information * interpreting and manipulating a wide variety of symbolic representations of information * developing fluency in the skills for assimilating and remembering that information. Learner variability ensures that a student’s ability to perceive, interpret, and understand information is dependent upon individual learning preferences and background experiences. With that in mind, it is important to provide options and support in the recognition processes. Educators must provide students with different experiences so they can receive information that is being presented. The principle of Representation is centered around three broad guidelines: * Providing Options for Perception * Providing Options for Language and Symbols * Providing Options for Comprehension ### Providing Options for Perception Providing Options for Perception encourages educators to think about the variability that exists when taking in information. Not only is our sense of sight and other senses activated, but we also use the visualizations in our mind, feelings based on physical surroundings and previous experiences, intuition, and metacognition to perceive the information. Educators can offer options for perception by incorporating the checkpoints of **offering ways to customize the display of information, offering alternatives for auditory information**, and **offering alternatives for visual information**. * …
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: ### General UDL * CAST: Provide multiple means of Representation. (2018, January 12). Retrieved May 13, 2020, from <http://udlguidelines.cast.org/representation> * McDonald, A., & Campbell, H. (2020). *UDL implementation in the math classroom: Practical applications for Monday’s lessons*. Retrieved June 18, 2020, from [https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMcDonald\_Campbell\_2017.pdf](https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMcDonald_Campbell_2017.pdf) This article gives an overview of ways to hit the checkpoints in a math classroom. CAST gives an overview of the guideline “provide multiple means of representation”. * Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). *Universal design for learning: Theory and practice*. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. In this free, downloadable e-book, Meyer, Rose and Gordon discuss the UDL principles and practices since 2002. Included are contributions from CAST’s research and implementation teams, as well as their collaborators in schools, universities, and research settings. * *Multiple Means of Representation (Week 3)*. (2015). Retrieved from <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofOJqdDbUd8> This webinar focuses on how we can provide multiple means of representation to support the variability in learners’ recognition networks. * Rose, D. H., Meyer, A., Strangman, N., & Rappolt, G. (2020). *Education in the digital age*. Chapter 1. Retrieved May 14, 2020, from <http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/101042/chapters/Education-in-the-Digital-Age.aspx> This chapter introduces the concept of Universal Design for Learning, a framework that can help you turn the challenges posed by high standards and increasing learner diversity into opportunities to maximize learning for every student. ### Options for Perception * Robinson, D. H., Robinson, S. L., & Katayama, A. D. (1999). When wor…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: ### Options for Perception * National Center on Accessible Educational Materials. (2020, May 6). Retrieved May 13, 2020, from <http://aem.cast.org/> This is the homepage of the National Center on Accessible Education Materials, which provides resources on accessible educational materials and accessible technologies. * *Provide options for perception*. (2018, December 11). Retrieved May 13, 2020, from <https://www.inclusive.tki.org.nz/guides/universal-design-for-learning/provide-options-for-perception> This website gives suggestions for providing options for perceptions. * Rosen, P. (2020, April 17). *Classroom accommodations for auditory processing disorder*. Retrieved May 13, 2020, from <https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/partnering-with-childs-school/instructional-strategies/classroom-accommodations-for-auditory-processing-disorder> This site gives ideas for accommodations for students with auditory processing difficulties. ### Options for Language and Symbols * Otero, A. (2020, January 24). *4 Activities to boost target language vocabulary acquisition*. Retrieved May 13, 2020, from <https://www.edutopia.org/article/4-activities-boost-target-language-vocabulary-acquisition> The author gives four strategies to help students increase their vocabulary. * *Provide options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols*. (2018, December 11). Retrieved May 13, 2020, from <https://www.inclusive.tki.org.nz/guides/universal-design-for-learning/provide-options-for-language-mathematical-expressions-and-symbols> This section of the website gives suggestions for providing options for language, mathematical expressions, and symbols. * Mundorf, J., Miller, C., Cheveallier, J., & Boehm, S. (2020). *Reaching all learners in secondary English language arts*. Retrieved 18 June 2020, from [https://docs.google.com/gview?embedded=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.learningdesigned.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FMundorf\_Miller\_Cheveallier\_Boehm\_2017.pdf](https://docs.google…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a description of the lesson you and your students engaged in that shows evidence of planning for providing Multiple Means of Representation. Please describe: - The learning activities and checkpoints that were incorporated (i.e., Options for Perception, Language and Symbols, and Comprehension). - Why you chose to use these activities and checkpoints - What barriers you hoped to eliminate through these activities and checkpoints.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 200
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **two pieces of evidence**. Artifact 1 is required, and you will choose to submit either Artifact 2a or Artifact 2b for your second piece of evidence. **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)** Upload a lesson plan that is evidence of planning for providing Multiple Means of Representation to allow for the variability in the way students perceive, interpret, and understand information. The lesson can be in the format of your choosing. Annotations of the lesson (voice recording, written or digital text, etc.) should include explanations about the various strategies used to address variability while representing the information that may not be evident to the assessor. The lesson should include planning for Multiple Means of Representation in: * Providing Options for Perception * Providing Options for Language and Symbols * Providing Options for Comprehension *Choose **one** of the following to submit*: **Artifact 2a: Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute video/audio of class instruction. The video/audio should include strategies used to: * Provide Options for Perception * Provide Options for Language and Symbols * Provide Options for Comprehension **Artifact 2b: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of three or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners). Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Assessment Samples + Upload work samples from three students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit work examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward the lesson goal. Include work samples w…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Educator Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a self-reflection of your lesson and activities to include: - What went well - How your students were able to stay engaged throughout the lesson - Description of evidence you collected that demonstrates attainment of the learning goals - Barriers that still exist within the lesson - How you would eliminate barriers for the next lesson; include specific checkpoints related to Multiple Means of Representation.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 200
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on the importance of providing Multiple Means of Representation to reduce barriers among the students you serve, using the following questions to help guide you: - How did providing Multiple Means of Representation affect how you see your students as expert learners? - How will addressing representation affect your lesson planning in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2a: Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2b: Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Hl0Mg33PT1-wE4drSoEe8Q
name: UDL: Variability
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Hl0Mg33PT1-wE4drSoEe8Q/image
description: Educator understands the concept of learner variability and its effect on learning in the classroom.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Universal Design for Learning
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1017_481828082020.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator shows purposeful planning around goals, methods and materials, and assessment that demonstrates an understanding that average learners do not exist. The educator shows evidence of addressing the importance of learner variability in the classroom and reduces barriers among the students they serve. # Method Components ### Overview Based on learning sciences and cognitive neuroscience, people vary in how they learn. The way one choose to learn depends on their background knowledge, cultural background, experiences, and interests. Not only do we all learn in unique ways, but our abilities continually change in response to the environment in real-time, resulting in variability based on the day, hour, or even minute. In a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) environment, differences in experience, knowledge, and ability are to be expected. The UDL educator embraces variability and thinks of it as a normal and predictable part of teaching a group of students. Differences are celebrated, and the educator consistently anticipates barriers within the curriculum and proactively offers flexibility in the goals, methods and materials, and assessment used in the classroom. ### Goals In a UDL environment, standards-based and flexible learning goals are essential. Goals should be aligned to the grade-appropriate, rigorous state standards for all students—students with and without special education needs. Flexible refers to the means or the verb in the goal, what the students are doing in order to prove mastery of the goal. Students should be able to access and demonstrate their learning of the goal in a variety of ways. An example of this is a goal that incorporates students being able to “cite evidence from the text.” If we look at the verb “cite,” students can do this in many different ways. Some may choose to highlight the information in the text. Others may choose to include information in a graphic organizer, point to the information, or record themsel…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * An average student does not exist: The myth of average: Todd Rose at TEDxSonomaCounty. (2013). Retrieved from <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eBmyttcfU4&feature=youtu.be> High-school-dropout-turned-Harvard-faculty discusses the idea that average does not exist. * Bodrova, E., Leong, D.J., & Akhutina, T.V. (2011). When everything new is well-forgotten old: Vygotsky/Luria insights in the development of executive functions. In R. M. Lerner, J.V. Lerner, E. P. Bowers, S. Lewin-Bizan, S. Gestsdottir, & J. B. Urban (Eds.), *Thriving in childhood and adolescence: The role of self-regulation process: New directions for child and adolescent development, 133*, 11–28. * ESSA: U.S. Government Publishing Office. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from <https://www.ed.gov/essa>. Details about the Every Student Succeeds Act. * Fehlandt, Mark. “Flexible classroom design and its effects on student-centered teaching and learning." (2017). School of Education Student Capstone Projects. 6. [https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse\_cp/6](https://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/hse_cp/6) This capstone project presents research, examples, and effects of a flexible classroom design responsible for a more active, student-centered learning environment. * Learner Variability: *Learner Variability*. (2018). Retrieved from <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x76ylvROOq0&feature=youtu.be> This video gives an overview of learner variability. * Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing. In this free, downloadable e-book, Meyer, Rose and Gordon discuss UDL principles and practices since 2002. Included are contributions from CAST’s research and implementation teams, as well as their collaborators in schools, universities, and research settings. * Nelson, L. (2019). Variability includes poverty: Plan for it. CAST and UDL-IRN. Retrieved June 15, 2020 from <https://learningdesigned.o…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * About Universal Design for Learning: CAST. (2020). About universal design for learning. Retrieved July14, 2020, from <http://www.cast.org/our-work/about-udl.html#.Xw3W-pNKhQI> This website looks into how Universal Design for Learning (UDL) can improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. It offers research and other resources key to understanding UDL. * Background Knowledge Variability: Literacy 4–6: Factors: Learner variability project. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2020, from <https://lvp.digitalpromiseglobal.org/content-area/literacy-4-6/factors> This website lists factors that affect reading outcomes in grades 4–6, as well as strategies that are helpful. * Planning for Variability: Nelson, Loui Lord. (2014). *Design and deliver: Planning and teaching using Universal Design for Learning*. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. This UDL guidebook gives educators a practical framework for implementation, with detailed guidelines on lesson planning and meeting the checkpoints. * Top 5 UDL Tips for Learning Environments: CAST. (2016). Top 5 UDL tips for learning environments. Retrieved June 15, 2020, from <http://castprofessionallearning.org/project/top-5-udl-tips-for-learning-environments/>. This website lists the top five hints for designing learning environments in a UDL classroom. * UDL and Cultural Variability: CAST. (2016). UDL and cultural variability webinar. Retrieved July14, 2020, from <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y7rjGNVOws> * UDL Talk: Culturally Responsive Teaching and the UDL Connection UDL-IRN. (2017). Retrieved July 14, 2020 from <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFfqgxTCSG4> In this UDL talk from the UDL-IRN Summit, Joni Denger discusses the connection between culturally responsive teaching and UDL. * Variability in PK–3: Reading PK–3: Factors: Learner variability project. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2020, from <https://lvp.digitalpromiseglobal.org/content-area/reading-pk-3/fact…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a description of the lesson you and your students engaged in that shows evidence of planning for variability. Please describe: - The learning activities and strategies you used - Why you chose to use these activities and strategies - What barriers you hoped to eliminate through these activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 200
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **three pieces of evidence**. Artifact 1 is required, and you will choose to submit two artifacts from the options of Artifact 2a, Artifact 2b, and Artifact 2c for your second and third pieces of evidence. **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)** Upload a lesson plan that is evidence of planning for learner variability. The lesson can be in a format of your choosing. Annotations of the lesson (voice recording, written or digital text, etc.) should include explanations about strategies used to support variability that may not be evident to the assessor. The lesson should include planning for variability in: * Goals * Materials * Assessment *Choose **two** of the following to submit*: **Artifact 2a: Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute video/audio of class instruction. The video/audio should include: * Sharing of a clear and flexible goal * Activities that allow for variability within students * Flexible assessment of the learning goal **Artifact 2b: Classroom Environment** Upload a representation of the layout of your classroom that shows consideration in the areas of goals, materials, and assessment and that includes explanations about the design’s purpose and how learner variability drove the design. Also include a video or images that show the classroom design in action. **Artifact 2c: Student Work Samples** Choose a group of three or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners). Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Assessment Samples + Upload work samples from three students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit work…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Educator Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a self-reflection of your lesson and activities. Be sure to include: - What went well - How your students were able to meet the goal of the lesson - Evidence you collected that demonstrates attainment of the learning goals - Barriers that still exist within the lesson - How you would eliminate barriers for the next lesson.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 200
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on the importance of understanding learner variability and reducing barriers among the students you serve, using the following questions to guide you: - How did addressing variability affect how you see your students as expert learners? - How will addressing variability affect your lesson planning in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2a: Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2b: Classroom Environment
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2c: Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each submitted component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/aSKMQgIdQDq3HSTPRM6d2A
name: Building Background Knowledge
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/aSKMQgIdQDq3HSTPRM6d2A/image
description: Educator understands and is able to build background knowledge for overall reading comprehension.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Comprehension
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1111_340627062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan utilizing high-yield strategies to build background knowledge with the intent to support comprehension. # Method Components ### Overview Building background knowledge—establishing a common foundation of understanding around content—is an essential component of lesson instruction; it is also the foundation of all academic study (Lent, 2012) and of reading comprehension (Newman, Kaefer, & Pinkham, n.d.). According to a significant body of research, a student’s background knowledge is one of the strongest indicators of how well they can extract explicit and implicit information from a text, integrate that new information into their schema, and retain new content-based information for future use (Neuman, Kaefer, & Pinkham, n.d.). Without background knowledge, meaning-making breaks down and students’ comprehension can be incomplete—regardless of which “bag of tricks” of comprehension skills a student has been taught (Sedita, 2018). Reading comprehension is not a set of skills or strategies. Instead, reading comprehension is more dependent upon the background knowledge and vocabulary that students bring to learning experiences around a new concept (Sedita, 2018). Without a firm foundation of background knowledge, vital connections among content can be lost and big ideas obscured. Without adequate background knowledge, new content has little chance of being committed to long-term memory, and the goals of reading comprehension are lost. ### Components of Building Background Knowledge Instruction To support students in meaning-making based upon reading, a systematic, deliberate approach to establishing a foundation of background knowledge is recommended. The research literature recommends the following for exemplary background knowledge building instruction: 1. Assessing background knowledge * The first step to any background building instruction is to evaluate what students already know about a new topic. This …
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Neuman, S., Kaefer, T., & Pinkham, A. (n.d.). *Building background knowledge*. Reading Rockets. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/building-background-knowledge> This article offers results of research studies that support the importance of building background knowledge along with practical instructional implementation tips. * Scott, C .M., & Balthazar, C. (2013). The role of complex sentence knowledge in children with reading and writing difficulties. *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 39*(3),18-26. <https://app.box.com/s/6rn9i3zl6blle2qhasudaj84zb9gkvhs> This research article discusses the importance of syntax and grammar to students’ ability to construct meaning at the sentence level. * Sedita, J. (2018). Background knowledge and reading comprehension. Keys to Literacy. <https://keystoliteracy.com/blog/background-knowledge-and-reading-comprehension/> This research article addresses the vital importance of background knowledge over comprehension skills and strategies as a predictor for reading comprehension. * Willingham, D. (2006, Spring). How knowledge helps: It speeds and strengthens reading comprehension, learning—and thinking. [Blog post]. <https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/spring-2006/how-knowledge-helps> This article explores the cognitive psychology behind how background knowledge begets deeper levels of understanding around new learning. * Wexler, N. (2019). *The knowledge gap: The hidden cause of America’s broken education system—and how to fix it*. New York, NY: Avery Publishing. This readable book contextualizes knowledge building within curriculum design. It will help educators to view a lack of background knowledge as a curricular problem rather than a characteristic of students.
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Lent, R. C. (2012). Background knowledge: The glue that makes learning stick. Overcoming textbook fatigue: 21st century tools to revitalize teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. <http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/113005/chapters/Background-Knowledge@-The-Glue-That-Makes-Learning-Stick.aspx> This article offers practical foundations in the importance of building background knowledge and shares activity ideas for classroom implementation. * Student Achievement Partners. (2015). Supplementing your curriculum with knowledge-building text sets. <https://achievethecore.org/aligned/supplementing-your-curriculum-with-knowledge-building-text-sets/> This article offers advice around the implementation of text sets within a curriculum as a means of enhancing and building background knowledge. ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill <https://learningcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/annotating-texts/> * What is Annotating and Why Do It? Eastern Washington University [https://research.ewu.edu/writers\_c\_read\_study\_strategies](https://research.ewu.edu/writers_c_read_study_strategies) ### Definitions * Diverse learners: Learners who bring a broad array of learning preferences, background knowledge, experiences, identities, and educational variability and may vary linguistically, socio-culturally, racially, ethnically, or economically.
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What instructional steps did you and your students engage with in order to become more proficient with building background knowledge? Please describe the learning activities and strategies, and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: Provide a description of how you knew that your students’ proficiency in making sense of new ideas increased, and describe what evidence you collected that demonstrates these learning gains.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan which focuses on building background knowledge. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include evidence of: * assessing students’ background knowledge * activating prior knowledge * building background knowledge **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute video/audio of whole class instruction. The video/audio should include: * Activities to assess prior knowledge that students bring to the new content or concept * Student engagement in lesson activities that activate, preview, and subsequently build the foundation for learning around a new content or concept **Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples** Choose a group of 2 or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Student Assessment Samples + Upload samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit assessment examples (writing, audio, graphic organizers, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward increased levels of understanding around background knowledge. Include samples with your feedback.
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on engaging your students in instruction around building background knowledge, using the following questions to help guide you: - What was the impact of assessing, activating, and building background knowledge prior to learning about a new topic? - How will you use building background knowledge to affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/8Occ2iLtScm--WMhrTWuiw
name: Building Vocabulary for Comprehension
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/8Occ2iLtScm--WMhrTWuiw/image
description: Educator understands and is able to effectively teach vocabulary to strengthen student comprehension.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Comprehension
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1120_000529062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan that includes research-based strategies and activities to teach vocabulary in an effort to improve comprehension. # Method Components ### Overview Vocabulary is related to reading comprehension because it is part of conceptual knowledge. Readers cannot understand what they are reading without knowing the definitions of most of the words they are reading (Wagner & Meros, 2010). The relationship between vocabulary and comprehension is reciprocal: A rich vocabulary helps a reader to fully comprehend written and oral language and, in turn, skilled comprehenders are better able to infer the meaning of vocabulary words in context (Weiser, 2013). ### Components of Building Vocabulary for Comprehension Instruction Armbruster et al. (2003) recommend the following for exemplary vocabulary instruction related to comprehension: * **Implicit instruction**: Students learn word meanings indirectly through daily oral language, listening to read alouds and reading extensively independently. * **Explicit instruction**: Direct instruction includes providing students with specific word instruction and teaching students word-learning strategies. * **Repeated exposure to new words**: Educators should offer students opportunities to encounter words often and in various contexts through active engagement and exposure in reading. * **Strategies to help determine word meanings independently**: Instruction should include how to use dictionaries and other reference aids, how to use information about word parts to figure out word definitions, and how to use context clues to figure out meanings of unknown words. ### Supporting Students as they Learn through Building Vocabulary for Comprehension Instruction Marzano (2004) developed a six-step process for teaching vocabulary to students of all ages. * **Explain**: Provide a student-friendly description, explanation, or example of the new term. (This is part of explicit instruction.) +…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., Osborn, J., & Adler, C. R. (2003). *Put reading first: The research building blocks of reading instruction: Kindergarten through grade 3*. (2nd ed.) Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. <https://www.readingrockets.org/sites/default/files/PRFbooklet.pdf> This guide summarizes what researchers have found out in how to teach children to read in five areas of reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. * Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. [http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications\_reviews.aspx](http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx) [https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/english\_learners\_pg\_040114.pdf](https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/english_learners_pg_040114.pdf) This practice guide offers recommendations that address the challenge of teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school. It provides research-based recommendations on how educators can adapt their instruction to meet the needs of these learners. * Neuman, S. B. (2019). Comprehension in disguise: The role of knowledge in children’s learning. *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 45*(4),12-16. [https://mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=644729#{%22issue\_id%22:644729,%22publication\_id%22:%2213959%22,%22page%22:12}](https://mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?i=644729#{%22issue_id%22:644729,%22publication_id%22:%2213959%22,%22page%22:12}) This document includes a series of articles that address comprehension, using more challenging texts, con…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Beck, Isabel L., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). *Choosing words to teach. In Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction* (15–30). New York, NY: Guilford Press. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/choosing-words-teach> This resource suggests ways to decide which words to teach in a vocabulary lesson and gives strategies for implementation. * Sedita, J. (2019). Previewing vocabulary before reading. Keys to Literacy. <https://keystoliteracy.com/blog/previewing-vocabulary-before-reading/> This article gives suggestions of strategies to use before reading to preview vocabulary that students will encounter in text. * Zimmerman, L. & Reed, D. K. (2017, October). Attributes of effective explicit vocabulary instruction. <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/vocabulary-instruction-part-2> This article examines the qualities of explicit vocabulary instruction, provides examples of its application, and suggests a planning tool to incorporate these ideas into practice. * Zimmerman, L. & Reed, D. K. (2019, March). Keyword mnemonics: A strategy to build content-specific vocabulary and unlock informational texts. <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/keyword-mnemonics> This article discusses a strategy to use for implicit vocabulary instruction for secondary school students. ### Vocabulary Instruction Support * The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk (MCPER) <http://www.meadowscenter.org> (search “vocabulary development”). A multitude of sources on vocabulary development instruction from this website provided by the Meadow Center and the University of Texas at Austin. * Florida Center of Reading Research <https://fcrr.org/search/node?keys=vocabulary> Over 670 links (by grade level and subject) to resources for educators to use, with vocabulary instruction from the Florida Center of Reading Research. * ReadWriteThink <http://search.readwritethink.org/?q=%22vocabulary%22> This website offers hundreds of educator’s resources and downloadable lessons for v…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What instructional steps did you take in order to teach vocabulary to improve reading comprehension? Please describe the learning activities and strategies, and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students improved comprehension through vocabulary knowledge? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan used to support student reading comprehension through the use of vocabulary knowledge. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include: * Implicit instruction * Explicit instruction * Repeated exposure to new words * Strategies to help determine word meanings independently **Artifact 2: Small Group Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute video/audio of small group instruction. If video/audio technology is unavailable, you may provide a transcript of the lesson. The video/audio or transcript should include: * Educator explanation * Opportunities for students to restate * Opportunities for students to demonstrate (show) new learning * Discussion of vocabulary words and meanings * Reflections from students * Student application **Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples** Choose a group of two or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Student Assessment Samples + Upload samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit assessment examples (writing, audio, graphic organizers, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward improved comprehension through a deeper understanding of vocabulary. Include samples with your feedback.
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on your vocabulary for comprehension instruction, using the following questions to help guide you: - What was the impact on students of building vocabulary for comprehension? - How will you use vocabulary instruction to affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Small Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/a_vuaFOHTayhUTXl-B-zAQ
name: Effective Reading Strategies
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/a_vuaFOHTayhUTXl-B-zAQ/image
description: Educator understands and is able to teach research-based reading strategies for deeper comprehension.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Comprehension
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1112_030727062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan to teach reading comprehension through the use of current research-based reading strategies instruction. # Method Components ### Overview A comprehension “strategy” is a metacognitive approach by a reader to use before, during, or after reading a text in an effort to better understand that text. Comprehension strategies also help readers overcome difficulties in comprehending text, and aid in the readers’ knowledge (or lack of) related to the text. These strategies can be taught one by one or in a multiple approach. Effective reading strategies include explicit teaching, educator modeling and scaffolding of instruction. * Explicit teaching allows educators to state what a reading strategy is along with an explanation of how to select and apply them. * Educator modeling shows students what using reading strategies looks like. Educators should model strategy use through think-alouds and interactive read-alouds. * Scaffolding allows educators to slowly release their support as students become more independent in strategy use. ### Components of Effective Reading Strategies Instruction Shanahan et al. (2010) recommends the following for exemplary reading strategies instruction: 1. **Use several research-based reading comprehension strategies**. There are six strategies that educators should use to improve comprehension: activating prior knowledge, questioning, visualizing, monitoring, drawing inferences, and summarizing/retelling. 2. **Use a combination of single-strategy instruction and multiple-strategy instruction**. Single-strategy instruction introduces one strategy at a time with additional time for student practice. Over time, students master all of the strategies. Multiple-strategy instruction teaches strategies simultaneously. They are practiced together, so readers are able to use them interchangeably for a more authentic reading. 3. **Use a gradual release of responsibility**. The educator should …
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Duffy, G. G. (2014). *Explaining reading: A resource for explicit teaching of the Common Core Standards*. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. This text has a special focus on the procedural language necessary for explicit comprehension instruction. It will help educators to operationalize the recommendation to teach strategies briefly. * Liben, M., & Pimentel, S. (n.d.). Placing text at the center of the standards-aligned ELA classroom. Student Achievement Partners. <https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Text-at-the-Center-Report-V5.pdf> This research article discusses a vision for what an evidence-based model for text-centered instruction could look like using productive strategy instruction. * Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2016). Supporting reading comprehension development: From research to practice. *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 42*(2), 32-39. <https://app.box.com/s/1cs0ytm79howctls0welmjgsktj5ltv9> This research article discusses interventions that focus on teaching strategies to support the construction of text meaning. * Pearson, P. D. & Liben, D. (n.d.). The progression of reading comprehension. Student Achievement Partners. [https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/liben\_pearson\_progression\_of\_comprehension\_research\_ela.pdf](https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/liben_pearson_progression_of_comprehension_research_ela.pdf) This research article discusses monitoring comprehension and how students can learn to respond with appropriate corrective strategies. * Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. <https://whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides>. [https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/readingcomp\_pg\_092810.pd…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Donahue, T. (2016, June). What am I thinking?: During reading strategies. <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/what-am-i-thinking-during-reading-strategies> This resource explains the four strategies highlighted on the What Am I Thinking? graphic organizer. * Texas Educational Agency. (2002). *Key comprehension strategies to teach*. Reading Rockets. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/key-comprehension-strategies-teach> This resource describes key comprehension strategies to teach that lend themselves well to instruction. * The IRIS Center. (2008). CSR: A reading comprehension strategy. <https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/csr/> This resource explains in detail how to effectively implement Collaborative Strategy Reading and includes a video summary of this reading comprehension strategy. * Zimmerman, L., Reed, D. K., & Gibbs, A. (2018, November). Text structure mapping: A strategy to improve reading comprehension of informational texts. <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/text-structure-mapping> This resource describes instructional approaches for improving reading comprehension of informational texts, along with a description of a text feature mapping lesson. ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill <https://learningcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/annotating-texts/> * What is Annotating and Why Do It? Eastern Washington University [https://research.ewu.edu/writers\_c\_read\_study\_strategies](https://research.ewu.edu/writers_c_read_study_strategies) ### Definitions * Diverse learners: Learners who bring a broad array of learning preferences, background knowledge, experiences, identities, and educational variability and may vary linguistically, socio-culturally, racially, ethnically, or economically.
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What instructional steps did you take to use effective reading strategies with the intent to improve reading comprehension? Please describe the learning activities and strategies, and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students improved comprehension through the use of effective reading strategies? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan used to support student reading comprehension through the use of effective reading strategies. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor, and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include: * Close reading of complex texts * Use of graphic organizers * Educator-generated questions * Multiple-strategy formats **Artifact 2: Small Group Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute video/audio of small group instruction. If video/audio technology is unavailable, you may provide a transcript of the lesson. The video/audio or transcript should include: * You introducing and modeling the reading strategy/ies (“I do”) * You guiding students in practice with the reading strategy/ies in context (“ We do”) * Students engaged in meaningful and connected text with you offering immediate and specific feedback related to effective reading strategy use (“You do”) **Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples** Choose a group of two or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Student Assessment Samples + Upload samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit assessment examples (writing, audio, graphic organizers, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward improved comprehension through the use of reading strategies. Include samples with your feedback.
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on your reading strategy instruction, using the following questions to help guide you: - What was the impact of students using reading strategies to support comprehension? - How will you use reading strategies to affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Small Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/f3pKeaf9RGyrPV1ngP-3sg
name: Fluency for Comprehension
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/f3pKeaf9RGyrPV1ngP-3sg/image
description: Educator understands and is able to use high-yield fluency-building strategies to facilitate comprehension.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Comprehension
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1113_310429062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan for literacy instruction that includes evidence-based, fluency-building strategies to facilitate comprehension. # Method Components ### Overview Fluent reading is typically defined as the ability to read with quick and accurate word recognition, and when oral reading is considered, the appropriate use of prosody (e.g. expression) (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). Rate in fluency is how fast a reader can process what they are reading. *Accuracy* in fluency is how well a reader is able to identify individual words the author has provided, with correct meaning. *Prosody* in fluency is how natural a reader sounds by chunking words into meaningful phrases, while also attending to punctuation (Walpole, et al., 2020). All of these components of fluent reading work together to facilitate comprehension. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for Reading: Foundational Skills indicate that grades 1–5 students should be able to read grade-level text with appropriate fluency to support comprehension. For Kindergarten, the CCSS suggests that the development of fluency should begin with emergent-reader texts (NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010, as cited in Walpole et al., 2020). When a reader is able to read at a reasonable *rate* and with appropriate *accuracy*, they can devote their cognitive resources to the significant task of comprehending the text. Reducing this cognitive load through automatic and accurate reading also allows the reader an opportunity to demonstrate their interpretation of what they are reading through expressive, natural-sounding oral reading, or *prosody*. Dysfluent readers, on the other hand, are not able to decode words with sufficient automaticity to adequately facilitate comprehension, or attend to text meaning. In other words, fluency is the bridge between decoding and comprehension. Research has highlighted the importance of fluency instruction due to the strong connection between fluent reading of connected tex…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Hasbrouck, J. (2006). For students who are not yet fluent, silent reading is not the best use of classroom time. *American Educator, 30*(2). <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/students-who-are-not-yet-fluent-silent-reading-not-best-use-classroom-time> This research article offers insight into why research does not support silent reading and round-robin reading as instructional strategies for improving fluency. * International Literacy Association. (2018). Reading fluently does not mean reading fast [Literacy leadership brief]. Newark, DE: Author. <https://literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-reading-fluently-does-not-mean-reading-fast.pdf> This research article defines reading fluency and the observable and measurable components that lead to accurate comprehension. * Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Morris, R. D. (2006). Teaching children to become fluent and automatic readers. *Journal of Literacy Research, 38*(4), 357-387. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2783645/> This research article discusses the effectiveness of repeated reading approaches and the text characteristics that contribute to this effectiveness. * Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A. & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. *Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50*(5), 576-590. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5097019/#R3> This research article discusses fluency interventions that are associated with positive outcomes in reading fluency and comprehension for students with learning disabilities. * Walpole, S., McKenna, M. C., Philippakos, Z. A., & Strong, J. Z. (2020). *Differentiated literacy instruction in grades 4 & 5: Strategies and resources*. New York, NY: Guilford Press. This text positions fluency modeling and practice as a characteristic of all comprehension …
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Achieve the Core. (2014). Fluency packet for the 2-3 grade band. <https://achievethecore.org/page/1021/fluency-packet-for-the-2-3-grade-band> This resource has passages that can be used for fluency-building in grades 2–3. * Walpole, S., McKenna, M. C., Philippakos, Z. A., & Strong, J. Z. (2020). *Differentiated literacy instruction in grades 4 & 5: Strategies and resources*. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Chapter 6 in this text positions fluency modeling and practice as a characteristic of all comprehension instruction. It also has downloadable lesson plans for whole-group instruction, offers a Multidimensional Fluency Scale to rate reader fluency, discusses in detail strategies for oral reading and how to pair students for effective partner reading, and offers suggestions for finding appropriate read-alouds and repeated reading texts. You can also find examples of comprehension-oriented focuses. * What Works Clearinghouse. (2012). *Peer-assisted learning strategies*. Institute of Education Sciences. [https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc\_pals\_060512.pdf](https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/wwc_pals_060512.pdf) This resource discusses the research on Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) and details the implementation of the strategies. * Zimmerman, L., & Reed, D. (2019). *Repeated reading with goal setting for reading fluency: Focusing on reading quality rather than reading speed*. Iowa Reading Research Center. <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/repeated-reading-fluency> This resource describes a plan for a Repeated Reading introductory lesson and also provides links to oral reading fluency goal-setting templates, reflection guides, and fluency error-correction procedures. ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina C…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. Include current practices you use for fluency instruction. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What instructional steps did you take to build fluency to facilitate comprehension? Please describe the learning activities and strategies.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How did the use of oral reading fluency routines impact student learning and engagement? What evidence did you collect to support this?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan which focuses on building fluency to facilitate comprehension. This could be a literacy lesson that you currently use, but modified to incorporate routines for increasing oral reading practice through repeated reading. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor, and accommodations that will be made to support all learners. The lesson should include evidence of: * increased time spent on oral reading practice through repeated reading * use of challenging text, with scaffolds in place * a comprehension-oriented purpose for reading defined for both choral and partner reading * modeling of fluent reading through a choral reading structure of procedures * paired repeated reading (partner reading) of the text through a partner reading structure of procedures **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10–20 minute video/audio of your class that includes a segment of both choral reading and partner repeated reading. The video/audio should include the following: * Educator modeling of fluent reading and the students reading in unison within a choral reading structure * The brief class discussion on the comprehension-oriented purpose set up for choral reading or partner reading * Partner reading within a partner-reading structure **Artifact 3: Rationale, Video Sample, and Observation** Choose a group of two or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the fluency or comprehension data you used to make this decision. + Describe any additional supports or accommodations made to this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learners. * Video sample + Upload a recording…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on engaging your students in instruction which focuses on fluency to facilitate comprehension, using the following questions to help guide you: - What was the impact of increasing opportunities for students to practice oral reading? - How will you use oral reading practice to affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale, Video Sample, and Observation
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/bevxvSOHSrCUShkOg0n15g
name: Inferential Language
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/bevxvSOHSrCUShkOg0n15g/image
description: Educator understands inferencing and is able to implement a research-aligned lesson.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Vocabulary
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1114_551927062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements an inference lesson with one or more of the strategies explicitly modeled to build higher-order thinking skills and comprehension. # Method Components ### Overview Inference is a complex skill that develops over time, with experience. An inference is the ability to use implied (not directly stated) information to draw a conclusion or figure out a new piece of information. ### Components of Inferential Language Instruction Inferencing is considered a foundational skill and is a prerequisite for higher-order thinking across all content and curricular areas. Inferring is a complex, challenging skill for students, as it requires students to readily and accurately make associations, pick up on nuances, and understand subtle, implied messages. Explicit instruction and educator modeling of inferential strategies will help students develop these strategies over time. Being an active reader is an important first step to developing inferential skills. Active readers have built and are developing their own background knowledge, are actively searching for meaning in texts, and are able to determine when something does not make sense. Working memory is freed up from more basic processes, allowing students to invest in more taxing activities like inferencing. Common traits of students who use inference easily: * Competent working memory * Uses repair strategies readily * Active and engaged reader * Experienced in text and word level work * Rich vocabulary * Wide background knowledge Strategies educators can use to help students continue to develop inference skills: * Text and word level work * Vocabulary building * Predicting * Modeling and shared questioning * Discussion * Building and activating prior knowledge * Explicit educator modeling of forming an inference According to Marzano (2010), Teaching inference may include the following instructional considerations: * Clues may help us find some answers. * We need to add those cl…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Inference. (n.d.). Literary Terms. <https://literaryterms.net/inference/> This site defines inference and provides examples. * Inference. (n.d.). Reading Rockets. <https://www.readingrockets.org/strategies/inference> This article provides background information about what inferences are and how to teach them. Also included are sample lesson plans for educators to use. * Kelley, E. S. (2015). An evidence-based approach to teach inferential language during interactive storybook reading with young children. *EBP Briefs, 10*(3), 1–10. <https://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/assets/ebp/pdfs/EBPV10A3.pdf> * Kispal, A. (2008). Effective teaching of inference skills for reading: Literature review. Research Report DCSF-RR031. National Foundation for Educational Research. <https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/edr01/edr01.pdf> This extensive article provides background knowledge for educators who wish to teach inference as a skill. In addition to background, this resource provides best practice examples for educators to refer to as a planning reference. * Marzano. (April 2010). The art and science of teaching/teaching inference. *Educational Leadership, 67*(7), 80–81. <http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr10/vol67/num07/Teaching-Inference.aspx> This journal article from ASCD describes how to explain inferential learning to students as a natural process. Within the article, educators can find four questions that educators can utilize as teaching strategies.
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Becky. (n.d.). Book list for making inferences and predictions. This Reading Mama. <https://thisreadingmama.com/books-making-inferences-predictions/> This resource is a curated list of texts used for teaching inferences and predictions, with a clear description of the difference between each comprehension strategy. * Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. [https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc\_foundationalreading\_040717.pdf](https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/wwc_foundationalreading_040717.pdf) This resource serves as a guide for educators to use when planning instruction on foundational skills. Within the document, educators can find instructional recommendations. * Hedgecock, M. B. (n.d.). Think aloud for read aloud. ESC Region 13. <https://youtu.be/wPsOK3Qg3dY> This video resource shows how to plan for a think-aloud lesson. * Making inferences and drawing conclusions (n.d.). Reading Rockets. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/making-inferences-and-drawing-conclusions> This resource provides families and educators with a clear description of what an inference is, how best to build inferential skills in a simple way, and recommended texts to utilize. * Students take charge. (April 2014). Reading Rockets. <https://youtu.be/My68SDGeTHI> This video resource shows reciprocal teaching in a classroom setting. ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, Uni…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and should reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What research-aligned learning activities or strategies did you include in your lesson in order to build inferential skills? Be sure to include any planning considerations for the whole group, small group, or individual students in your lesson.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know if students in your classroom are making progress in this area (inference) based on your instruction? How do you know if your targeted instruction is building higher-order thinking skills and comprehension? Consider pre-assessment data, ongoing targeted instruction, and/or any post-assessment data that may show progress over time.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your inferential language lesson plan used to support student learning. The lesson plan should include educator directions for skill implementation. The lesson should also include evidence of a think aloud or reciprocal teaching model and one or more of the following educator and student strategy components: * Word and text level work * Vocabulary building * Predicting * Modeled and shared questioning * Discussion * Building and activating prior knowledge * Explicit educator modeling of forming an inference The rationale should include the following (150-word limit): * How did you select or develop this particular lesson? * How did you plan to support diverse learners throughout the lesson? (See the Resource section for definition of diverse learners.) **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10- to 15-minute annotated video/audio of small group instruction. The video/audio should include annotations for the following: * Educator modeling of strategy/strategies in order to build an inference * Educator providing directions for clear student expectations * Students practicing the specific skill and receiving educator feedback * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding, focusing attention on the educator, and student discussion while applying the skill/strategy Note: video annotation can be a document that includes timestamps noting where the above list happens throughout the video. Example: “*1:15–2:02: a small group of students is practicing skill Y, and I am giving them feedback*.” **Artifact 3: Rationale and Pre/Post Assessments** Choose a small group of diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * A rationale explaining what information you used from your students’ pre-assessment data. + Explain how yo…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on teaching inferential language skills to your students using the following questions to guide you: - What was the impact of the instruction that targeted inferential language skills for your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale and Pre/Post Assessments
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3 and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/BkHHRCDMQue3nFKsLuH8aA
name: Morphology
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/BkHHRCDMQue3nFKsLuH8aA/image
description: Educator understands and is able to effectively facilitates a research-aligned, language-rich, morphological awareness lesson.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Vocabulary
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1115_412027062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan that promotes morphological awareness through research-aligned activities. # Method Components ### Overview Morphology is the study of how words are formed, word parts, and the relationships between words in the same language. Morphology is a vital element of vocabulary development and decoding. Decoding is the ability to apply letter-sound knowledge to reading, and encoding is the ability to apply that knowledge to spelling words. Weak decoding and vocabulary skills significantly affect comprehension. Instruction in morphology (word parts) is associated with improved word reading, spelling, and determining unknown words. Students can be taught strategies to segment or manipulate words according to their affixes and roots. As a result, students may be able to recognize an unfamiliar word simply by identifying the affixes and the remaining base word or root. Ultimately, morphological instruction allows students to access a greater number of words, and background knowledge, in a wider variety of texts (Stowe, 2011). ### Components of Morphology Instruction Morphemes are the smallest units of meaning in a language. They include base words and roots, prefixes, and suffixes. Morphemes can be free (standing alone as a base word) or bound (utilizing a prefix, suffix, or more than one prefix or suffix). Morphology is the study of word parts and their meanings, while morphological awareness refers to the ability to recognize the presence of morphemes in words (Sedita, 2018). **Building Background to Plan for Instruction** Instruction in morphology often centers around these morphemes: * Root word: the most basic form of a word * Affix: word parts added to the beginning or ending of a word that affect the meaning (prefixes and suffixes) * Suffix: a morpheme added to the end of the word, which changes the meaning of a root word * Prefix: a morpheme added to the beginning of a word, which changes the meaning of a r…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Ebbers, S. M. (2017). Morphological awareness strategies for the general and special education classroom: A vehicle for vocabulary enhancement. *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 43*(2), 29–33. <https://mydigitalpublication.com/publication/?m=13959&i=398575&p=28&ver=html5> This article succinctly explains the components of morphology and how and why to explicitly teach vocabulary through morphology. * Gibbs, A. & Reed, D. K. (2019). Effective literacy lesson: Understanding compound words through their two word parts. Iowa Reading Research Center. <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/effective-literacy-lesson-compound-words> The author provides a brief introduction of morphological knowledge and the focus of the explicit lesson plan to follow on compound words. * International Literacy Association. (2019). Teaching and assessing spelling. <https://literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/ila-teaching-and-assessing-spelling.pdf> The author of this article provides a rationale for diagnostic spelling assessments and how to plan for instruction. The article includes best practices for spelling and advises how to avoid traditional weekly spelling tests. * Sedita, J. (2018). Using morphology to teach vocabulary. <https://keystoliteracy.com/blog/using-morphology-to-teach-vocabulary/> This article references two models of teaching morphology (school-wide and opportunistic) and provides examples for how best to teach using each method. * Stowe, M. (n.d.). Teaching morphology: Enhancing vocabulary development and reading comprehension. <https://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/articles/teachtechnique/teachingmorphology/index.php> The author outlines the importance of decoding strategies and vocabulary development for reading comprehension through a multisensory approach.
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Green, L. & Wolter, J. (n.d.). Morphological awareness intervention: Techniques for promoting language and literacy success. <https://coe.uoregon.edu/cds/files/2011/09/Morphological-Intervention.pdf> This resource provides techniques for teaching morphological awareness and the connection to comprehension. * Zeh, N. (n.d.). Teaching morphology to improve literacy: A guide for teachers. [https://www.uwo.ca/fhs/lwm/teaching/dld2\_2017\_18/Zeh\_Morphological-Awareness.pdf](https://www.uwo.ca/fhs/lwm/teaching/dld2_2017_18/Zeh_Morphological-Awareness.pdf) This resource provides educators with a background for why to teach morphological awareness and how to address learners in the classroom, providing sample activities for educators to utilize. ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill <https://learningcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/annotating-texts/> * What is Annotating and Why Do It? Eastern Washington University [https://research.ewu.edu/writers\_c\_read\_study\_strategies](https://research.ewu.edu/writers_c_read_study_strategies) ### Definitions * Diverse learners: Learners who bring a broad array of learning preferences, background knowledge, experiences, identities, and educational variability and may vary linguistically, socio-culturally, racially, ethnically, or economically.
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and should reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What learning activities or strategies did you include in your lesson in order to build morphology? Be sure to include any planning considerations for the whole group, small group, or individual students in your lesson.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know if students in your classroom are making progress in this area (morphology) based on your instruction? How do you know if your targeted instruction is building higher-order thinking skills and comprehension? Consider pre-assessment data, ongoing targeted instruction, and/or any post-assessment data that may show progress over time.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your morphological awareness lesson plan used to support student learning. The lesson plan should include educator directions for skill implementation. The lesson should include at least one of the following topics: * Root Word: the most basic form of a word * Affix: word parts added to the beginning or ending of a word that affect the meaning (prefixes and suffixes) * Suffix: a morpheme added to the end of the word, which changes the meaning of a root word * Prefix: a morpheme added to the beginning of a word, which changes the meaning of a root word The rationale should include the following (150-word limit): * How did you select or develop this particular lesson? * How do you plan to support diverse learners throughout the lesson? **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10- to 15-minute annotated video/audio of whole group morphological awareness instruction. The video/audio should include annotations for the following: * Educator modeling how to use morphological awareness to determine the meaning of unknown words * Educator setting clear expectations for students * Students practicing the specific skill and receiving educator feedback * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding, focusing attention on the educator, engaging in discussion, or asking questions Note: video annotation can be a document that includes timestamps noting where the above list happens throughout the video. Example: “*1:15–2:02: a small group of students is practicing skill Y, and I am giving them feedback*.” **Artifact 3: Rationale and Pre/Post Assessments** Choose a small group of diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * A rationale explaining what information you used from your students’ pre-assessments. + Explain how you…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on teaching morphological awareness skills to your students using the following questions to guide you: - What was the impact of the instruction that targeted morphological awareness skills for your your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale and Pre/Post Assessment
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3 and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/gmcq75lhRNipsoVuSub4Ng
name: Narrative Language Skills
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/gmcq75lhRNipsoVuSub4Ng/image
description: Educator understands and is able to implement effective instructional strategies to develop narrative language skills.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Vocabulary
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1116_102329062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator effectively develops and implements a lesson that includes explicit instruction on components of narrative language. # Method Components ### Overview Narrative language skills are vital to a student’s ability to have successful social relationships, and they can greatly impact students’ academic work (e.g., written language). Narrative skills are the ability to use language to tell a story. As students’ narrative language skills develop, they will begin to follow rules of storytelling (e.g., sequencing events, including characters, having an event/dialogue/solution, and having an ending). Narratives may be fiction or nonfiction. Narrative production emerges between 2 and 3 years of age, when children begin telling others about what they see and do. As they get older, they begin telling stories that occurred in the past. Narrative language development continues as children begin applying oral narrative skills to analyzing, retelling, summarizing, and explaining increasingly complex written language text. Students with more advanced narrative language skills can follow an increasingly intricate series of events, such as stories, historical events, phenomena in nature, and instructions. By guiding students to develop their academic language skills, educators can mitigate some of the challenges that students encounter when learning to comprehend text (U.S. Department of Education). ### Components of Narrative Language Skills Instruction Narrative language skills include: * Understanding elements of story grammar + Story grammar refers to the parts or elements of a story; it often includes things like character, setting, problem, solution, and feelings. It can also include things like plot, climax, and suspense. * Retelling + Retelling is a short, consistent routine that students can use to recall, order, and summarize a text. * Sequencing + Sequencing refers to the identification of the components of a story — the beginning, middle, and end — a…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Crawford, D., & Landa, R. (2018). Strategies for expanding oral language and narrative development. Leader Live. <https://blog.asha.org/2018/07/05/strategies-for-expanding-oral-language-and-narrative-development/> * Elleseff, T. (2017). The importance of narrative language assessments in speech language pathology (revised). <https://www.smartspeechtherapy.com/revised-narrative-assessments-in-speech-language-pathology/> * Folsom, J. (2017). Dialogic reading: Having a conversation about books. Iowa Reading Research Center. <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/dialogic-reading-having-a-conversation-about-books> * Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst. (2002). Dialogic reading: An effective way to read aloud with young children. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/dialogic-reading-effective-way-read-aloud-young-children> * Justice, L. M. & Sofka, A. E. (2010). *Engaging children with print: Building early literacy skills through quality read-alouds*. Guilford Press. This text, written by a language and literacy researcher, contextualizes narrative development within a larger frame of storybook reading that includes print referencing. It will help educators visualize language and literacy development at the same time. * Nebraska Reads. REL Central. Regional Educational Laboratory at Marzano Research. <https://cdn.education.ne.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Foundational-Skills-to-Support-Reading-Recommendation-1.pdf> * Nelson, N. W. (2013). Syntax development in the school-age years: Implications for assessment and intervention. *Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 39*(3), 9–15. <https://app.box.com/s/6rn9i3zl6blle2qhasudaj84zb9gkvhs> * Stadler, M. A. & Ward, C. G. (2002). Supporting the narrative development of young children. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227322912\_Supporting\_the\_Narrative\_Development\_of\_Young\_Children](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227322912_Supporting_the_Narrative_Development_of_Young_Children) * Spencer, T. & Petersen, D.…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * 5 Reasons to Assess (and improve) Narrative Skills. (2020). Looks Like Language. <https://lookslikelanguage.com/2017/08/5-reasons-to-assess-narrative-skills.html> * Dialogic Reading. (Jul 21, 2015). Denver read-aloud program. Lauren Dennis talks about the power of Dialogic Reading. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb\_w4qXrB8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpb_w4qXrB8) * Formal and Informal Assessments. <https://abdao.wordpress.com/2015/07/18/formal-and-informal-assessments/> * How To: Dialogic Reading | Crowd & Peer Questioning. (Nov 8, 2018). Sierra Painter. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZBwjlR6KKE> * Narrative Language, Main Idea. (Sep 14, 2016). Institute of Education Sciences. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXLek726ww4> This video depicts a first-grade whole class engaging in a main idea activity. There are 18 students in this demonstration, and they are using pictures and a smart board. * Narrative Language, Retell. (Sep 14, 2016). Institute of Education Sciences. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue6eTIfI59Y> This video depicts a first-grade whole class engaging in a retell activity. There are 16 students in this demonstration, and they are reading the text Butterfly's Life and using a graphic organizer. * Narrative Language Skills: What Do We Know? (2018). Kidz Learn Language. <https://kidzlearnlanguage.blogspot.com/2018/01/narrative-language-skills-what-do-we.html> ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill <https://learningcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/annotating-texts/> * What is Annotating and Why Do It? Eastern Washington University [https://research.ewu.edu/writers\_c\_read\_study\_strategies](https://research.ewu.edu/writers_c_read_study_strategies) ### Definitions * Diverse learners: Learners who bring a broad array of learn…
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3 and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        position: 0
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        position: 0
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        position: 0
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        position: 0
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Small Group Instruction
        position: 1
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples
        position: 2
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and should reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: What learning activities or strategies did you include in your lesson in order to build inferential skills? Be sure to include any planning considerations for the whole group, small group, or individual students in your lesson.
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: How do you know if students in your classroom are making progress in narrative language skills based on your instruction? How do you know if your targeted instruction is building higher-order thinking skills and comprehension? Consider pre-assessment data, ongoing targeted instruction, and/or any post-assessment data that may show progress over time.
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your annotated lesson plan used to support student learning of narrative language skills. The lesson plan should include educator directions for skill implementation and evidence of explicit teaching of one or more narrative language skills: * Understanding elements of story grammar (plot, setting, etc.) * Retelling * Sequencing * Analyzing * Summarizing * Inferencing * Connecting ideas within and/or across texts/experiences The lesson should also include one or more of the following educator and student strategy components: * Use visual supports * Deliver immediate corrective feedback * Use overexaggerated facial expressions and comments to show children you are listening; teach children to be active and engaged listeners to their peers; and play games, role play, use props, etc. * Prompt students and ask questions before, during and after read alouds; engage students in making predictions; engage in problem solving, making hypotheses, and/or comparing and contrasting concepts * Use dialogic reading The rationale should include the following (150-word limit): * Why and how did you select or develop this particular lesson? * How do you plan to support diverse learners throughout this lesson? **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10- to 15-minute annotated video/audio of small group instruction. The video/audio should include annotations for the following: * Educator modeling of strategy/strategies in order to build narrative language skills * Educator setting clear expectations for students * Students practicing the specific skill and receiving educator feedback * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding, focusing attention on educator, and student discussion while applying the skill/strategy Note: video annotation can be a document that includes timestamps noting where the above list happens throughout the video. Examp…
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Provide a reflection on teaching narrative language skills to your students using the following questions to guide you: - What was the impact of the instruction that targeted narrative language skills for your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        word limit: 250

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/4heMhlrUSryFiWZdp5XsYw
name: Teaching Informational Writing
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/4heMhlrUSryFiWZdp5XsYw/image
description: Educator understands and is able to use the most effective approaches to teaching informational writing.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Writing
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1117_392227062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan to explicitly teach the process and approaches to informational writing through the use of current research-based writing strategy instruction. # Method Components ### Overview Writing is a critical literacy skill that plays a central role in students’ everyday lives, serving as a means to support learning and deepen their understanding of content and the world around them (Olson et al., 2015). Text-based and informational writing have become priority areas of instruction under the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Changes within the standards have made it a vital skill for elementary through high school students to be able to write analytically in response to and across multiple texts in order to facilitate comprehension and content area learning (Dombeck et al., 2016; Shen & Troia, 2018). Inherent in this expectation is the importance of reading comprehension—students are required to write about and respond to a text (or multiple texts) that they have read. It is important to note that reading comprehension is a vital prerequisite foundation to writing, thus inextricably linking the process of competent reading to the process of competent writing. Note that the primary steps within the informational writing process detailed here include attention to the analytical reading process (Dombeck et al., 2016). Research indicates that writing is one skill that is in a constant state of refinement and maturation. Just as students’ ability to read more complex texts develops, so does their ability to produce more complex genre-based written pieces, moving from labels and fact statements to complex, interconnected paragraphs. Therefore, direct, explicit instruction of writing is an ongoing need for the development of competent student writers (Donovan & Smolkin, n.d.). ### Components of Informational Writing Instruction In order to support students in informational writing, a systematic, deliberate approach to…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Davidson, M., & Berninger, V. (2016). Informative, compare and contrast, and persuasive essay composing of fifth and seventh graders. *Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34*(4), 311–321. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4939906/> This research article details a study of 5th- and 7th-grade students who were asked to write essays of different genres of expository writing; a direct link to writing and reading comprehension is uncovered and highlighted. * Donbeck, J. L., Foorman, B. R., Smith, K. G., Daughtry, E., Harden, H., Harfield, H, & Parks. S. (2016). *Instructional considerations for text-based writing*. Florida Center for Reading Research. [https://fcrr.org/sites/g/files/upcbnu2836/files/media/PDFs/instructional\_considerations\_for\_text-based\_writing.pdf](https://fcrr.org/sites/g/files/upcbnu2836/files/media/PDFs/instructional_considerations_for_text-based_writing.pdf) This article provides practical, actionable steps to explicitly teach informational, text-based writing. * Donovan, C.A. & Smolkin, L.B. (n.d.). *Supporting informational writing in the elementary grades*. <http://www.ldonline.org/article/52246/> This article details practical instructional scaffolds that guide the ongoing development of students’ informational writing. * Gillespie, A., & Graham, S. (2014). A meta-analysis of writing interventions for students with disabilities. *Exceptional Children, 80*(4), 454–473. * Graham, S., & Hebert, M.A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. <https://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Synopsis%20Writing%20to%20Read.pdf> This research article details a study conducted focused on the effect of the Writing to Read program and its impact on students in grades 1-12. * Olson, C., Scarcella, R., Matuchniak, T. (2015). Helping English learners to write: Meeting Common Core Standards, Grades 6-12. Narrative writing p…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Delaware Department of Education. ELA Writing Rubrics. <https://www.doe.k12.de.us//site/Default.aspx?PageID=2645> * Hochman, J. C. & Wexler, N. (2017). *The writing revolution: A guide to advancing thinking through writing in all subjects and grades*. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. This book encourages educators to think of writing as a tool for learning in all parts of the curriculum. While it spans multiple grades, it can form the basis of a community of writers in a district. * Student Achievement Partners. (2016). Informative/explanatory writing on demand. Achieve the Core. <https://achievethecore.org/page/454/informative-explanatory-writing-on-demand> This resource provides expository student writing samples that can be studied or used as exemplars for grades 6-8 and 9-12. * Thompson, S. & Reed, D. K. (2019). Using mentor texts to learn from the best and improve students’ writing. Iowa Reading Research Center. <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/mentor-texts-student-writing> This article provides approaches to using mentor texts in the classroom as a means for guiding and developing writing. ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill <https://learningcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/annotating-texts/> * What is Annotating and Why Do It? Eastern Washington University [https://research.ewu.edu/writers\_c\_read\_study\_strategies](https://research.ewu.edu/writers_c_read_study_strategies) ### Definitions * Diverse learners: Learners who bring a broad array of learning preferences, background knowledge, experiences, identities, and educational variability and may vary linguistically, socio-culturally, racially, ethnically, or economically.
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, please note if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What activities did you and your students engage with in order to become more proficient with informational writing? Please describe the learning activities and strategies and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students increased their level of understanding around informational writing? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan used to support instruction around informational writing. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include evidence of: * careful and thoughtful selection of texts and writing tasks * analytical reading * investigation and study of mentor texts * systematic, explicit instruction on steps of the informational writing process * providing ongoing and formative assessment and feedback loops to develop and refine writing, * using analytic scoring to monitor distinct skill development. **Artifact 2: Whole-Group Instruction** Upload a 10- to 20-minute video/audio of whole class instruction. The video/audio should include: * guided analytical reading (including paying attention to text structure to support comprehension, annotating, responding to text, taking notes, creating summaries, asking and answering text-based questions) in order to identify textual evidence * introduction and analysis of mentor texts with students to discover more about the genre of writing and help develop writing style * systematic, direct instruction of informational writing: + setting a purpose for writing + planning, prewriting (brainstorming, planning, outlining), revising, and editing + sentence-level refinement and revision with attention to standard English conventions in order to add interest and refine a written piece. * ongoing and real-time feedback to students through individual and small-group conferencing and distributed formative assessments. **Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples** Choose a group of two or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on engaging your students in instruction around informational writing, using the following questions to help guide you: - What was the impact of the instruction that targeted informational writing on your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole-Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/PWDtg4pNRzCy1lrKqp__aQ
name: Teaching Narrative Writing
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/PWDtg4pNRzCy1lrKqp__aQ/image
description: Educator understands and is able to use the most effective approaches to teaching narrative writing.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Writing
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1118_042329062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan to support students in writing a narrative text using effective instructional strategies and the writing process to support a group of diverse learners. # Method Components ### Overview Narrative writing is writing that tells a story. It can be fiction or fact-based. It can be written in first person or third person. Narrative writing includes plot, character development, conflict, and resolution. Writing is a critical literacy skill that plays a central role in students’ everyday lives, serving as a means to facilitate learning and deepen their understanding of content and the world around them. Research indicates that narratives are motivating for students and build their confidence as writers, which is key to their progress in learning other types of writing such as persuasive and informational writing (Olson et al., 2015). The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) K-5 Writing Standards offer a focus for instruction each year to help ensure that students gain adequate mastery of a range of skills and applications. Each year in their writing, students should demonstrate increasing sophistication in all aspects of language use, from vocabulary and syntax to the development and organization of ideas, and they should address increasingly demanding content and sources. Students advancing through the grades are expected to meet each year’s grade-specific standards and retain or further develop skills and understandings mastered in preceding grades. Over the course of their elementary career, students progress in narrative writing from drawing, dictation, and writing about single events (K) to developing real or imagined experiences or events using effective techniques, descriptive details, and clear event sequences (5) (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). ### Components of Narrative Writing Instruction Common Core State Standards focus on o…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Coker, D. & Ritchey, K (2015). Teaching beginning writers. <https://www.guilford.com/books/Teaching-Beginning-Writers/Coker-Ritchey/9781462520114> An essential “how-to” primer, this book examines the process of learning to write and shares evidence-based instructional strategies for the primary grades. With an emphasis on explicit instruction and scaffolding students’ learning, the authors explain when and how to teach handwriting, spelling, foundational skills such as sentence formation and editing, and composition in specific genres. * Graham, S. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers. What Works Clearinghouse, U.S. Department of Education <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/teaching-elementary-school-students-be-effective-writers> * Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N.(2012).Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012- 4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from [https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/WWC\_Elem\_Writing\_PG\_Dec182018.pdf](https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/WWC_Elem_Writing_PG_Dec182018.pdf) * Informal Narrative Writing Assessment. (2021). Dyslexia Help University of Michigan <http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/professionals/dyslexia-school/writing/how-should-writing-be-assessed/informal-narrative-writing-assessment> * Isaacson, S. (1996). Simple ways to assess the writing skills of students with learning disabilities <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/simple-ways-assess-writing-skills-students-learning-disabilities> * National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). *Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy*. Washington, DC: Authors. <http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/> …
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Delaware Department of Education. ELA Writing Rubrics. <https://www.doe.k12.de.us//site/Default.aspx?PageID=2645> * Moran, K. 2017.12 Great Mentor Texts for Narrative Writing in K-2. Model narrative writing with these fabulous picture books. <https://www.weareteachers.com/mentor-texts-narrative-writing> * Narrative Writing Write Along Videos. LearnZillion <https://learnzillion.com/resources/99917-narrative-writing/> * Narrative Writing Mentor Texts. The Brown Bag Teacher. Blog. <https://brownbagteacher.com/narrative-writing-mentor-texts/> * Sewell, D.(2017). Components of Narrative Writing. Leaf Group Education. <https://penandthepad.com/components-narrative-writing-8614349.html> * Tips for Teaching Narrative Structure and Style to Elementary Students. <https://studentreasures.com/blog/tips-for-teaching-narrative-writing-structure-and-style-to-elementary-students/> * Tobin, J. How to Teach Narrative Writing. Elementary Nest. Blog. <https://elementarynest.com/teaching-narrative-writing-tips-and-activities/> * Understanding the 7 Key Elements of a Narrative. 2018. From Whispers to Roars. Blog. <https://www.fromwhisperstoroars.com/blog-1/2018/1/11/understanding-the-7-key-elements-of-a-narrative> ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill <https://learningcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/annotating-texts/> * What is Annotating and Why Do It? Eastern Washington University [https://research.ewu.edu/writers\_c\_read\_study\_strategies](https://research.ewu.edu/writers_c_read_study_strategies) ### Definitions * Diverse learners: Learners who bring a broad array of learning preferences, background knowledge, experiences, identities, and educational variability and may vary linguistically, socio-culturally, racially, ethnically, or economically.
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, please note if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What activities did you and your students engage with in order to become more proficient with narrative writing? Please describe the learning activities and strategies and include information on what student data you used to decide upon the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students increased their level of understanding around narrative writing? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan used to support instruction of narrative writing. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include evidence of: * Explicit instruction using mentor text(s) * Direct instruction focused on one or more characteristics of narrative writing: organization (story structure and sequence), characters, setting, plot, conflict, and/or resolution * Gradual release of writing responsibility from the educator to the student * Guidance for students to select and use appropriate writing strategies * Components of the writing process **Artifact 2: Whole-Group Instruction** Upload a 10- to 20-minute video/audio of whole-class instruction. The video/audio should include: * Introduction and/or analysis of mentor texts in regard to narrative writing components * Explicit instruction of narrative writing * Ongoing and real-time feedback to students through individual and small-group conferencing **Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples** Choose a group of two or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include a narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you include in this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Student Assessment Samples + Upload samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit assessment examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress toward increased competency in narrative writing. Include samples with your …
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on engaging your students in instruction around narrative writing, using the following questions to help guide you: - How were your students impacted by supporting them in writing a narrative text by using the writing process? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole-Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/537nyeVgTc2z3uo6eEtc0g
name: Teaching Opinion Writing
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/537nyeVgTc2z3uo6eEtc0g/image
description: Educator understands and is able to explicitly teach the process and approaches to opinion writing.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Writing
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1119_020529062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan that incorporates the most effective approaches to teaching opinion writing within the writing process. # Method Components ### Overview Writing is an important literacy skill that plays a central role in students’ everyday lives, serving as a means to facilitate learning and deepen their understanding of content and the world around them (Olson et al., 2015). Writing is a means of conveying a message. It requires thinking about purpose and what and how to convey the content to the intended audience. Writing is a flexible activity, moving through and between the writing process. Components of the writing process include planning, drafting, sharing, evaluating, revising, and editing. An additional component, publishing, may be included to develop and share a final product. Opinion writing takes a stand on a topic and supports opinions with facts, definitions, and details. In the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) K-5 ELA Writing Standards, it is expected that students will state and support a point of view with reasons and information by providing facts and details. Their opinion pieces will include concluding statements or sections. Opinion writing is often used interchangeably with persuasive writing and argument writing. In elementary school, opinion writing is the experience of presenting an opinion and reasons for their preferences. This is a prerequisite skill for grade 6 students where they are expected to create arguments, presenting for and against ideas (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). ### Components of Opinion Writing Instruction Common Core State Standards focus on opinion, informative, and narrative writing. It is important to explicitly teach about the types of writing so that students are able to understand and differentiate the purposes of each type. An effective approach to teaching writing skills is explicit instr…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Access Center. (2004). *Accessing skills toward successful writing development*. Washington, DC. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/accessing-skills-toward-successful-writing-development> * Bazerman, C., Applebee, A. N. ., Berninger, V. W. ., Brandt, D., Graham, S., Matsuda, P. K., Murphy, S., Rowe, D. W., & Schleppegrell, M. (2017). Taking the long view on writing development. *Research in the Teaching of English, 51*(3), 351–360. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317204430\_Taking\_the\_long\_view\_on\_writing\_development](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317204430_Taking_the_long_view_on_writing_development) * English Language Arts Standards » Writing » Kindergarten | Common Core State Standards Initiative (corestandards.org) <http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/W/K/> This site is the official home of the Common Core State Standards. It is hosted and maintained by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center). It provides parents, educators, policymakers, journalists, and others easy access to the actual standards, as well as supporting information and resources. * Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. *Journal of Educational Psychology, 92*(4), 694. [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ralph\_Ferretti/publication/232508336\_The\_effects\_of\_an\_elaborated\_goal\_on\_the\_persuasive\_writing\_of\_students\_with\_learning\_disabilities\_and\_their\_normal\_achieving\_peers/links/5da5208592851c6b4bd6b5a1/The-effects-of-an-elaborated-goal-on-the-persuasive-writing-of-students-with-learning-disabilities-and-their-normal-achieving-peers.pdf](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ralph_Ferretti/publication/232508336_The_effects_of_an_elaborated_goal_on_the_persuasive_writing_of_students_with_learning_disa…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Barrett, L. 2018. 23 mentor texts for opinion writing: Teach kids how to share their ideas with conviction. <https://www.weareteachers.com/opinion-writing-mentor-texts/> * Coker, D. 2017. Genre based composing: General principles for teaching students to write different genres. This is a PowerPoint presentation highlighting: linking instruction in written genres to grade-level standards, understanding how the components of written genres influence instruction in the writing process, and modeling how to plan, evaluate, and revise for specific genres <https://www.pattan.net/getmedia/f57898a8-5c6a-45ae-bcd9-1e1b4a8b8bc1/53.%20coker%20genre-based%20composing%20presentation-to%20share> * Delaware Department of Education. ELA Writing Rubrics. <https://www.doe.k12.de.us//site/Default.aspx?PageID=2645> * Differences Between Opinion, Persuasive, and Argument Writing Chart. Write Steps Chart. WritingCity is a K-5 writing and grammar curriculum that aligns with national and state standards and supports well-renowned best practices. [http://wjhlibrary.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/1/9/13197742/writing\_chart.pdf](http://wjhlibrary.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/1/9/13197742/writing_chart.pdf) * Hipps, R. Identify and describe opinion writing. LearnZillion. PowerPoint explaining opinion writing. [https://learnzillion.com/lesson\_plans/8649-identify-and-describe-opinion-writing/](https://learnzillion.com/lesson_plans/8649-identify-and-describe-opinion-writing/) * Opinion Writing Mentor Texts. The Brown Bag Teacher. Blog. <https://brownbagteacher.com/opinion-writing-mentor-texts/> * Teaching Without Frills. 2016. Opinion Writing for Kids | Episode 1 | What Is It? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEK2oGBSsHk> ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill <https://learningcenter.unc…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, please note if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What activities did you and your students engage with in order to become more proficient with opinion writing? Please describe the learning activities and strategies and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students increased their level of understanding around opinion writing? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan used to support instruction of opinion writing. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include evidence of the writing process and instruction in one or more elements of opinion writing: * An introduction to a topic or text * A clearly stated opinion about the topic * An organizational structure in which reasons are grouped to support the writer’s purpose * The reasons are supported by facts and details * Opinion and reasons are linked using grade level-appropriate words and phrases such as *because, and, in order to*, etc. * Has a concluding statement or section related to the opinion presented **Artifact 2: Whole-Group Instruction** Upload a 10- to 20-minute video/audio of whole-class instruction. The video/audio should include: * Introduction and/or analysis of mentor texts in regard to opinion writing components * Explicit instruction of opinion writing * Ongoing and real-time feedback to students through individual and small-group conferencing **Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples** Choose a group of two or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you include in this lesson to meet the needs of the diverse learner(s)? * Student Assessment Samples + Upload samples from two students from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each student, submit assessment examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate progress t…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on engaging your students in instruction around opinion writing, using the following questions to help guide you: - What was the impact of the instruction that targeted opinion writing had on your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole-Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/CbfVjY_fQ8KUqA396nFajA
name: Text Structure
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/CbfVjY_fQ8KUqA396nFajA/image
description: Educator understands and is able to teach text structure for overall reading comprehension.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Comprehension
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1121_121827062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements a lesson plan to explicitly teach students how to identify the text structure of a given text and use this knowledge to deepen their comprehension. # Method Components ### Overview When it comes to comprehension, a student’s prior knowledge is among the top predictors of a student’s successful comprehension of a text. One element of background knowledge is understanding text structure and the innate organizational structures within a text (Williams, 2017). Research (Sejnost & Thiese, n.d.) also shows that the content of most expository texts, regardless of genre, is organized in one of five common hierarchical text structures: * Comparison * Cause and effect * Problem and solution * Sequence * Description By explicitly teaching how an author organizes information in order to achieve a purpose— how to identify them and how to utilize the structure’s innate organization—we can strengthen a student’s reading comprehension. In doing so, we clue students in to the signals within the text that denote the text’s most important ideas and the relationships among those ideas. By intentionally minding these signals (words like because, however, for example, consequently, therefore, etc.), students are more able to locate and select important ideas to summarize a text. This summary, in turn, promotes recollection of important information after reading (Akhondi, Malayeri, & Samad, 2011; Sejnost & Thiese, n.d.). Research supports this outcome in some of our most struggling readers: text structure instruction has been found to be effective at improving reading comprehension of informational texts for students who are labeled “at risk” or with learning disabilities (Zimmerman, Reed, & Gibbs, 2018). ### Components of Text Structure Instruction To support students in utilizing text structure and organization as a means to aiding comprehension, a systematic, deliberate approach to unlocking text structure is recommended. The research l…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Connor, C. M., Phillips, B. M., Kaschak, M., Apel, K., Kim, Y., Al Otaiba, S., Crowe, E. C., Thomas-Tate, S., Johnson, L. C., & Lonigan, C. J. (2014). Comprehension tools for teachers: Reading for understanding from prekindergarten through fourth grade. *Educational Psychology Review, 26*(3), 379-401. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4613791/> This research article describes a study of an intervention of eight comprehension strategies (including expository text structure) designed for meaningful, targeted small group intervention. * Williams, J. P. (2017). Teaching text structure improves reading comprehension: Text structure should be taught starting in the primary grades. *Psychology Today*. <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psyched/201703/teaching-text-structure-improves-reading-comprehension> This research article details the outcomes of a study of interventions directed at explicit instruction of text structure and its effect on second-grade students’ reading comprehension. * Walpole, S., McKenna, M.C., Philippakos, Z. A., & Strong, J. Z. (2020). *Differentiated literacy instruction in grades 4 & 5: Strategies and resources*. New York, NY: Guilford Press. This text positions text structure instruction as a characteristic of all comprehension instruction. It has downloadable graphic organizers to map text structures and sample plans that teach text structure in narratives and information texts.
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Akhondi, M., Malayeri, F. A., & Samad, A. A. (2011). How to teach expository text structure to facilitate reading comprehension. *The Reading Teacher, 64*: 368-372. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/how-teach-expository-text-structure-facilitate-reading-comprehension> This article offers practical approaches to instruction of expository text structures in order to facilitate reading comprehension. * Sejnost, R. & Thiese, S. (n.d.). Reading (and scaffolding) expository texts. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/reading-and-scaffolding-expository-texts> This article offers practical approaches to teaching text structure, including the use of graphic organizers and signal words. * Wijekumar. K., & Beerwinkle, A. L. (2018). *Implementing the text structure strategy in your classroom*. Reading Rockets. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/implementing-text-structure-strategy-your-classroom> This article offers an explanation of the Text Structure Strategy approach to teaching students about structure and how to use text structure to aid comprehension. * Zimmerman, L., Reed, D. K., & Gibbs, A. (2018). *Text structure mapping: A strategy to improve reading comprehension of informational texts*. Iowa Reading Research Center. <https://iowareadingresearch.org/blog/text-structure-mapping> This article details how to use the strategy of text structure mapping to aid students’ comprehension of a text. ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill <https://learningcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/annotating-texts/> * What is Annotating and Why Do It? Eastern Washington University [https://research.ewu.edu/writers\_c\_read\_study\_strategies](https://research.ewu.edu/writers_c_read_study_strategies) ### Definitions * Diverse learners: Learners who bring a …
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: What instructional steps did you take to build the students’ knowledge of text structures? Please describe the learning activities and strategies, and include information on what classroom data you used to develop the activities.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know your students increased their level of understanding of text structure? What evidence did you collect that demonstrates these learning gains?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your lesson plan used to support instruction of text structure. Annotate the lesson, including where in-class explanations may not be clear to the assessor and accommodations that will be made to support all students. The lesson should include evidence of: * Teaching students explicitly about an organizational pattern * Previewing a text to build background and recognize the text’s predominant organization features * Providing students with supports and scaffolds that allow for access to text structure features while comprehension building during the reading process * Monitoring students’ abilities to use those text structure features during the reading process **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10-20 minute video/audio of whole class instruction. The video/audio should include: * Explicit instruction around higher order text structures * Activation and building of background knowledge around the text, including not only the content, but the structure by which the text is organized * Pre-teaching of vocabulary in context * Previewing of the text, paying attention to headings, segments of text, and other signals related to the structure of the text itself * Inclusion of distributed opportunities to use text structure as the foundation for identifying main ideas and key details, making inferences, and monitoring overall comprehension. **Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples** Choose a group of two or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * Rationale (150-word limit) + Why did you choose this individual student or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. + What additional supports or accommodations did you make to this lesson to meet the needs of the…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on engaging your students in instruction around text structure, using the following questions to help guide you: - What was the impact of students gaining knowledge of text structure? - How will you use the knowledge of text structure to affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale and Student Assessment Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/E93l5ZPMTnmnoyTguK8Lzw
name: Tiered Vocabulary
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/E93l5ZPMTnmnoyTguK8Lzw/image
description: Educator understands and is able to implement tiered vocabulary instruction.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: Vocabulary
criteria:
  id: https://storage.googleapis.com/dp-mcfiles/dela1122_331927062021.pdf
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops and implements an effective tiered vocabulary lesson. The lesson is aligned with research and student data is used for planning and reflection on the lesson’s effectiveness. # Method Components ### Overview Students’ word knowledge is linked strongly to academic success as students with large vocabularies can understand new ideas and concepts more quickly than students with limited vocabularies. The high correlation in the research literature of word knowledge with reading comprehension indicates that if students do not adequately and steadily grow their vocabulary knowledge, reading comprehension will be affected (Sedita, 2005). In selecting words for instruction, it is helpful to consider them in three tiers based on their utility. * **Tier One** - these words are the most basic words. These words are learned easily through use and are rarely the focus of instruction in school. * **Tier Two** - these are high-frequency words. The ability to know and use these more specialized words indicate an advanced maturity in words use. * **Tier Three**- these words are domain specific and are often only used in content areas of instruction. The frequency of these words is low (Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L., 2002) ### Selection of Words for the Focus of Instruction As educators work to select words for instruction, it can be helpful to think of the purpose of language development based on the three tiers. Marzano (2012) recommends considering the following when determining the path of instruction for learners based on the tiers: * Students who have been identified as needing instruction in **Tier One** words should receive direct instruction in these words outside of their regular classes. This focused instruction should be planned to help students acquire the use and knowledge of these words quickly as they are essential for basic communication. * **Tier 2** words should be taught as they are encountered in instruction. Instruction of …
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Rationale and Research
  narrative: * Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Choosing Words to Teach. In Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction (15-30). New York, NY: Guilford Press. <https://www.readingrockets.org/article/choosing-words-teach> This article provides an excerpt from the book, Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction. The focus of this article is on the selection of Tier 2 words for instruction. Information is also presented to guide in selection of specific Tier 1 and 3 words, as needed. * Biemiller, A. (2015). Which words are worth teaching. Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 41(3), 9–11. <https://app.box.com/s/rw7rvttc3ylq6ct6vc0qofm2cikekq73> This work provides guidance on selection of words by grade and age levels. Specifics about acquisition of word meanings at each level are also included. * Ferlazzo, L (Nov. 29, 2017). Enriching academic vocabulary: Strategies for teaching tier two words to E.L.L. students. The New York Times. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/learning/lesson-plans/enriching-academic-vocabulary-strategies-for-teaching-tier-two-words-to-ell-students.html> This article defines the terms, Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 words. The author then provides specific steps for teaching academic vocabulary and strategies to ELL students as well as tools for finding different types of words within text. * Gillis, M., & Eberhardt, N.C. (2015). A word selection grid: Choosing vocabulary to teach. Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 41(3), 49–51. <https://app.box.com/s/rw7rvttc3ylq6ct6vc0qofm2cikekq73> Included in this article is a Word Selection Grid to aid educators in selection of words for instruction in the classroom. * Marzano, R. J. (2012). A comprehensive approach to vocabulary instruction. *Voices from the Middle, 20*(1), 31. [http://missionliteracy.comwww.missionliteracy.com/uploads/3/1/5/8/3158234/marzano\_vm0201comp\_vocab.pdf](http://missionliteracy.comwww.missionliteracy.com/uploads/3/1/5/8/3158234/marzano_vm0201comp_vocab.pdf) * Se…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: * Ferlazzo, L (Nov. 29, 2017). Enriching academic vocabulary: Strategies for teaching tier two words to E.L.L. students. The New York Times. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/learning/lesson-plans/enriching-academic-vocabulary-strategies-for-teaching-tier-two-words-to-ell-students.html> This article defines the terms, Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 words. The author then provides specific steps for teaching academic vocabulary and strategies to ELL students as well as tools for finding different types of words within text. * Gillis, M., & Eberhardt, N.C. (2015). A word selection grid: Choosing vocabulary to teach. Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 41(3), 49–51. <https://app.box.com/s/rw7rvttc3ylq6ct6vc0qofm2cikekq73> Included in this article is a Word Selection Grid to aid educators in selection of words for instruction in the classroom. * TextProject (n.d.). WordZones™ for 4,000 simple word families. Retrieved from: <http://textproject.org/archive/resources/wordzones-for-4000-simple-word-families/> A user- friendly chart with links to 4,00 words families for instruction. * Wright, T. S. & Neuman, S. B. (2015). The power of content-rich vocabulary instruction. Perspectives on Language & Literacy, 41(3), 25–28. <https://app.box.com/s/rw7rvttc3ylq6ct6vc0qofm2cikekq73> These authors provide a research background on vocabulary instruction and also include specific instructions on how to provide content-rich vocabulary instruction in the primary classroom. ### Annotating Text * Annotation Guide [https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06\_Students/Annotation\_Guide\_AP\_Language.pdf](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) * Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill <https://learningcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/annotating-texts/> * What is Annotating and Why Do It? Eastern Washington University [https://research.ewu.edu/writers\_c\_read\_study\_strategies](https://research.ewu.edu/writers_c_read_study_strategies) ### Defi…
assessment extension:
  assessments:
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    description: (NOT USED)
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. In addition, if you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the written submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections with the competency.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How did you determine the words that you included for instruction? What learning activities or strategies did you include in your lesson in order to build the learning of Tiered vocabulary? Explain the rationale for your choices of words and instruction. Be sure to include any planning considerations for the whole group, small group, or individual students in your lesson.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
      questions:
        text: How do you know if students in your classroom are making progress in this area (Tiered Vocabulary) based on your instruction? How do you know if your targeted instruction is building higher order thinking skills and comprehension? Consider pre-assessment data, ongoing targeted instruction, and/or any post assessment data that may show progress over time.
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 150
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        text: To complete this micro-credential, please submit the following evidence: **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan** Upload your Tiered Vocabulary lesson plan used to support student learning. The lesson plan should include educator directions for skill implementation. The lesson should include at least one of the following components: * Connection to wide reading * Words in context * Graphic organizers to facilitate long term learning * Physical manipulation of words to develop meaning The rationale should include the following (150-word limit): * How did you select or develop this particular lesson? * How do you plan to support diverse learners throughout the lesson **Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction** Upload a 10–15 minute annotated video/audio of whole group tiered vocabulary instruction. The video/audio should include annotations for the following: * Educator modeling how to define Tiered vocabulary words in context * Educator providing directions for clear student expectations * Students practicing the specific skill and receiving educator feedback * Student engagement including, but not limited to, responding, focusing attention on the educator, engaging in discussion, or asking questions. Note: video annotation can be a document that includes timestamps noting where the above list happens throughout the video. “*Example: 1:15 - 2:02: a small group of students is practicing skill Y and I am giving them feedback*.” **Artifact 3: Rationale, Pre-Assessments, and Student Work Samples** Choose a small group of diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for a definition of diverse learners.) Submit the following: * A rationale explaining what information you used from your students’ pre-assessments. + Explain how your pre-assessments helped you to determine where to begin instruction. + How did you use your knowledge of student vocabulary knowledge to plan for instruction? + Include student work samples reflec…
        type: FileQuestion
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        text: Provide a reflection on teaching tiered vocabulary to your students using the following questions to guide you: - What was the impact of the instruction that targeted vocabulary knowledge for your students? - How will crafting this lesson affect your practice in the future?
        type: TextQuestion
        word limit: 250
    has group evaluation: false
    type: Artifact
    rubrics:
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Whole Group Instruction
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Rationale, Pre-Assessments, and Student Work Samples
    has group participation: false
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn this micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2.

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/msqFvIbqQdSPEl0P9gZ-xw
name: Tools that Facilitate Language Production
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/msqFvIbqQdSPEl0P9gZ-xw/image
description: Educator introduces learners to digital tools that facilitate their language output.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: facilitating proficiency-focused language learning
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/84ipfp3vlyz92gcv64skj6f91q1vj7sr
  narrative: # Key Method The educator selects and implements effective digital tools that facilitate student language production. # Method Components The ACTFL position statement “The Role of Technology in Language Learning” states: Technology can and should be used by language educators to enhance language instruction, practice, and assessment, as articulated in the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. Through the purposeful use of technology: - Learners read, listen to, and view authentic, engaging, and timely materials from the target culture. - Learners practice interpersonal skills as they interact via video, audio, or text in real-time with other speakers of the target language. - Learners collaborate on presentational tasks with their peers or teacher, anytime, anywhere. - Learners work at their own pace as they access online content and/or utilize computer adaptive programs managed by their educator. - Learners practice discrete skills while engaging with online games and applications. - Learners benefit from differentiated instruction in which multiple applications can be used to assess learners, assign varied tasks, track data, give real-time feedback, and manage classrooms and lessons. **Reflect on the Language Learners** - Understand learners’ background knowledge, interests, and language proficiency levels. - Consider how the use of digital tools may motivate learners or enhance engagement in learning. **Select Digital Tools** - Investigate and choose a digital tool that helps learners enhance their interpersonal or presentational communication. - Consider how the digital tool connects to learners’ background knowledge, interests, and language proficiency level. **Design and Implement Real-world Communicative Tasks Using the Digital Tools** - Identify a real-world context for interpersonal or presentational communication that is age-appropriate and interesting to your learners. - Design an interpersonal or presentational communication task that uses th…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - Allen, H. (2018). Redefining writing in the foreign language curriculum: Toward a design approach. ACTFL _Foreign Language Annals_, 51(3), 513-532. Alexandria, VA. <https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12350> A position article that argues for reimagining the role of writing to maximize learners’ 21st-century skill development. - Difilippantonio-Pen, A. (2020). Flipgrid and second language acquisition: Using Flipgrid to promote speaking skills for English Language Learners. _BSU Master’s Theses and Projects._ Item 75. <https://vc.bridgew.edu/theses/75> A mixed-methods research study wherein the author concludes that Flipgrid provides an equitable opportunity for English language learners to develop this skill set, while also increasing their oral language development in English. - Lee, L. (2014). Digital news stories: Building language learners’ content knowledge and speaking skills. ACTFL _Foreign Language Annals_, 47(2), 338–356. Alexandria, VA. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261804769_Digital_News_Stories_Building_Language_Learners'_Content_Knowledge_and_Speaking_Skills> A study that explores how the use of digital news stories promotes students’ development of content knowledge and oral language skills. - Levy, Mike. (2009). Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal. 93. 769 – 782. <http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00972.x> An article wherein the author describes technologies for second language learning for grammar, vocabulary, reading, writing, pronunciation, listening, speaking and culture. - Liu, X., & Moeller, A. (2019). Promoting learner engagement through interactive digital tools. _Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education_. 310. <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/310> The authors provide a review of the literature on technology integration in world language education, as well as examples of popular digital tools designed to facilitate meaningful, interactive …
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [Abernethy, R. (2018). Maximizing language production: How to get your students to talk more_. English First_.](https://www.english1.com/blog/teaching-advice-and-tips/maximizing-student-production-get-students-talk/) An online article that gives advice and tips to increase learner language production. - [ACTFL. (2017). ACTFL Position statement on the role of technology in language learning. Alexandria, VA](https://www.actfl.org/advocacy/actfl-position-statements/the-role-technology-language-learning) The position statement offers suggestions for using technology to enhance language instruction and assessment in alignment with the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. - [Brookes Blog. (2018). 14 ways to improve your students’ oral language skills. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.](https://blog.brookespublishing.com/11-ways-to-improve-your-students-oral-language-skills/) A blog post that suggests strategies for supporting learners’ oral language development. - [Gallagher, H. & Sarracino, M. (2020). Let’s talk tech! Presentation for the _National Foreign Language Center Virtual Summit._](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfaWAZGSY2o) A session that addresses technology platforms that motivate learners to use the target language. - [Heller, B. (2021). From skills to modes - Standard 2: Interpersonal communication. _New York State Education Department Office of Bilingual Education and World Languages_ webinar.](http://www.nysed.gov/world-languages/skills-modes-part-2-interpersonal-communication) A webinar that suggests approaches for designing interpersonal communicative tasks that require negotiation of meaning. - [Ding, A. & Hung, J. H. R. (2018). Foreign Language Teaching, Part 2: Enhancing communicative competence in FLT through technology integration. In A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich & R. Kimmons, The K-12 Educational Technology Handbook. EdTech Books. ](https://edtechbooks.org/k12handbook/flt2) This digital chapter provides available resources for enhancing lang…
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    type: Artifact
    description: (NOT USED)
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:26:49.619Z
        position: 0
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:26:49.617Z
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:27:16.317Z
        position: 0
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:27:16.316Z
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Digital Tool Description and Learner Task (Required)
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:27:57.191Z
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2a: Instruction
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:26.315Z
        position: 1
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2b: Learner Work Samples
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:30.248Z
        position: 2
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:27:57.188Z
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:32:51.725Z
        position: 0
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:32:51.723Z
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:33:08.925Z
        position: 0
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:33:08.923Z
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    has group evaluation: true
    has group participation: true
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and demographic information. Please respond to the following prompts regarding your teaching context and practice. - How did you locate and evaluate the digit tool you selected to enhance your learners’ interpersonal or presentational communication skills? - How do you know that this particular digital tool will be of interest to or enhance relevance for your learners?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      required: true
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **two pieces of evidence**. Artifact 1 is required, and you will choose to submit one artifact from the options of Artifact 2a and Artifact 2b for your second piece of evidence. **Artifact 1: Digital Tool Description and Learner Task (Required)** Submit a description of the digital tool you have selected to enhance your learners interpersonal or presentational communication skills. Include a description of the task that the learners will do using the identified digital tool, as well as any scaffolds designed to ensure learner access and success. _Choose **one** of the following to submit:_ **Artifact 2a: Instruction** Upload a 10- to20-minute video/audio of class instruction using the task submitted as Article 1. The video/audio should include evidence of the clear use of the identified digital tool with learner responses. **Artifact 2b: Learner Work Samples** Choose at least three diverse learners to provide samples of their responses from the task using the identified digital tool. These learners should represent the spectrum of learning in your classroom. Submit the following: - Rationale (150-word limit) - Why did you choose these individual learners? - How did your choice of digital tools help these particular learners enhance their ability to communicate interpersonally or presentationally? - Work Samples - Upload samples from three learners from the task provided in Artifact 1. For each learner, submit work examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate their use of the digital tool, their responses to the task, and any feedback that you provided as a result of the task. _If you submit a link, it should be set to “anyone with the link can view” in order to assess._
        required: true
      required: true
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: - What did you learn from your experience selecting and implementing effective digital tools that facilitate learner language production? - What did the evidence from learner work say about the impact of the digital tools on their ability to communicate more effectively in the interpersonal or presentational mode? - Given what you have learned, what will you do the next time you design a communicative task using a digital tool? Please highlight what you will do the same and what you will most likely do differently in the future.
        required: true
        word limit: 500
      required: true

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/ZTpwTZZEQAGVbusYn5oHDQ
name: Teaching Grammar in Context
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/ZTpwTZZEQAGVbusYn5oHDQ/image
description: Educator facilitates world languages proficiency for learners to understand verbal communication and obtain new language rules, structures, and forms.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: facilitating proficiency-focused language learning
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/z3are1v5e64pfz2v746b7622ikpednr5
  narrative: # Key Method The educator implements contextualized approaches to teach grammar, such as the PACE model or CAPA sequence, with authentic and longer texts to improve learners’ grammar awareness and retention. # Method Components ### Overview Grammar is an important element of communication, but research shows that explicit teaching of grammar has little effect on people’s language acquisition, comprehension, or writing abilities. Traditional approaches to grammar instruction that emphasize direct grammar instruction often encourage memorized, rehearsed use of language. Additionally, many methods do not require learners to understand meaning in an authentic context, i.e., how grammar is actually used in communication. Thinking of grammar in how it is used in authentic communicative contexts broadens learners’ understanding and use of the target language (ACTFL: Teaching Grammar as a Concept in Context). There are various inductive and deductive approaches to grammar instruction. However, the fact that learners focus on meaning well before form implies that grammar becomes more meaningful to them when it is learned in context within the frame of functional language goals and objectives. Therefore, learners should be expected to learn grammar implicitly through target language use and explicitly through the discovery of grammatical rules through use in meaningful examples. The learner is highly motivated when using the grammar in context to immediately search the correct form in an effort to speak, listen, read, or write effectively. Consequently, grammar instruction should be in the target language with lessons that have functional goals and objectives in which there is a need to address a gap in knowledge in order for communication to occur. Inductive approaches to teaching grammar in context all involve three basic steps: - Providing learners with multiple examples of grammar being used in authentic contexts. - Having learners analyze examples to find patterns of usa…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - Adair-Hauk, B., & Donato, R. (2002). The PACE model: A story-based approach to meaning and form for standards-based language learning. The French Review, 76(2), 265-276. <http://sebaworld.weebly.com/uploads/6/3/4/0/6340170/adair-hauck_b.__donato_r._2002._the_pace_model.pdf> An in-depth description of the PACE model with examples. - Alkhawaldeh, A. (2020). A research investigation of contextualized grammar instruction from the perspective of English language lecturers and students at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. _International Journal of English Linguistics_. 10(162). <http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v10n5p162> The author of the study makes several suggestions about teaching grammar both implicitly and explicitly. - Chien, C. (2020). Taiwanese EFL teachers’ perceptions and designs of contextualized vocabulary and grammar instruction. _Journal of English Learner Education_. (10)1. <https://stars.library.ucf.edu/jele/vol10/iss1/6> A case study that proposes a model for contextualized vocabulary and grammar instruction. - Derewianka, B. & Jones, P. (2010). From traditional grammar to functional grammar: Bridging the divide. _NALDIC Quarterly_, 8 (1), 6-17. <https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2000&context=sspapers> A paper that shows how aspects of traditional grammar remain relevant, even as systemic functional grammar offers much more to educators and learners in terms of understanding what and how meanings are made in the range of contexts. - Mart, C. (2013). Teaching grammar in context: Why and how? _Academy Publisher_. 124-129. <https://www.academypublication.com/issues/past/tpls/vol03/01/18.pdf> An article that focuses on the reasons that language educators should teach grammar in context and presents two sample lessons. - Moeller, A., & Ketsman, O. (2010). Can we learn a language without rules? _Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska- Lincoln_. <https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&ht…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [ACTFL. (n.d.). Teach grammar as a concept in context. Alexandria, VA.](https://www.actfl.org/resources/guiding-principles-language-learning/grammar-concept-in-context) An explanation of the “what,” “why,” and “how” of the guiding principle of teaching grammar in context. - [Grahn, L. (2019). Another way to think about grammar in context. _Passion for the Profession_ blog.](https://passion4theprofession.com/2019/04/17/another-way-to-think-about-grammar-in-context/) A blog post that offers a thinking frame for addressing grammar in world language lessons. - [Terrill, L., & Kennedy, L. (2016). Teaching grammar as a concept in context. _CT LILL Webinar Series_.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xh9PTuH7g) A webinar that addresses the various approaches to grammar instruction and how to select one over the other. - [Travers, M. (2020). What about the grammar? _National Foreign Language Center Virtual Summit_.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_C0ka_kN2Y) A virtual session that explores different communicative strategies to teach grammar as a concept and provides real examples of grammar in context that can be used in language classrooms. - [Difilippantonio-Pen, A. (2020). Flipgrid and second language acquisition: Using Flipgrid to promote speaking skills for English Language Learners. _BSU Master’s Theses and Projects._ Item 75.](https://vc.bridgew.edu/theses/75) A mixed-methods research study wherein the author concludes that Flipgrid provides an equitable opportunity for English language learners to develop this skill set, while also increasing their oral language development in English. - [Different Methods of Teaching Grammar](https://writingprompts.com/methods-of-teaching-grammar/) - [Delaware Core Practices for World Language Proficiency](https://www.doe.k12.de.us/cms/lib/DE01922744/Centricity/Domain/139/Delaware%20Core%20Practices%20for%20Proficiency%20082018.pdf) - [Çağrı Tuğrul, M. (2013). Teaching grammar in context: Why and how?. _Theory and Practice in La…
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    type: Artifact
    description: (NOT USED)
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:34:52.526Z
        position: 0
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:34:52.525Z
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:35:15.827Z
        position: 0
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:35:15.825Z
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 1: Lesson: Video or Audio
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:12.514Z
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 2: Annotation of Video or Audio
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:25.292Z
        position: 1
      rubric criteria:
        description: Artifact 3: Learner Work Samples from Lesson
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:34.543Z
        position: 2
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:12.512Z
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:38:37.276Z
        position: 0
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:38:37.274Z
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    has group evaluation: true
    has group participation: true
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    sections: Overview
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: **Implementing the Teaching of Grammar in Context** - What were your goals and expectations for engaging learners to learn grammar in context? - How did you plan and prepare to teach a particular grammar concept in context? - How did you differentiate your grammar in context lessons to meet the needs of diverse learners?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      required: true
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **three pieces of evidence**: **Artifact 1: Lesson: Video or Audio (15-20 minutes)** Submit a video or audio recording that demonstrates teaching grammar in context (i.e., the PACE model, CAPA sequence). It should demonstrate engagement with the process and understanding of the following sequence. If you are using the PACE model, address its four component parts: 1. Presentation, 2. Attention, 3. Co-construction, and 4. Extension. If you are using the CAPA sequence, address its four component parts: 1. Contextualization, 2. Awareness, 3. Practice, and 4. Autonomy. (Note: if you are using a different contextual model other than PACE or CAPA, please clearly state which model you’ve used, and continue to demonstrate the three steps below.) The video or audio should demonstrate engagement with the process and understanding of the following sequence: 1. Providing multiple examples in context 2. Analyzing examples for patterns and proposing rules 3. Providing additional opportunities to practice in additional authentic contexts **Artifact 2: Annotation of Video or Audio** Submit a summary document outlining Artifact 1 wherein each of the three elements are presented in the video or audio. **Artifact 3: Learner Work Samples from Lesson** Choose three learner work samples created during the lesson demonstrated in Artifact 1 that show the use of grammar in context in your classroom. The three samples should be from the same activity. These could be: - a writing assignment from the unit plan with differentiated material - evidence of learner self-reflection - evidence of learner implicit explanations - evidence of educator and learner guided participation _If you submit a link—such as links to video or audio—the permissions should be set to “anyone with the link can view” in order to assess._
        required: true
      required: true
    sections: Reflection
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: - What did you observe about learner engagement during the lesson? What went well? What might you change in the future? - What did you notice about the accurate application of grammar rules when learners used them on their own? - Were there any shifts in your practice in using certain models to teach grammar in context? If yes, what were they? If no, please expand on why you think a shift did not occur.
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      required: true

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/7A6PxWLlRXmmCntX9Us-Zg
name: Integrated Performance Assessment Design
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/7A6PxWLlRXmmCntX9Us-Zg/image
description: Educator creates an authentic integrated performance assessment to be implemented as a summative assessment for a planned unit.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: designing proficiency-focused language learning
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/5emgstre4z672k834pb7i2gva6aofqp0
  narrative: # Key Method The educator identifies a real-world scenario in which learners can apply the skills learned during a unit of study. The educator designs an integrated performance assessment (IPA) incorporating the interpretive, presentational, and interpersonal modes of communication. # Method Components ### Overview The Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA) is a classroom-based performance assessment model developed by ACTFL that evaluates the learner's communication skills in the three modes of communication (interpretive, presentational, interpersonal) as identified in the World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages. The IPA is based on a real-world task, which corresponds to the learning goals of the unit. Integrated performance assessments provide beneficial instructional alignment, while providing learners with multiple opportunities to demonstrate what they know. IPAs create relevant assessments for learners and provide the opportunity for educators to receive meaningful instructional feedback. ### Integrated Performance Assessment **What is an Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA)?** An Integrated Performance Assessment (IPA) is a type of summative assessment. IPAs allow learners to demonstrate their language skills when given a real-life task. The IPA allows learners to continue learning about and growing into a cultural topic while being evaluated in all three modes of communication: interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational. **Six Steps to Designing an Integrated Performance Assessment:** 1. Identify goals of the performance-based assessment 2. Select the appropriate course standards 3. Review assessments and identify learning gaps 4. Design the scenario 5. Gather or create materials 6. Develop a learning plan _Source: Hilliard, 2015_ **Identifying a Real-World Scenario** - Should be relatable, relevant, and achievable by the learner(s) in real-life - Requires learners to perform/complete a task, as opposed to finding the response **How is an…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - Adair-Hauck, B., Glisan, E., Koda, K., Swender, E., & Sandrock, P. (2008). The integrated performance assessment (IPA): Connecting assessment to instruction and learning. ACTFL _Foreign Language Annals_, 39(3), 359-382. Alexandria, VA. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2006.tb02894.x> This article presents a prototype for measuring learner progress towards achieving the ACTFL national standards, while capturing the connection between classroom experience and learner performance on IPA tasks. - Davin, K., Troyan, F., & Donato, R. (2011). Research on the integrated performance assessment in an Early Foreign Language Program. ACTFL _Foreign Language Annals_. 44(4), 605-625. Alexandria, VA. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01153.x> This article reports that integrated performance assessments are a successful classroom-based performance assessment of fourth and fifth graders’ Spanish proficiency in this program and recommends IPAs in similar programs in which the goal is communicative competence. - Giraldo, F. (2020). Task-based language assessment: Implications for the language classroom. _GIST – Education and Learning Research Journal_, 21, 209-224. <https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.828> This reflection paper discusses central issues in task-based assessment and the merits of implementing them into the language classroom. - Jiang, S., Wu, J., Xu, J., & Tian, J. (2021). Connecting Integrated Performance Assessment to Chinese classroom teaching and learning. In _Frontiers of L2 Chinese Language Education_ (pp. 68-89). Routledge. <https://www.sciencegate.app/app/document/download#10.4324/9781003169895-5> A study that reveals that connecting integrated performance assessments to classroom teaching is a feasible way to integrate teaching, learning, and assessment for producing positive learning outcomes. - Kissau, S. & Adams, M. (2016). Instructional decision making and IPAs: Assessing the modes of communication. ACTFL _Foreign Language Annals_, 49(1), 105-12…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [Duncan, G. (2015). Teacher Effectiveness for Language Learning Project. Performance Assessments.](http://www.tellproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AdvanceLearning_PerformanceAssessments_Overview_2.pdf) A quick reference card that defines and gives examples of formative and summative performance assessments for the world language classroom. - [Grahn, L. (2018). Creating performance tasks and assessments using authentic text. _Passion for the Profession_ blog.](https://passion4theprofession.com/2018/09/21/creating-performance-tasks-and-assessments-using-authentic-text/) A blog post that provides suggestions for designing real world performance tasks that measure learner proficiency. - [Jones, N. (n.d.). Every day’s an IPA. _Vista Higher Learning_ webinar.](https://vistahigherlearning.com/vhl-pd-webinars?wchannelid=5p1112jhjw&wmediaid=wxwi84idtx) A webinar that offers a process by which educators can design lesson plans that mirror the components of integrated performance assessments. - [Parra, A. (2022). Integrated performance assessments. _National Foreign Language Center Virtual Summit._](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJfnbriwV14) A webinar that shows how to use integrated performance assessments in the language classroom and presents examples of integrated performance assessments. - [Pijanowski, L. (2016). Authentic performance tasks: Strategies to improve learning and literacy. Handout for a presentation at the Model Schools Conference. _International Center for Leadership in Education_.](http://handouts16.modelschoolsconference.com/files/upload/APT_MSC_LP_Handout.pdf) A handout that demonstrates performance tasks design using the SQUARED and SCRAP models. - [Sandrock, P., & Naditz, N. (2020). Intro to performance assessments. _National Foreign Language Resource Center_ podcast](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRhfKPBZVZs&list=PLLBJ9BLnZf1XURnAHBCQj8PPyWywXiflG&index=1) A video interview that includes insights and experience in relation to performance as…
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:44:13.777Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:45:01.664Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:44:45.484Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:44:45.487Z
        description: Artifact 1: Unit Goals
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:47:54.845Z
        description: Artifact 2: Summative Assessment
        position: 1
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:48:00.759Z
        description: Artifact 3: Learner Work Sample
        position: 2
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:46:42.248Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:46:42.251Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:49:30.725Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:49:30.727Z
        position: 0
    sections: Overview
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      required: true
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **three pieces of evidence**: **Artifact 1: Unit Goals** Please submit a document explaining the unit objectives (Can Do Statements) and how the summative assessment reflects learner learning. Be sure to indicate the language task assessed for each mode of communication. **Artifact 2: Summative Assessment** Please submit files of all components of the integrated performance assessment. This includes any audio, video, or text used in the interpretive modes. The summative assessment should reflect a real-world scenario in which learners use their world language proficiency to address a situation or solve a problem in the presentational or interpretive mode. **Artifact 3: Learner Work Sample** Please submit a learner work sample of the completed assessment and a brief description of their proficiency on the assessment. _If you submit a link, it should be set to “anyone with the link can view” in order to assess._
        required: true
    sections: Reflection
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Provide a reflection on your experience in designing and implementing the integrated performance assessment, as well as your plans to continue leveraging this competency in your teaching. You may use the prompts as guidance. - Describe the shifts in your practice that this competency required. How did your formative assignments reflect the summative assessment? - What were your challenges and what strategies did you plan and design for them? - What resources did you find helpful? - What major takeaway(s) do you have from designing and implementing an integrated performance assessment? - How will the practice of backwards design influence your language teaching in the future?
        required: true
        word limit: 500

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/3f7a-qjjS7K5hje8KfWoBA
name: Proficiency and Performance in World Language Learning
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/3f7a-qjjS7K5hje8KfWoBA/image
description: Educator understands ACTFL Proficiency and Performance guidelines in unit planning and lesson plans, and is able to demonstrate the different purpose of both performance and proficiency within the world language classroom.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: world language proficiency and interculturality
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/6xdhe9sd8dxn7f9vhnddnwul3jzguxxw
  narrative: # Key Method The educator uses the ACTFL Performance Guidelines and Proficiency Guidelines to set both performance and proficiency targets for their learners. # Method Components In a proficiency-focused world language classroom, world language educators understand the difference between performance and proficiency in world language learning and use this knowledge to set appropriate targets for their learners. According to ACTFL, performance is “the ability to use language that has been learned and practiced in an instructional setting,” while proficiency is “the ability to use language in real-world situations in a spontaneous interaction and non-rehearsed content and in a manner acceptable and appropriate to native speakers of the language.” It is the proficiency, or the ability to use the language, in the real world that is the ultimate outcome for the proficiency-focused world language classroom. Demonstrate Understanding of Proficiency - Educators complete the Avant ADVANCE proficiency modules and earn an 80% or higher on the final assessment to demonstrate their understanding of proficiency and what learner work looks like at each level of proficiency. Plan with Clear and Realistic Expectations for Language Learning - Educators set clear and realistic expectations for their learners in terms of performance and proficiency outcomes. - Educators design and implement Integrated Performance Assessments in all three modes. Reflect on Targets and Learner Language Outcomes - Educators reflect on the performance and proficiency targets that were set for their learners using data of performance and/or proficiency assessments.
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - Eaton, S. E. (2012). How will Alberta’s second language students ever achieve proficiency? ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, the CEFR and the “10,000-hour rule” in relation to the Alberta K-12 language-learning context. _Notos,_ 12(2), 2-12. <https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED540393> The author concludes that achieving high levels of language proficiency necessitates a combination of classroom instruction time and self-study and informal study outside of class. - Gasparro, J. (2003). The ACTFL proficiency guidelines and the oral proficiency interview: A brief history and analysis of their survival. ACTFL _Foreign Language Annals_. 36, 483-490. Alexandria, VA. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02137.x> The author concludes that the concept of proficiency as outlined by the ACTFL Guidelines have been adopted as the standard in the arenas of policy, program development, and classroom instruction. - Norris, J., & Pfeiffer, P. (2003). Exploring the uses and usefulness of ACTFL oral proficiency ratings and standards in college foreign language departments. ACTFL _Foreign Language Annals_. 36(4), 572-581. Alexandria, VA. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb02147.x> The article provides a quick overview of the use of ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for setting standards and identifying learning outcomes. - Swender, E., & Duncan, G. (2008). ACTFL performance guidelines for K-12 learners. ACTFL _Foreign Language Annals_. 31(40), 479-491. Alexandria, VA. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1998.tb00593.x> The article provides an overview of ACTFL performance guidelines and describes the connections between these guidelines and the standards for foreign language learning. - Winke, P., Zhang, X., Rubio, F., Gass, S., Soneson, D., & Hacking, J. (2020). The proficiency profile of language students: Implications for programs. _Second Language Research & Practice_, 1(1), 25-64. <http://hdl.handle.net/10125/69840> This study shows the impact that inside and outside of class lan…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [ACTFL. (2015). ACTFL Performance descriptors for language learners. Alexandria, VA.](https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/publications/ACTFLPerformance_Descriptors.pdf) A guide that describes language performance at the various proficiency levels and compares performance and proficiency. - [ACTFL. (2012). ACTFL Proficiency guidelines. Alexandria, VA.](https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/guidelines/ACTFLProficiencyGuidelines2012.pdf) A guide that describes what individuals can do at the various proficiency levels. - [ACTFL. (2017). NCSSFL-ACTFL can-do statements. Alexandria, VA.](https://www.actfl.org/resources/ncssfl-actfl-can-do-statements) The can-do statements describe how well individuals communicate at the various proficiency levels. - [Avant MORE Learning. (2021). Performance vs. proficiency.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pxa9anppBI) A quick video overview to understand the relationship between performance and proficiency and the reasons that they are both important. - [Bleicher, A., Dhonau, S., Rubio, F., & Sandrock, P. (2016). Guiding language performance to the next level. _ACTFL_.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJHvCGcEwaE) A free virtual learning module from ACTFL for educators to help language learners to move from one proficiency level to the next. - [Bong, David. Proficiency vs. performance vs. achievement. _Sealofbiteracy.org._](https://sealofbiliteracy.org/blog/proficiency-vs-performance-vs-achievement) An article that compares proficiency, performance, and achievement. - [Cabral, Joshua. (2021). ACTFL Proficiency levels and performance descriptors. _World Language Classroom Podcast._](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/actfl-proficiency-levels-and-performance-descriptors/id1577162822?i=1000538896777) A podcast that provides a walkthrough of ACTFL proficiency levels and performance descriptors.
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:58:54.688Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:58:54.696Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:59:27.074Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:59:27.077Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T16:00:19.939Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T16:00:19.940Z
        description: Artifact 1: Unit plan
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T17:43:28.058Z
        description: Artifact 2: Proficiency-Oriented Feedback and Reflection tool
        position: 1
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T17:44:57.010Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T17:44:57.012Z
        position: 0
    sections: Overview
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Provide a description of the lesson you created that shows evidence of planning in designing an Integrated Performance Assessment. - Did you use all three modes? - Based on earlier formative assessments, how did your learners perform and demonstrate growth? - What are the strengths and challenges of your learners? - Have you completed the Avant ADVANCE Certificate? If so, how did the training impact the design of this lesson?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      required: true
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **two pieces of evidence**: **Artifact 1: Evidence of Planning with Performance and Proficiency in Mind** Submit a unit plan that clearly reflects the alignment of unit objectives, the unit’s performance targets, and the end-of-year course proficiency targets. The unit plan must include evidence of the use of performance assessments in all three modes (interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational) and a proficiency-oriented rubric for scoring the assessments. **Artifact 2: Evidence of Proficiency-Oriented Feedback and Learner Self-Reflection** Submit three learner work samples from the performance assessments created in the Artifact 2 unit plan that contain evidence of feedback provided to the learners that will increase their level of performance, as well as evidence of how the learners used this information as a part of their own self-reflection process. _If you submit a link, it should be set to “anyone with the link can view” in order to assess._
        required: true
    sections: Reflection
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Write a personal reflection about your work on this micro-credential. Reflect on the following questions: - What key insights did you learn about the difference between proficiency and performance? - How adept are you at identifying ACTFL proficiency levels? - What challenges did you face in designing Integrated Performance Assessments? - How will your new learning improve your practices in your current role?
        required: true
        word limit: 500

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/bP18CPcnSLW45ItNQm6vkw
name: Understanding the Diversity of World Language Learners
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/bP18CPcnSLW45ItNQm6vkw/image
description: Educator ensures that all learners have equitable access to world language studies and cultures.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: designing proficiency-focused language learning
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/o93l0zq74muti3jm7szemsad8nnxxga4
  narrative: # Key Method The educator researches culturally responsive practices and designs classroom resources that represent and include diverse world language classroom populations. # Method Components ### Overview Understanding the diversity of world language (“WL”) learners is important, as learners are from diverse backgrounds and have different ways of learning. Learners from minoritized groups face inequities and lack of access to world language studies (Glynn & Wassel, 2018). In order to effectively teach language and culture to learners, educators must teach each learner as a whole person, by identifying and embracing the various components that make up an individual (Kim, 2020). Components such as race, sexual identity, traditions, forms of communication, socioeconomic status, and familial relations are just a few among multiple facets that create an individual’s identity. Kim (2020) suggests that world language classrooms must foster intercultural communication that allows for learners and educators to reflect upon and respect the differences that exist in one person’s culture compared to another. Because language and culture cannot be taught in isolation, it’s extremely important that world language educators place high value on the cultural identities of individual learners. When learners and educators are able to openly reflect upon their own cultural identities, they become more accepting, understanding of, and respectful towards the identities that exist in the target culture (Kim, 2020). ### Methodology How do we go from there to understanding the diversity of language learners in order to recognize their rights and obligations as successful WL learners? Dion (2020) talks about inclusive pedagogy, which embraces the premise that all learners can learn and the educator’s pivotal role can help learners achieve. On that assumption, understanding learners leads us to evaluate the roles of educators in four key domains. - **Diversity in teaching practices and reso…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - Anya, U., & Randolph, L. J. Jr., (2019). Diversifying language educators and learners. _The Language Educator_, 23-27. <https://actfl.org/uploads/files/general/TLE_OctNov19_Article.pdf> - Dion, S. (2020). Diversity and inclusion in world language teachers’ instructional practices. _NECTFL Review_, 86, 33-44. <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1278103.pdf> A narrative inquiry based on interviews with language educators who incorporate cultural diversity into their teaching practices. - Glynn, C., & Wassell, B. (2018). Who gets to play? Issues of access and social justice in world language study in the U.S. _Dimension_, 11, 18-32. <https://rdw.rowan.edu/education_facpub/11/> A paper that delves into research around how the field of world language education must ensure equal access to language study and addresses the current enrollment statistics as a social justice issue. - Kim, D. (2020). Learning language, learning culture: Teaching language to the whole student. _ECNU Review of Education_, _3_(3), 519–541. <https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120936693> An article that emphasizes the importance of engaging the whole learner in language instruction. - The Importance of Diversity & Multicultural Awareness in Education. Drexel University School of Education. (n.d.). <https://drexel.edu/soe/resources/student-teaching/advice/importance-of-cultural-diversity-in-classroom/>
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [ACTFL. (2013). Position statement on language as a core component of education for all students. Alexandria, VA.](https://www.actfl.org/advocacy/actfl-position-statements/languages-core-component-education-all-students) A position statement taking a strong stance on access to world language study for all learners. - [ACTFL. (2019). Position statement on diversity and inclusion in world language teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA.](https://www.actfl.org/advocacy/actfl-position-statements/diversity-and-inclusion-world-language-teaching-learning) A position statement that advocates for diversity and inclusion across world language learning and teaching contexts. - [American University School of Education Online Programs. (2020). Teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students.](https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/culturally-and-linguistically-diverse-students) An article for educators on how to engage culturally and linguistically diverse learners. - [Annenberg Learner. (2004). Valuing diversity in learners. Workshop 6.](https://www.learner.org/series/teaching-foreign-languages-k-12-workshop/valuing-diversity-in-learners/) A free self-paced online workshop that supports language educators to accommodate the needs of diverse learners in their classrooms. - [Connecticut Office of Early Childhood. (2020). Supporting all children using the Connecticut early learning and development standards: Meeting the needs of diverse learners.](https://www.ctoec.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/CT-ELDS-Supplement-Diverse-Learners.pdf) A document that focuses on how to support young children by ensuring access, participation, and benefit. - [Crisfield, E. (2021). Diversity, equity, inclusion, and languages: What are the connections? Council of International Schools.](https://www.cois.org/about-cis/news/post/~board/perspectives-blog/post/diversity-equity-inclusion-and-languages-what-are-the-connections) An article that makes connections between efforts in the realm of diversi…
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:23:38.386Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:23:38.396Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:24:15.917Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:24:15.919Z
        description: Artifact 1: PDF and/or Photos of Classroom Resources
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:24:33.615Z
        description: Artifact 2: Learner Identities and Interests Reflected Materials
        position: 1
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:25:43.375Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:25:43.376Z
        position: 0
    sections: Overview
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      required: true
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **two pieces of evidence**: **Artifact 1: PDF and/or Photos of Classroom Resources** PDFs and/or photos should be evidence of classroom resources that include diverse backgrounds of learners. **Artifact 2: Samples of learners’ identities and interests reflected in a lesson plan and assessment and analysis (200-word limit)** Upload a lesson plan and samples of formative and/or summative assessments that include the diverse learner population you teach. Provide thoughtful analysis of how these assessments represent the learner population you serve and their interests. _If you submit a link, it should be set to “anyone with the link can view” in order to assess._
        required: true
    sections: Reflection
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Reflect on the evidence that you submitted that includes learners of diverse populations by responding to these questions: - How do you learn about the learner population(s) you teach? - How do you get to know your learners? - What impact on the learners’ learning did these resources, activities, or assessments have? - How will you include diversity in your instruction and assessment methods in the future?
        required: true
        word limit: 250

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/CnWvyUXtRU24Xr44x29SpA
name: Safe and Supportive World Language Learning Environments
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/CnWvyUXtRU24Xr44x29SpA/image
description: Educator creates a safe and supportive world language learning environment for every learner.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: designing proficiency-focused language learning
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/mp4334hgpo93d3qm39etcbse54qr7g0g
  narrative: # Key Method The educator utilizes research-based information to support learners in language acquisition. They do this by understanding how the learning environment that they create and a supportive lesson plan allow learners to take risks in their target language output. # Method Components ### Overview How often do learners state that they are not able to do a particular assignment, or do they fail an assessment because they fail to make an attempt? Anxiety, self-doubt, or a lack of value on the content being taught often lead to learners not even trying, let alone being successful, in a world language classroom. Respected American linguist Stephen Krashen (1981) describes this scenario in his Affective Filter Hypothesis. He states that, when learners experience anxiety, do not feel supported in learning, or do not have a motivation to learn, they encounter a type of mental barrier that prevents them from acquiring the language skills and functions they are attempting to master. It is imperative that educators do everything in their power to lower the affective filter and foster language acquisition for their learners. This can be achieved when a safe and supportive learning environment is provided for world language learners. World language educators face a multi-level challenge when creating safe and supportive learning environments for learners because the content that they teach inherently can cause stress in the learning environment. However, findings show that, when learners are trained to use the Target Language (TL), there is a negative correlation between TL use and TL anxiety (Moeller & Roberts, 2013). This is beneficial for educators to know, as pedagogical practices encourage teachers to remain in the TL for a majority of their instruction and learning activities because this promotes the acquisition of language skills necessary for success. In order to maximize the use of the TL and simultaneously lower the affective filter, it is essential that worl…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - Ketsman, O. (2012). Expectations in the foreign language classrooms: A case study. _The Qualitative Report_, 17(53), 1-21. <https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss53/2/> A case study that provides insights about the role of expectations in foreign language classrooms and that offers examples of foreign language pedagogical practices that reflect high expectations. - Krashen, S. D. (1981). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework, 51-79. <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED249773.pdf#page=63> An article that explains Stephen Krashen’s theories of second language acquisition. - Moeller, A., & Catalano, T. (2015). Foreign language teaching and learning. Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska- Lincoln. <https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1195&context=teachlearnfacpub> An article that outlines how a shift in foreign language pedagogy from a specific foreign language method to the measurement of language performance/competency has resulted in a change in the role of the teacher from one of authority/expert to that of facilitator/guide and agent of change. - Moeller, A., & Roberts, A. (2013). Keeping it in the target language. Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education. 162. <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/162> An article that shows how the use of target language can ensure a lively and engaging language experience that can approximate authentic language use and make language learning meaningful. - Thurber, A., & Bandy, J. (2018). Creating accessible learning environments. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved 09/19/2022 from <https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/creating-accessible-learning-environments/> The focus of this guide is to create inclusive and accessible higher education classrooms—beyond accommodation—for a range of learners with disabilities.
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [Clapper, T. C. (2010). Creating the safe learning environment. PAILAL, 3(2), 1-6.](http://tccid.dover.net/Creating%20the%20safe%20learning%20environment.pdf) A newsletter article that offers suggestions for creating a safe, positive, and trusting learning environment. - [Crouse, D. (2012). Going for 90%+: How to stay in the target language. ACTFL The Language Educator. 7(5), 23-27. Alexandria, VA.](https://ppli.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/TLE_Oct12_Article.pdf) An article that discusses the what, why, and how of target language use in the classroom. - [Mulvahill, E. (2021). 18 effective ways to scaffold learning in the classroom. We Are Teachers website.](https://www.weareteachers.com/ways-to-scaffold-learning/) An article that defines scaffolding and offers strategies for supporting learners though scaffolds. - [Page, Holland. (2021). Five strategies to support language learners in the classroom. Participate Learning.](https://www.participatelearning.com/blog/five-strategies-to-support-language-learners-in-the-classroom/) An article that provides a list of strategies to support learners in the dual language classroom. - [Printer, L. (2021). The power of positive emotions in the language classroom. The Motivated Classroom podcast.](https://anchor.fm/themotivatedclassroom/episodes/42--The-power-of-positive-emotions-in-the-language-classroom-e11mvve) In this episode, the speaker provides an overview of the key research in the area of positive emotions in the language classroom and how we can apply it to classes to make the experience more welcoming, fun, and interesting for learners. - [Sauer, T., Arnett, K., Dong, T., Rhodes, R., & Zarrow, T. (2020). National Foreign Language Center Virtual Summit panel discussion: Learning environment.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-LU-a8dbDg) A panel discussion around the question of “How do teachers create a safe and supportive learning environment to prepare for learning?” - [Shaw, J. (2019). 11 world language classroom …
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:55:29.958Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:55:29.964Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:55:51.976Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:55:51.977Z
        description: Artifact 1: Video or Audio Recording, or Classroom Photos
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:57:29.029Z
        description: Artifact 2: Lesson Plan
        position: 1
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:58:54.862Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:58:54.865Z
        position: 0
    sections: Overview
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      required: true
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **two pieces of evidence**: **Artifact 1: Video or Audio (5-8 minutes), or photos of classroom** Submit a video or audio recording that demonstrates evidence of learner TL production based on the safe and supportive WL learning environment. Learners should be using the TL to take risks with communication. If this is not possible, photos of the classroom and materials that show lowered affective filters, extrinsic motivators, and/or student collaboration are acceptable. **Artifact 2: Lesson Plan** Submit a lesson plan that demonstrates the attributes of a safe and supportive learning environment that includes evidence of comprehensible input, support and scaffolds of target language output from students, and learner-centered learning activities. _If you submit a link, it should be set to “anyone with the link can view” in order to assess._
        required: true
    sections: Reflection
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Using the materials that you uploaded in Part 2 above, share your reflection based on the following prompts: - How do the activities of the lesson plan foster TL risk-taking for learners? - What evidence from your experiences proves that learners feel safe and supported in your classroom? - Which efforts did you find to be the most productive in lowering the affective filter?
        required: true
        word limit: 250

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/88guO7k_QRWH34pgEbxoxQ
name: Planning for Proficiency with Functional Goals and Objectives
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/88guO7k_QRWH34pgEbxoxQ/image
description: Educator uses the NCSSFL-ACTFL Can-Do Statements to set goals for learners’ proficiency and give opportunities for learner reflection on growth.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: designing proficiency-focused language learning
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/01m01nff5g4c0b2tnex54x3yyec57phv
  narrative: # Key Method The educator uses the ACTFL Can-Do Statements to set goals for learners’ proficiency in each mode of communication. The educator helps learners use the Can-Do Statements to set their own goals or reflect on their growth over a period of time. # Method Components According to ACTFL, there are four components to implementing Can-Do Statements: **Can-Do Statements describe what learners can do consistently over time** Learners demonstrate what they “can do” consistently in each mode and at each sub-level, in numerous situations throughout the learning process. Learners may be at different levels for different modes (interpretive, interpersonal, presentational) or skills (reading, listening, writing, speaking, signing). **Can-Do Statements help learners set goals as they progress along the proficiency continuum** Can-Do Statements describe what learners can independently do at each sublevel and help pave the way to higher levels. Higher-level skills and functions (e.g., using timeframes, understanding complex texts) need to be introduced at lower sublevels and built upon in order to have independent control of these skills and functions at higher sublevels. **The sets of examples can be adapted to match school, district, or postsecondary curriculum, as well as independent learning goals** Examples include topics that expand across the proficiency continuum, from familiar (daily life, personal experiences, classroom or researched topics) to concrete to abstract. Learners and educators are encouraged to customize the “I can . . .” examples in order to fit the content and context of the learning and the targeted proficiency level. **Can-Do statements are a starting point for self-assessment, goal setting, and the creation of rubrics for performance-based grading** Learners and educators use the statements for self-evaluation to become more aware of what they know and can do in the target language. By using statements aligned to the proficiency scale, educators…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - Ketsman, O. (2012). Expectations in the foreign language classrooms: A case study. _The Qualitative Report_, 17(53), 1-21. <https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss53/2/> A case study that provides insights about the role of expectations in foreign language classrooms and that offers examples of foreign language pedagogical practices that reflect high expectations. - Krashen, S. D. (1981). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework, 51-79. <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED249773.pdf#page=63> An article that explains Stephen Krashen’s theories of second language acquisition. - Moeller, A., & Catalano, T. (2015). Foreign language teaching and learning. Digital Commons @ University of Nebraska- Lincoln. <https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1195&context=teachlearnfacpub> An article that outlines how a shift in foreign language pedagogy from a specific foreign language method to the measurement of language performance/competency has resulted in a change in the role of the teacher from one of authority/expert to that of facilitator/guide and agent of change. - Moeller, A., & Roberts, A. (2013). Keeping it in the target language. Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education. 162. <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/162> An article that shows how the use of target language can ensure a lively and engaging language experience that can approximate authentic language use and make language learning meaningful. - Thurber, A., & Bandy, J. (2018). Creating accessible learning environments. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved 09/19/2022 from <https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/creating-accessible-learning-environments/> The focus of this guide is to create inclusive and accessible higher education classrooms—beyond accommodation—for a range of learners with disabilities.
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [Clapper, T. C. (2010). Creating the safe learning environment. PAILAL, 3(2), 1-6.](http://tccid.dover.net/Creating%20the%20safe%20learning%20environment.pdf) A newsletter article that offers suggestions for creating a safe, positive, and trusting learning environment. - [Crouse, D. (2012). Going for 90%+: How to stay in the target language. ACTFL The Language Educator. 7(5), 23-27. Alexandria, VA.](https://ppli.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/TLE_Oct12_Article.pdf) An article that discusses the what, why, and how of target language use in the classroom. - [Mulvahill, E. (2021). 18 effective ways to scaffold learning in the classroom. We Are Teachers website.](https://www.weareteachers.com/ways-to-scaffold-learning/) An article that defines scaffolding and offers strategies for supporting learners though scaffolds. - [Page, Holland. (2021). Five strategies to support language learners in the classroom. Participate Learning.](https://www.participatelearning.com/blog/five-strategies-to-support-language-learners-in-the-classroom/) An article that provides a list of strategies to support learners in the dual language classroom. - [Printer, L. (2021). The power of positive emotions in the language classroom. The Motivated Classroom podcast.](https://anchor.fm/themotivatedclassroom/episodes/42--The-power-of-positive-emotions-in-the-language-classroom-e11mvve) In this episode, the speaker provides an overview of the key research in the area of positive emotions in the language classroom and how we can apply it to classes to make the experience more welcoming, fun, and interesting for learners. - [Sauer, T., Arnett, K., Dong, T., Rhodes, R., & Zarrow, T. (2020). National Foreign Language Center Virtual Summit panel discussion: Learning environment.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-LU-a8dbDg) A panel discussion around the question of “How do teachers create a safe and supportive learning environment to prepare for learning?” - [Shaw, J. (2019). 11 world language classroom …
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:40:15.218Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:40:15.219Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:40:56.967Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:40:56.968Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:22.618Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:22.619Z
        description: Artifact 1: Planning
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:42.417Z
        description: Artifact 2: Learner Reflection
        position: 1
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:50.401Z
        description: Artifact 3: Goal Setting
        position: 2
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:44:11.367Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:44:11.370Z
        position: 0
    sections: Overview
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your experience with ACTFL Can-Do Statements. - How long have you been using a proficiency-based curriculum and/or Can-Do Statements? - How does your district or school align with a proficiency-based approach? (Provide PD, expectations of Can-Do Statements, and other initiatives that align a proficiency-based curriculum.) - Prior to completing the micro-credential, how familiar were you with ACTFL Can-Do Statements? - Prior to completing the micro-credential, how often did you have learners self-assess and reflect on their proficiency?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      required: true
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: **Can-Do Statements:** Demonstrate the use of Can-Do Statements in your classroom. To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **three pieces of evidence**: **Artifact 1: Planning** Submit a unit or lesson plan that demonstrates backward planning by using Can-Do Statements. The unit or lesson plan must show the alignment between the Can-Do Statements, the unit’s performance targets, and the end-of-course proficiency target. Please also share how the Can-Do Statements are shared with learners and continually referenced throughout the lesson. **Artifact 2: Learner Reflection** Collect three learner work samples from the unit or lesson plan (Artifact 1), wherein learners reflect on their ability to meet the Can-Do Statements, receive feedback, and set a goal. Learners may use a rubric to self-assess and reflect on their progress. Learner work samples may be in the form of video, audio, or written. **Artifact 3: Goal Setting** Submit a written document that explains how you and the learners (from Artifact 2) set goals as a result of their assessment and reflection. For each piece of evidence, submit a brief explanation of the implementation and how it pertains to any of the above functions of Can-Do Statements. _If you submit a link, it should be set to “anyone with the link can view” in order to assess._
        required: true
    sections: Reflection
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: - What did you observe about learner engagement during the lesson? What went well? What might you change in the future? - Were there any shifts in your practice? If yes, what were they? If no, please expand on why you think a shift did not occur.
        required: true
        word limit: 250

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Fjq5vlrySVurbEsRlJi3lQ
name: Teaching about World Language Proficiency
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Fjq5vlrySVurbEsRlJi3lQ/image
description: Educator facilitates learners' understanding of language proficiency and what proficiency looks like at varying levels.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: world language proficiency and interculturality
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/0l4bjeoraoekyntm3b1ugy6dvu1w48of
  narrative: # Key Method The educator uses the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines to design activities that facilitate learner understanding of world language proficiency. # Method Components Language is imperative to learning for, without it, one cannot comprehend or communicate effectively. Understanding proficiency allows learners to drive their own educational experience in language acquisition. It further allows them to better understand what they are able to do in the language and the efficiency of their communication. ### ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines On this topic, ACTFL states “a description of what individuals can do with language in terms of speaking, writing, listening, and reading in real-world situations in a spontaneous and non-rehearsed context.” ACTFL proficiency guidelines progress from novice to distinguished and show what one can do at each level. ### Designing Activities that Facilitate Learner Understanding - Educators use the proficiency guidelines from novice low to intermediate high, either in the target language or first language depending on the proficiency level of the learners, in a lesson wherein formative data can be obtained about learners. comprehension of the various proficiency levels in world language acquisition. - Educators set clear and realistic expectations for their learners regarding proficiency outcomes in language acquisition. Learners demonstrate in the target language their level of proficiency and, in their first language, explain how they can “level up.” - Educators use rubrics to have their learners self-reflect and rate their own level of proficiency at various times throughout the year. The educator shows how proficiency guidelines are embedded into their world language instructional practice and how learners can use these proficiency guidelines to self-assess in order to level up their learning.
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines, 2012. <https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/9uk35iu29ijg3c90pyldqu3qzn7bfevc> - Alhamami, M. (2019). Learners’ beliefs about language-learning abilities in face-to-face & online settings. _Int Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 16_(31). <https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0162-1> The study investigates the factors that influence language learners’ beliefs and how these beliefs impact learners’ motivation to learn a language. - Brantmeier, C., Vanderplank, R., & Strube, M. (2012). What about me?: Individual self-assessment by skill and level of language instruction. _System_. 40. 144–160. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.01.003> The investigation demonstrates the value of learner self-assessment in tandem with language program assessment. - Kissling, E., & O'Donnell, M. (2015). Increasing language awareness and self-efficacy of FL students using self-assessment and the ACTFL proficiency guidelines. _Language Awareness_. 24. 1-20. <https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1099659> A study that investigates learners’ use of the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines to self-assess their language proficiency. - Malone, M., Rifkin, B., Christian, D., & Johnson, D. (2005). Attaining high levels of proficiency: Challenges for language education in the United States. _Journal for Distinguished Language Studies_. 2. <https://www.cal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AttainingHighLevelsofProficiency.pdf> A digest that investigates the availability and adequacy of teaching methods and tools, information technologies, and testing procedures to help language learners achieve high levels of proficiency. It also suggests ways to help develop highly proficient speakers of languages other than English in the United States.
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [Brandeis University. (n.d.). Language proficiency overview video.](https://www.brandeis.edu/world-languages-cultures/language-proficiency/index.html) A video that describes the difference between performance and proficiency and that explains each proficiency level. - [Cabral, Joshua. (2017). What does language look like at the various proficiency levels? _World Language Classroom blog_.](https://wlclassroom.com/2017/01/26/levelup/) The blog post provides graphics that describe the proficiency levels to use with language learners. - [Gasparro, J., & COERLL. (n.d.). Introduction to oral proficiency levels. _The University of Texas at Austin_.](https://oralproficiency.coerll.utexas.edu/) Self-paced learning modules for deepening knowledge around ACTFL proficiency levels. - [Grahn, L., & McAlpine, D. (2017). Language learners with a growth mindset poster. _The Keys to Strategies for Language Learning._ ACTFL. Alexandria, VA. 15.](https://www.grahnforlang.com/uploads/1/1/7/7/117753029/lang_learn_growth_mind_ms.pdf) An infographic that describes the behaviors of good language learners. - [Parker, K. (2012). Explaining proficiency levels to learners. _Creative Language Class._](https://www.creativelanguageclass.com/explaining-proficiency-levels-to-students/) - [ACTFL YouTube page](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiBeZAsXz-RvyL67GJzzlRw) A YouTube channel that contains information regarding language acquisition, proficiency guidelines, and more. - [Shelby County Schools World Language Program. (2016). Pathways to proficiency poster.](https://leveluplanguage.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/7/4/14740796/pathtoproficiency.pdf) A poster that illustrates the progression of the proficiency levels in the form of a pathway that includes examples of what learners can do at each level. - [Shelby County Schools World Language Program. (2016). Performance å la Mode poster.](https://leveluplanguage.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/7/4/14740796/performancealamodeimm.pdf) A poster that illustrates the p…
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:51:36.465Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:51:36.472Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:52:22.683Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:52:22.685Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:31.018Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:31.020Z
        description: Artifact 1: Planning
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:50.881Z
        description: Artifact 2: Understanding of Proficiency Guidelines
        position: 1
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:57.356Z
        description: Artifact 3: Evidence of Learner Proficiency Self-reflection
        position: 2
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:55:30.313Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:55:30.315Z
        position: 0
    sections: Overview
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: 1. What is language proficiency and how is it best showcased in the world language classroom? 2. How do you currently explain proficiency and allow for learners to demonstrate their understanding of proficiency?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      required: true
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **three pieces of evidence**: **Artifact 1: Planning** Submit a document that shows the use of ACTFL proficiency guidelines in a lesson plan or unit plan. **Artifact 2: Understanding of Proficiency Guidelines** Submit three learner work samples that demonstrate learners' understanding of the guidelines for each of the proficiency levels (from novice low to intermediate high) in the: - target language for more advanced learners - in the learners’ first language for novice learners. **Artifact 3: Evidence of Learner Proficiency Self-reflection** Develop a rubric for learners to self-reflect and rate their own level of proficiency. Learners give an example for each component of the rubric in the target language. Submit five self-reflections from learners. _If you submit a link, it should be set to “anyone with the link can view” in order to assess._
        required: true
    sections: Reflection
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Write a personal reflection about your work on this micro-credential. Reflect on the following questions: - Did you improve your knowledge of proficiency by teaching it to others? If so, what did you learn? - What challenges did you face in explaining proficiency to your learners? Was there any prior knowledge you felt would have been helpful for learners before beginning this micro-credential? - How successful were you in incorporating the language of proficiency into your daily teaching in such a way that your learners were able to articulate the definition and showcase their skills in language production?
        required: true
        word limit: 500

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Z4G7MulhQm250-Gjs2IA-g
name: Communicating with Communities about World Language Proficiency
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Z4G7MulhQm250-Gjs2IA-g/image
description: Educator facilitates communication with various school and community groups about teaching for proficiency in the World Language classroom.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: world language proficiency and interculturality
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/k93zecweo8d2kl2nvhgguvy6i5h4uzr8
  narrative: # Key Method The educator develops a plan to communicate about World Language Proficiency based on current research—one that targets one group of school or community constituents to intentionally promote the importance of a proficiency-based curriculum. # Method Components ### Overview The Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition states: “Proficiency-oriented language instruction is a general framework for organizing instruction, curriculum, and assessment. Within this framework, language learners practice the four modalities (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) in order to communicate meaningfully, effectively, and creatively in their target language for real-life purposes. A proficiency orientation promotes intercultural communication by exploring the mosaic of language and culture, so that learners can communicate appropriately and accurately in authentic contexts in the foreign language. Proficiency-based instruction is learner-centered and builds upon what learners need, already know, and can do, and it respects diverse learning styles, while encouraging the development of a wide range of skills and learning strategies.” (Source: carla.umn.edu) With the above fundamentals in mind, the educator advocates for a proficiency-based World Language curriculum by: **Developing a Communication Plan** - Review current research on proficiency-based instruction - Select one interest group (parents/administrators/school board/community business partners, etc.) - Develop a communication plan to educate the targeted interest group on World Language proficiency. An effective communications plan includes a strategic message that is directed at the specific identified audience. The plan must also take into consideration the past, current, and future contexts in which the message is to be shared, the intended outcomes of the message, the key elements of the message, the appropriate medium for sharing the message, and the preferred messengers. **Communicating wi…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - Baldwin, L. (2021). Effective leadership practices in language immersion programs. ACTFL _Foreign Language Annals_, 54(4), 1124-1144. Alexandria, VA. <https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12540> A study that highlights the importance of strong leadership for language immersion programs. - Cansler, L. (2008). Parent attitudes about and involvement with foreign language programs for elementary students. <https://doi.org/10.17615/z4ve-3g36> A study that shows results of a survey of parents whose learners attended an elementary FLES program. - Fox, R., Corretjer, O., & Webb, K. (2019). Benefits of foreign language learning and bilingualism: An analysis of published empirical research 2012–2019. ACTFL _Foreign language Annals,_ 52(4), 699-726. Alexandria, VA. <https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12424> The article is an analysis of research on the benefits of language learning and bilingualism to include cognitive benefits, employability, academic achievement, and a variety of additional benefits. - Graham-Clay, S. (2005). Communicating with parents: Strategies for teachers. _School Community Journal_, v15 n1 p117-129 Spr-Sum 2005. <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ794819.pdf> An article that shows the importance of strong parent-teacher relationships and effective communication strategies in the interest of supporting learning. - Kraft, M. A., & Dougherty, S. M. (2013). The effect of teacher–family communication on student engagement: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. _Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness_, 6(3), 199-222. <https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/kraft_dougherty_teacher_communication_jree.pdf> A study that highlights the effects of teacher-parent and teacher-learner communication on homework completion rates, classroom behavior, and participation in class. - Myende, P. (2013). Sustaining school-community partnerships through effective communication. _Communitas_. 18. 76-94. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273637464_SUSTAINI…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [ACTFL World-Readiness Standards for Learning Languages](https://www.actfl.org/resources/world-readiness-standards-learning-languages) - [Bex, M. (2018). What is proficiency-oriented language instruction? Comprehensible Classroom.](https://comprehensibleclassroom.com/2018/08/14/proficiency-oriented-language-instruction/) An article that provides a beginner’s guide to the proficiency-oriented classroom. - [Colorado Department of Education. (2020). Family and community guide for high school world languages.](https://www.cde.state.co.us/standardsandinstruction/cas-wl-hs-guides) A guide that provides an overview of the learning expectations for learners studying world languages and offers some learning experiences that learners may engage in at school that may also be supported at home. - [Fortune, T. W., & Tedick, D. J. (2003). What parents want to know about foreign language immersion programs. _ERIC Digest_.](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482493.pdf) A guide for parents whose learners are entering a language immersion program. - [Granite Schools. (2021). How DLI students progress toward language proficiency. Utah.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27nemTNmMy4) A video for parents that explains what proficiency is and how learners progress in their language proficiency. - [Great Schools Staff. (2016). Learning a second language: How parents can help.](https://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/learning-a-second-language/) An article that provides a list of tips for how parents can support language learning at home and at their child’s school. - [Great Schools Partnership. (2017). Planning for proficiency: Communication and community engagement.](https://www.greatschoolspartnership.org/proficiency-based-learning/planning-guide/communication-and-community-engagement/) A checklist for school leaders for planning to communicate with and engage school communities that includes a downloadable brief and video. - [Wertz, R. (2020). Proficiency 101 for Parents. Ohio Depa…
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:13:34.264Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:13:34.265Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:02.387Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:02.390Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:31.826Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:31.829Z
        description: Artifact 1: Action Plan
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:58.466Z
        description: Artifact 2: Product Related to Presentation
        position: 1
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:15:05.352Z
        description: Artifact 3: Feedback from Community
        position: 2
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:16:35.971Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:16:35.973Z
        position: 0
    sections: Overview
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: How have you educated yourself and (if applicable) your learners on the components of World Language Proficiency? Considering your personal experiences and the research on proficiency, what do you feel is your role in educating the school community? In your experience, which targeted interest group (school board, parents, administrators, local businesses) could benefit the most from learning about proficiency, and why?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      required: true
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **three pieces of evidence**: **Artifact 1: Action Plan** Select three school community interest groups (school board, parents, administrators, local businesses) that you could reach out to regarding the promotion of a proficiency-based curriculum. Write an action plan stating how you wish to address each of these groups. Be sure to refer to supporting research and resources. **Artifact 2: Product Related to Presentation (slideshow, brochure, video, letter, etc.)** Select one school or community stakeholder from your plan in **artifact 1** to address to promote a proficiency-based curriculum. Share the product best suited to your identified audience (slideshow, brochure, video, letter) in which you share what you learned about advocating for a proficiency-based curriculum. **Artifact 3: Feedback from community** Please submit feedback received from the selected group. How was your plan received? What will your audience do with this knowledge? The feedback can be in any appropriate form, including survey results or written comments. _If you submit a link, it should be set to “anyone with the link can view” in order to assess._
        required: true
    sections: Reflection
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: - What key insights did you learn about communicating with other school community groups about World Language Proficiency? - How did the selected stakeholder group respond to your presentation? How will this increased learning on their part support a more proficiency-focused approach to world language learning in the community? - How will your new learning improve your practices in your current role?
        required: true
        word limit: 500

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/mPxZfAb4RwGsyUjYQaMIdg
name: Formative Assessment Design
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/mPxZfAb4RwGsyUjYQaMIdg/image
description: Educator uses a variety of formative assessment strategies to monitor and adjust instruction in order to maximize learner learning.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: designing proficiency-focused language learning
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/2dkiltks9dmpsz8otjpej2iks6zeo2ap
  narrative: # Key Method The educator designs and implements a variety of formative assessments (checks for understanding) to gather evidence of learner learning in order to inform instruction and provide timely feedback to their learners. # Method Components ### Overview Formative assessment is an ongoing process of collecting evidence of learner learning during instruction to inform next steps that an educator can use for instructional decisions and that learners can use in improving their performance (Moss & Brookhart, 2019). **Any task can be a formative assessment, as long as it provides information that guides subsequent instruction for the educator and guides learners to advance learning** (Wiliam, 2011). In this respect, formative assessment may take a variety of forms such as informal activities, including educator–learner interactions, checks for understanding, small group work, observations, and quizzes. The focus of the definition is on decisions regarding next steps in instruction for current learners, rather than intentions or outcomes. Taking action is the most important aspect to distinguish formative assessment from summative assessment (Bell & Cowie, 2002). However, the assessment need not change the direction of instruction. It might confirm that the planned subsequent actions were appropriate (Wiliam, 2010). “Checking for understanding is an important step in the teaching and learning [formative assessment] process. The background knowledge that learners bring into the classroom influences how they understand the material you share and the lessons or learning opportunities you provide. Unless you check for understanding, it is difficult to know exactly what learners are getting out of the lesson. In fact, checking for understanding is part of a formative assessment system in which educators identify learning goals, provide learners feedback, and then plan instruction based on learners' errors and misconceptions” (Fisher & Frey, 2014). ### Reflect on Your Lan…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - Afitska, O. (2014). Use of formative assessment, self- and peer-assessment in the classrooms: Some insights from recent language teaching and assessment research. _I-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching_, 4(1), 29-39. <https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1068443.pdf> A review of research conducted in L2 classrooms, immersion and mainstream classrooms, that shows that all educators should not only support the learners' linguistic development, butalso formatively assess learners' linguistic knowledge through provision of formative educator feedback and opportunities for learner self- and peer-assessment. - Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2002). The characteristics of formative assessment. In _Formative assessment and science education._ Science & Technology Education Library, vol 12. Springer, Dordrecht. <https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47227-9_4> - De Neve, D., Leroy, A., Struyven, K., & Smits, T. (2020). Supporting formative assessment in the second language classroom: An action research study in secondary education. _Educational Action Research_. <https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docstore/d:irua:2563> An action research article that offers insights into how the learning process of educators implementing formative assessment can be encouraged. - Dmitrenko, N., Budas, I., Koliadych, Y., & Poliarush, N. (2021). Impact of formative assessment on students’ motivation in foreign language acquisition. _East European Journal of Psycholinguistics_, _8_(2). <https://doi.org/10.29038/eejpl.2021.8.2.dmi> An article that shows that a high level of formative assessment can be beneficial for overcoming learners’ low motivation, if learners receive immediate feedback, evaluation of their work, educators’ recommendations, and support. - Fisher, D., Frey, N., (2014). _Checking for understanding: formative assessment techniques for your classroom_. ASCD. - Excerpt: <https://files.ascd.org/staticfiles/ascd/pdf/siteASCD/publications/books/checking-for-understanding-2nd-sample-chapter…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [Curtain, H., & Villarreal, A. (2015). Checking for understanding overview. _Teacher Effectiveness for Language Learning Project_ _and Advance Learning_.](http://www.tellproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AdvanceLearning_CheckingForUnderstanding_Overview_2.pdf) An at-a-glance overview resource for checking for understanding in the language classroom. - [Naditz, N. (n.d.). Formative assessment tools matrix.](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vToW7UCB3vpitp1PDLjbd2H9kei9tiFuRzDcuLnlLRzr5w4EXeLsVfA1jGzKnfcTh5TlICZvTByuPhf/pubhtml) A resource that provides a spreadsheet of technology tools that can be used in the world language classroom for formative assessment. - [Spathis, E. (2021). Designing meaningful assessments in world language classes.](https://www.edutopia.org/article/designing-meaningful-assessments-world-language-classes) An article that gives suggestions for designing assessments that gauge reading and listening comprehension, as well as writing and conversational skills. - [Teacher Effectiveness for Language Learning Project and Advance Learning. (2015). Checking for Understanding.](http://www.tellproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AdvanceLearning_CheckingForUnderstanding_Infographic_4.pdf) An at-a-glance infographic that suggests strategies and approaches for checking for understanding in the language classroom. - [Teacher Effectiveness for Language Learning Project and Advance Learning. (2015). Performance Assessments.](http://www.tellproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/AdvanceLearning_PerformanceAssessments_Infographic_4.pdf) ### Annotating Text - [Annotation Guide](https://www.covcath.org/uploaded/06_Students/Annotation_Guide_AP_Language.pdf) - [Annotating Texts, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill](https://learningcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/annotating-texts/) - [What is Annotating and Why Do It? Eastern Washington University](https://research.ewu.edu/writers_c_read_study_strategies)
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:47:20.211Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:47:20.218Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:47:41.727Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:47:41.728Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:12.781Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:12.782Z
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:30.847Z
        description: Artifact 2a: Instruction
        position: 1
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:38.032Z
        description: Artifact 2b: Learner Work Samples
        position: 2
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:45.467Z
        description: Artifact 2c: Evidence of Informing Instruction
        position: 3
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:54:15.011Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:54:15.012Z
        position: 0
    sections: Overview
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Provide a description of the lesson you and your learners engaged in that shows evidence of planning using formative assessment strategies. - What are the strengths and challenges of your learners based on the results of earlier assessments? - Which formative assessment strategies did you use? - Why did you choose to use these particular strategies? - What data did you intend to collect from these strategies?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      required: true
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **two pieces of evidence**. Artifact 1 is required, and you will choose to submit one artifact from the options of Artifact 2a and Artifact 2b for your second piece of evidence. **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)** Upload a lesson plan that is evidence of planning for formative assessments. The lesson can be in a format of your choosing. Annotations of the lesson (voice recording, written or digital text, etc.) should include explanations about the formative assessment strategies used. _Choose **one** of the following to submit:_ **Artifact 2a: Instruction** Upload a 10- to 20-minute video/audio of class instruction using the lesson plan submitted as Article 1. The video/audio should include evidence of the clear use of formative assessment strategies with learner responses and the timely feedback that you provided. **Artifact 2b: Learner Work Samples** Choose at least three diverse learners to provide samples of their responses from the formative assessments. These learners should represent the spectrum of learning in your classroom. Submit the following: - Rationale (150-word limit) - Why did you choose these individual learners? - How did your choice of formative assessment strategies help you gather information that maximized their learning opportunities? - What did you learn about what your learners are able to do from these assessments? - Work Samples - Upload samples from three learners from the lesson plan provided in Artifact 1. For each learner, submit work examples (writing, audio, images, video, or other products) that demonstrate their responses to the formative assessments and any feedback that you provided as a result of the assessment. **Artifact 2c: Evidence of Informing Instruction** Submit lesson plans that show your use of evidence from the assessments to inform instruction. For example, adjusting activities to address misconceptions or providing additional learning resources before movin…
        required: true
    sections: Reflection
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Provide a reflection on the importance of designing and implementing formative assessments using the following questions as guidance: - How did using formative assessments help you adjust instruction to better meet your learners’ needs in a timely manner? - How might your assessment practices change as a result of what you have learned?
        required: true
        word limit: 500

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/4hc2wRO-Shm6K1jOhsib_w
name: Designing Accessible World Language Learning for All Learners
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/4hc2wRO-Shm6K1jOhsib_w/image
description: Educator designs world language learning opportunities that are accessible for and inclusive of all learners.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: designing proficiency-focused language learning
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/wve6z7w0sxncxssd3najioy1esa5h42r
  narrative: # Key Method The educator shows purposeful planning using inclusive instructional strategies that demonstrate an understanding that average world language learners do not exist. # Method Components ### Overview The educator shows evidence of addressing universal language learning actions in the language classroom that provide a more inclusive and accessible world language learning experience for _all_ the learners they serve. Based on learning sciences and cognitive neuroscience, people vary in how they learn. The way one chooses to learn depends on their background knowledge, cultural background, experiences, and interests. Not only do we all learn in unique ways, but our abilities continually change in response to the environment in real-time, resulting in variability based on the day, hour, or even minute. In an inclusive and accessible world language learning environment, language educators marry the concepts of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) with second language learning pedagogy. Educators use universal language actions (ULAs) such as gestures, procedures, and routines that help create the most favorable learning experiences and unfettered access to the world language curriculum. Through the UDL lens, ULAs are an important component to lesson design that help educators create a learning safety net for all their learners. ### Knowing Your World Language Learners Educators must know their learners. They must be able to identify the strengths and areas of needed growth for each learner. For learners who may have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or 504 Plan, the educator must also know the precise accommodations that have been identified to maximize access to learning in the classroom. ### Implementing Inclusive World Language Instructional Practices Inclusive world language instructional practices are those actions that continually encourage the educator to reflect on their practice as they tailor the ways by which they facilitate access to the languag…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - An average student does not exist: The myth of average: Todd Rose at TEDxSonomaCounty. (2013). Retrieved from <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eBmyttcfU4&feature=youtu.be> High-school-dropout-turned-Harvard-faculty discusses the idea that average does not exist. - Arnett, K., & Mady, C. (2010). A critically conscious examination of special education within FSL and its relevance to FSL teacher education programs. _Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics_, 13(1), 19–36. <https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19927> An article that analyzes how changes in language educator education programs can better prepare them to be inclusive of special education learners in their classrooms. - Arnett, K., & Mady, C. (2018). Exemption and exclusion from French second language programs in Canada: Consideration of novice teachers’ rationales. Exceptionality Education International. 28. <https://ojs.lib.uwo.ca/index.php/eei/article/view/7760> A case study of the openness of language educators, including learners who are ELLs and who have learning difficulties in their programs. - Baggett, H. (2016). Student enrollment in world languages: L'Égalité des chances? ACTFL _Foreign Language Annals_. 49. Alexandria, VA. <https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12173> The study findings indicated that more choices and levels of languages were offered in schools where 50% or more of the learners were white. In addition, results from chi-square tests revealed that African American and Latino male learners were consistently underrepresented in world language classes. - Bond, N. (2003). Differentiating instruction in the LOTE classroom: Focus on special education learners. LOTE CED Lowdown. _American Institutes for Research_. <https://sedl.org/loteced/lowdown/letters_62.html> An article that offers methodological approaches for language educators to differentiate instruction for special education learners. - Bondie, R. S., Dahnke, C., & Zusho, A. (2019). How does changing “one-size-fits…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [Arnett, K. (2016). Access for success: Making inclusion work for language learners website. _Pearson_.](http://www.pearsoncanada.ca/school/afs/index.html) A website full of resources aligned to the book of the same title. - [Cornell, C., DeFelice, D., Gacs, A., McEwen, K., Randez, R., Sonka, K., & Violin-Wigent, A. (2022). Moving toward accessible language teaching. _Center for Language Teaching Advancement, Michigan State University._](https://celta.msu.edu/moving-toward-accessible-language-teaching/) An article that offers a list of suggestions for the redesign of learning environments that maximize accessibility and inclusivity for disabled learners/learners with disabilities. - [Delaware Department of Education. (2013). World language learning for all Delaware Students: Ensuring universal accessibility to high levels of language acquisition.](https://www.doe.k12.de.us/cms/lib/DE01922744/Centricity/Domain/139/WL_Learning_All_Delaware_Students.pdf) A guide for language educators to design instruction that is accessible to all learners. - [Grahn, L., & Johnson, S. (2018). Engaging all language learners. _We Teach Languages_ podcast, Episode 69.](https://weteachlang.com/2018/09/07/ep-69-with-leslie-grahn/) A conversation about strategies for engaging diverse learners in the language classroom. - [Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2021). Quick reference guide: World language learning for students with disabilities.](https://www.doe.mass.edu/worldlanguages/framework/qrg-swd.docx) A guide for language educators to design instruction that meets the needs of learners with disabilities. - [Montgomery C. (2020). Let's get specific: Strategies for supporting students with special needs. _ACTFL Conference_ Online.](https://chericem.weebly.com/special-needs.html) A session presentation on how to support diverse learners with specific special needs in the world language classroom. - [National Foreign Language Resource Center University of Hawa…
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:07:29.038Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:07:29.049Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:07:53.717Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:07:53.719Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:08:27.353Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:08:27.355Z
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:08:57.653Z
        description: Artifact 2a: Instruction
        position: 1
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:09:01.751Z
        description: Artifact 2b: Learner Work Samples
        position: 2
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:16:42.336Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:16:42.338Z
        position: 0
    sections: Overview
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Provide a description of the lesson you and your learners engaged in that shows evidence of planning for the use of inclusive world language instructional strategies or universal language actions (ULAs). - Which learning activities and strategies did you use? - Why did you choose to use these activities and strategies? - What barriers did you hope to eliminate through these activities and strategies?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      required: true
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **two pieces of evidence**. Artifact 1 is required, and you will choose to submit one artifact from the options of Artifact 2a and Artifact 2b for your second piece of evidence. **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)** Upload a lesson plan that shows evidence of planning for the use of inclusive world language instructional practices or universal language actions (ULAs). The lesson can be in a format of your choosing. Annotations of the lesson (voice recording, written or digital text, etc.) should include explanations about strategies used to support access and inclusion. The lesson should include planning that facilitates learner understanding of oral and written language, production of oral and written language, focus and attention in the target language, and/or development and expansion of vocabulary. _Choose **one** of the following to submit:_ **Artifact 2a: Instruction** Upload a 10- to 20-minute video/audio of class instruction using the lesson plan submitted as Article 1. The video/audio should include evidence of the clear use of inclusive world language instructional practices or universal language actions (ULAs) that facilitate learner understanding of oral and written language, production of oral and written language, focus and attention in the target language, and/or development and expansion of vocabulary. **Artifact 2b: Learner Work Samples** Choose a group of three or more diverse learners that you supported for the lesson provided in Artifact 1. (See the Resources section for definition of diverse learners). Submit the following: - Rationale (150-word limit) - Why did you choose this individual learner or group of diverse learners? Include narrative on the data you used to make this decision. - How did your choice of inclusive world language strategies or universal language actions (ULAs) serve to meet the needs or accommodations for these learners? - Work Samples - Upload samples from three le…
        required: true
    sections: Reflection
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Provide a reflection on the importance of understanding learner variability and using inclusive world language instructional strategies or universal language actions (ULAs) among the learners you serve, using the following questions to guide you: - How did using inclusive world language instructional strategies or universal language actions (ULAs) affect how you see your learners as expert learners? - How will addressing learner variability affect your lesson planning in the future? (250-word or 3-minute video/audio recording. _If you submit a link, it should be set to “anyone with the link can view” in order to assess._)
        required: true
        word limit: 250

id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Q1LXTZGiQh6KAEidQmS-3w
name: World Language Proficiency as a Critical Career and Workplace Skill
image:
  id: https://api.badgr.io/public/badges/Q1LXTZGiQh6KAEidQmS-3w/image
description: Educator facilitates learner understanding of language proficiency as a critical career and workplace skill.
issuer: https://api.badgr.io/public/issuers/MYb_o1ZnT8Gv5lDDGzOQlw
tags: world language proficiency and interculturality
criteria:
  id: https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/5nhhnu5pb4yfu6bu1kcav7t130vlvett
  narrative: # Key Method The educator uses varied and authentic resources to design and implement a lesson (or series of lessons) to deepen learners’ understanding of the role languages can play in their current job or future career. # Method Components ### Overview World language educators today have a responsibility to help their learners understand the personal value and importance of learning a language in relation to their current work situation or future career goals. According to ACTFL’s “Making Languages our Business” report, nine out of ten employers rely on employees with language skills other than English. In fact, one in three employers reports an actual language skills gap in their company. Therefore, these findings act as a sort of battle cry for us to help prepare our learners with the level of language proficiency necessary for their particular careers. From their first experience with language learning, learners can start seeing the value of learning another language and how it will play a direct role in their future beyond merely fulfilling a language requirement or getting into college. Before you select materials and design instruction, reflect on your own and your learners’ experiences as language learners. **Reflect on Yourself as a Language Learner** - What languages do you speak? - What jobs have you had in addition to being an educator? - How have you used your languages in your jobs? **Reflect on Your Language Learners** - What motivates learners to learn another language? What past experiences have they had with learning another language? - What role has language learning played in their lives? - What are your learners’ career goals and current part-time jobs? What role do languages play in those? - What CTE pathways offered at your school are your learners most interested in? ### Select Resources That Connect Languages to Careers during Lesson Planning What authentic resources help connect world languages and career skills? Resources—which often cons…
type: BadgeClass
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Supporting Research and Rationale
  narrative: - Antes, T. (2008). But will I ever use this foreign language? Student perceptions of the applicability of foreign language skills. _Foreign Language Annals_, _32_(2), 219-225. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1999.tb02393.x> An article that describes the results of a survey where learners affirm their beliefs about language courses being important to their college education and predict the usefulness of the target language in the future. - Carvalho, A., Olim, L., & Campanella, S. (2021). _The contribution of foreign language learning to employability_ [Paper presentation]. 4th International Seminar: Educação, Territórios e Desenvolvimento Humano. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358475558_The_Contribution_of_Foreign_Language_Learning_to_Employability> The results of this study reveal that foreign language proficiency increases applicants’ probability of recruitment. - Damari, R., Rivers, W., Brecht, R., Gardner, P., Pulupa, C., & Robinson, J. (2017). The demand for multilingual human capital in the U.S. labor market. _Foreign Language Annals,_ _50_(1), 13-37. <https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12241> This study explores the relationship between college graduates’ language skills and labor force requirements. - Malone, M., Rifkin, B., Christian, D., & Johnson, D. (2005). Attaining high levels of proficiency: Challenges for language education in the United States. _Journal for Distinguished Language Studies_, 2. <https://www.cal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/AttainingHighLevelsofProficiency.pdf> A digest that investigates the availability and adequacy of teaching methods and tools, information technologies, and testing procedures to help language learners achieve high levels of proficiency, and suggests ways to help develop highly proficient speakers of languages other than English in the United States. - Risner, M., & Egusquiza, C. (2016). Preparing students for the global workplace: The relevance of languages for specific purposes. In _Dimension_ (pp. 22-3…
extra description:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:ExtraDescriptionExtension
  name: Resources
  narrative: - [ACTFL. (2019). Making languages our business: Addressing foreign language demand among U.S. employers. Alexandria, VA.](https://digitalpromise.box.com/s/wb4xh9vdwuech7z1c1n60myx6d8i965e) A summary of survey results, highlighting the high demand for foreign language skills in the workplace and the implications for education policy. - [ACTFL. (n.d.) Oral proficiency levels in the workplace. Alexandria, VA.](https://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/guidelines/OralProficiencyWorkplacePoster.pdf) A graphic that shows the proficiency levels required for a variety of career paths. - [ACTFL. (2011). 21st century skills map. Alexandria, VA.](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519498.pdf) A document that shows the integration of World Languages and 21st-century skills. - [ACTFL. (2022). ACTFL employability skills and world languages infographic. Alexandria, VA.](https://www.actfl.org/uploads/files/general/Employability-Skills.pdf) An infographic that shows a crosswalk between the Career and Technical Education (CTE) Employability Skills Framework and world language skills. - [Advance CTE: Career Clusters. (2020). National career clusters framework.](https://careertech.org/career-clusters) The National Career Clusters® Framework provides learners with plans of study toward their career goals. - [Arizona State University School of International Letters and Cultures. (2021). Careers and Foreign Languages.](https://silc.asu.edu/sites/default/files/2021-07/career_ready_v16.pdf) A graphic that illustrates the intersection between language skills and career paths. - [Delaware Department of Education. (2022). Languages as Career Skills.](https://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/4064) A one-stop web page with resources for connecting language study with career skills; it also includes links to infographics and promotional materials. - [Delfosse, P. (2020). Workforce- and world-ready with world languages. _The Language Educator_. 15(3), 32-35.](https://www.actfl.org/uploads/files/general/T…
assessment extension:
  type: Extension
  type: extensions:AssessmentExtension
  description: To earn the micro-credential, you must receive a passing evaluation for Parts 1 and 3, and a “Yes” for each component in Part 2. If you collaborated with another educator on this micro-credential, please note that you did so. While collaboration is encouraged, the micro-credential submission should be unique and reflect your own experience and reflections.
  assessments:
    description: (NOT USED)
    type: Artifact
    assessment output: Written responses and artifacts to demonstrate competence
    has group participation: true
    has group evaluation: true
    evaluation method: Rubric-based assessment of work samples
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:51:50.321Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:51:50.323Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:52:26.966Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:55:30.869Z
        position: 0
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:53:23.665Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:53:23.667Z
        description: Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)
        position: 0
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:28.028Z
        description: Artifact 2a: Instruction
        position: 1
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:38.762Z
        description: Artifact 2b: Learner Work Samples
        position: 2
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:50.295Z
        description: Artifact 2c: Evidence of Informing Instruction
        position: 3
    rubrics: Untitled Rubric
      last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:57:50.292Z
      rubric criteria:
        last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:57:50.294Z
        position: 0
    sections: Overview
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Please share information about your teaching context by providing a description of your classroom, including grade level, class size, and relevant demographic information. Also include the following: - What language(s) do you teach? What are the proficiency targets of the levels of language(s) you teach? - What are the demographics of your learners? What is/are the first language(s) of your learners? - How many of your learners have IEPs or 504 Plans? For your learners with IEPs or 504 Plans, what are these learners’ strengths, unique needs, and required supports/accommodations?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Provide a description of the lesson you and your learners engaged in that shows an understanding of language proficiency as a critical career and workplace skill. - How would you describe your learners’ present and future career interests? - How did you connect the CTE pathways in your school with this lesson? - How did you assess your learners’ understanding of the connection between careers and language proficiency?
        required: true
        word limit: 250
    sections: Work Examples / Artifacts
      required: true
      questions:
        type: FileQuestion
        text: To earn this micro-credential, you must submit **three pieces of evidence**. Artifact 1 is required, and you will choose two artifacts from the options of Artifact 2a, 2b, and 2c for your second and third pieces of evidence. **Artifact 1: Annotated Lesson Plan (Required)** Upload a lesson plan that is evidence of planning for establishing an understanding of language proficiency as a critical career and workplace skill. The lesson can be in a format of your choosing. Annotations of the lesson (voice recording, written, or digital text, etc.) should include explanations as to how this fits into your curriculum. In your lesson plan, you should identify the following: - Authentic resources you incorporated into your lesson; - Why you chose these authentic resources; - What data do you intend to collect from the formative assessments used in this lesson; - How you intend to use the data collected to drive future instruction. _Choose **two** of the following to submit:_ **Artifact 2a: Instruction** Upload a 10- to 20-minute video/audio of class instruction using the lesson plan submitted as Article 1. The video/audio should include evidence of learners demonstrating their understanding of language proficiency as a critical workplace skill. **Artifact 2b: Learner Work Samples** Choose at least three learners to provide samples of their responses—from an activity or assessment—that demonstrate their understanding of how their language proficiency is a critical career skill from the lesson. These learners should represent the spectrum of learning in your classroom. Submit the following: - Reflection (150-word limit) - Why did you choose these individual learners? - How did your choice of activity or assessment help you gather information that will maximize their learning opportunities? - What did you learn about what your learners are able to articulate about the connection between language proficiency and career readiness? - How will the results of the assessments help dri…
        required: true
    sections: Reflection
      required: true
      questions:
        type: TextQuestion
        text: Provide a reflection on the importance of establishing an understanding of language proficiency as a critical workplace skill in the world language classroom. How did facilitating learner understanding of language proficiency as a critical career and workplace skill increase the relevancy of second-language acquisition in your classroom? How do you intend to thread the connection between career awareness and language proficiency into your future lessons?
        required: true
        word limit: 500

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how this lesson impacted student learning. Description includes evidence collected to determine learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses some elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Video/audio is annotated. - Instruction is 10–20 minutes, shows whole-group instruction and clear expectations. - Student engagement is evident and clear across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Video/audio is annotated. - Instruction may or may not be 10–20 minutes and shows partial class instruction. - Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or only occurring a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Video/audio is not annotated and/or evidence of whole group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. - All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - A group of students is chosen, but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. - Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but not all of the samples focused on letter-sound relationships, and feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports is provided. - No student writing samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides research-backed methods in the lesson plan summary or activity description that connects to improving print concepts skills.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how students increased their proficiency in the print concepts. Description includes evidence that demonstrated learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is detailed and demonstrates how this activity impacted their students, and how this will affect their future print concepts instruction.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: The lesson plan is complete and includes one or more print concepts skills. - The rationale clearly explains how the assessment was used to guide further print concept instruction.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: The lesson plan is incomplete but addresses one or more print concepts skills. - The rationale requires further explanation describing how the pre-assessment was utilized to guide further print concept instruction.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: The lesson plan is incomplete and does not address one or more print concepts skills. The rationale has not been uploaded.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Video/audio is annotated. Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows whole group instruction with clear expectations. - Student engagement is evident and clear across most of the students and occurs multiple times. - Engagement is high and the educator is providing specific feedback to student

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Video/audio is annotated. Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows minimal instruction. - Student engagement is minimal.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Video/audio is not annotated and/or instruction in print concepts is not evident. Student engagement is minimal.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to how the pre- and post-assessments were used to provide additional information. All pre-and post-assessments from students have been uploaded.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Rationale explaining assessments are unclear or vague. Only the pre-or post-assessments from students have been uploaded but not both.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale does not address how pre- and post-assessments were used.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator describes activity clearly and includes sufficient detail. Description shares reasoning on why it was included, and how it fits within the overall instructional unit. The teaching strategies are clear and are representative of effective Tier 1 reading instruction.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of how this lesson impacted student learning. Description includes lesson effectiveness, and how student understanding assessment occurred. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflects on the impact of student learning in a small group of diverse learners. Educators explain what they have learned and what they will do differently the next time they teach this lesson. Additionally, the educator explains the next steps of instruction for this diverse group of students.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Tier 1 reading lesson plan includes all the required components of effective Tier 1 reading instruction. - Lesson plan provides clear annotations.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Tier 1 reading lesson includes some of the required components of effective Tier 1 reading instruction. - Lesson plan annotations are unclear and/or limited.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Tier 1 reading lesson includes none of the required components. - Lesson plan does not provide annotation or is limited.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Instruction is 20–30 minutes and includes annotations and evidence of implementation of the required components included in the submitted lesson plan. - There is clear evidence of targeted differentiation throughout the lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Instruction may or may not be 20–30 minutes in length and includes annotations and evidence of implementation of some required components included in the submitted lesson plan. - There is evidence of differentiation throughout the lesson.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Instruction may or may not be 20–30 minutes in length and includes annotations and evidence of implementation of few or none of the required components included in the lesson plan. - There is no evidence of differentiation.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Rationale for the method of choosing the diverse group of students is clear and provides an explanation of what, if any, supports and/or accommodations were given. - Educator uploads work samples from 2 or more students that represents a range of abilities.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - A group of students is chosen, but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any supports and/or accommodations were given. - Fewer than 2 samples were uploaded.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Student work samples, description of group, and explanation of any supports and/or accommodations are missing or incomplete.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how they knew students increased their level of fluency. Description includes evidence collected that showed learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses evidence of approaches that develop fluency. - Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses fewer than four elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations are not included

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Video/audio is annotated. Instruction is 10–20 minutes, shows whole-group instruction, and clear expectations. - Student engagement is evident and clear across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Video/audio is annotated. Instruction may or may not be 10–20 minutes, and shows only partial class instruction. - Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or occurs only a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Video/audio is not annotated, and/or evidence of whole group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing a student or group of students. It is clear if additional supports or accommodations were used to meet the needs of diverse learners. - All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Rationale for the method of choosing a student or group of students is unclear or vague. Explanation of necessary accommodations does not clearly address steps the educator took to support the students. - Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but not all of the samples focused on letter-sound relationships; feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports is provided. - No student writing samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how students increased their proficiency in the alphabetic principle. Description includes evidence that demonstrated learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all four elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses fewer than four elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Video/audio is annotated. - Instruction is 10–20 minutes, and shows whole-group instruction and clear expectations. - Student engagement is evident and clear across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Video/audio is annotated - Instruction may or may not be 10–20 minutes, and shows only partial class instruction. - Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or occurs only a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Video/audio is not annotated and/or evidence of whole group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. - All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - A group of students is chosen, but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. - Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but not all of the samples focused on letter–sound relationships; feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports is provided. - No student writing samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides research-backed methods in the lesson plan summary or activity description that connects to improving phonemic awareness.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description or data that supports student growth in this area and shares details about how the educator knew student skills were enhanced through teaching. Evidence is clear and appropriate for student progression.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Reflections clearly indicate how the activity impacted students, and how student progress will guide the educator’s ongoing instruction in the area of phonemic awareness.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: The lesson plan is complete and addresses one or more phonemic awareness skills. Lesson rationale is clear and addresses the needs of diverse learners.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: The lesson plan is incomplete but addresses one or more phonemic awareness skills. Lesson rationale is clear, but does not address the needs of diverse learners.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: The lesson plan is incomplete and does not address one or more phonemic awareness skills. Lesson rationale is not clear and does not address the needs of diverse learners.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Video/audio is annotated. Instruction is at least 10 minutes, shows whole group instruction and clear expectations. - Student engagement is evident and clear across most of the students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Video/audio is annotated. Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows minimal instruction. - Student engagement is minimal.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Video/audio is not annotated and/or evidence of phonemic awareness instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. - Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to how the pre- and post-assessments were used to provide additional information. All pre- and post-assessments from students have been uploaded.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Rationale explaining assessments is unclear or vague. Only the pre- or post-assessments from students have been uploaded but not both.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale does not address how pre- and post-assessments were used. Pre- and post-assessments from students have not been uploaded.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the component(s) students were engaged in to increase phonological awareness skills. Data is clear and appropriate for activity assessment.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of students’ phonological awareness skills and shares details about how the educator knew student skills were enhanced through teaching. Evidence is clear and appropriate for student progression.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: The educator’s reflection on the topic is thorough and includes specificity. It demonstrates how this activity impacted the educator’s strategy and how it will affect the educator’s future instruction.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: The lesson plan is complete and includes one or more components of suggested implementation. Lesson rationale is clear and addresses the needs of diverse learners.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: The lesson plan is incomplete and addresses fewer than four components of suggested implementation. Lesson rationale is clear, but does not address the needs of diverse learners.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: The lesson plan is incomplete and addresses one or none of the components of suggested implementation. Lesson rationale is not clear and does not address the needs of diverse learners.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Video/audio is annotated. Instruction is at least 10 minutes, shows, whole group instruction and clear expectations. - Student engagement is evident and clear across most of the students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Video/audio is annotated. Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows minimal instruction. - Student engagement is minimal.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Video/audio is not annotated and/or evidence of phonological awareness instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. - Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to how the pre- and post-assessments were used to provide additional information. All pre- and post-assessments from students have been uploaded.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Rationale explaining assessments are unclear or vague. Only the pre- or post-assessments from students have been uploaded but not both.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale does not address how pre- and post-assessments were used. Pre- and post-assessments from students have not been uploaded.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Evaluation provides description of the use of explicit instruction practices and their impact on student learning. Description includes evidence used to support the effective use of supporting practices. The responses provide specific information and examples where necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator describes activity description clearly and includes sufficient detail. Description includes narrative of the data used to develop the learning goal. The strategies are clear and are representative of explicit instructional strategies.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflects on the impact of explicit instruction on a small group of diverse learners. The example provides specific information on the type of evaluation used, with examples where necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator explains what they’ve learned and will do differently the next time they teach a lesson using explicit instructional practices with this group of diverse learners. Additionally, the educator will explain the next steps of instruction for this diverse group of students.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Lesson Plan is complete and addresses all elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Lesson Plan is incomplete, and addresses most elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may or may not be present and do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Lesson Plan is incomplete, and addresses two or fewer elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may or may not be present.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is 20–30 minutes and includes annotations. It shows explicit instruction and clear expectations, and student engagement is evident and clear across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be 20–30 minutes and includes annotations. It shows partial explicit instruction. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or occurs only a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Whole class instruction video does not show annotations of explicit instruction or no video of whole class instruction is uploaded.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Rationale is clear as to the data used to determine that the chosen group of 2 or more students is diverse. - It is clear if additional supports and/or accommodations were used to meet the needs of diverse learners. - Student work samples from each student in the group are present along with teacher feedback.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Rationale on the data used to determine a diverse group of students is unclear or not specific. - Explanation on necessary supports and/or accommodations does not clearly address steps the educator took to support diverse learners. - Student work samples may or may not be provided from each student in the group. Teacher feedback is limited.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Rationale is not addressed and/or no explanation of supports and/or accommodations is provided. - Student work samples may or may not be provided but do not reflect work from each student. Teacher feedback is missing or limited.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the school-wide assessment process, identifies assessments used, and when they are given.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator defines their role during each stage of the assessment process. The activity description is clear with sufficient detail to illustrate what the schoolwide and classroom process looks like after assessments are complete.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: The description is clear with sufficient detail to illustrate what the schoolwide and classroom process looks like after assessments are complete. The example provided clearly shows how data aligns to instructional planning of targeted activities.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the instructional planning of activities that targets students’ needs. Description shares evaluation of effectiveness of the process. The responses provide specific information and examples where necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator’s reflection is specific and demonstrates how this competency has affected current practice and how it might impact future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: The graphic is complete and the steps in the assessment process are clear. The assessments are specifically identified. The questions are relevant to the assessment process.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: The graphic may or may not be complete, but there are gaps in the assessment process. Some assessments are specifically identified, and there are a few relevant questions.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: The graphic is incomplete and there is no evidence that an assessment process is used for the purpose of differentiated reading instruction.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Rationale for the instructional plan is clear and relates to the data. - The instructional focus is clear, and there is evidence that it is based on data. The instructional strategies chosen relate to the data and the progress monitoring tool relates to the instructional focus. - It accounts for the diverse needs of all students.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Rationale for the instructional plan is unclear or not specific. - The instructional focus and instructional strategies are unclear or vague. The progress monitoring tool is identified, but the explanation of how it relates to the instructional focus is unclear or not specific. - It accounts for the diverse needs of some students.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale is not addressed, and the instructional plan leaves out one or more of the following: - an instructional focus - instructional strategies - progress monitoring tool - It accounts for the diverse needs of only a few students.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The progress monitoring graph has at least 6 data points. - The narrative is clear and includes a description of the targeted instruction, an accurate interpretation of the data, and a description of next steps in instruction that correlates with the graph.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The progress monitoring graph may or may not have fewer than 6 data points. - The description of the targeted instruction is vague and not specific. The interpretation of the data and the next steps for instruction are both unclear. The relationship between the data and next steps for instruction is not established.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: The progress monitoring graph is absent or has insufficient data. The narrative leaves out one or more of the following: - description of the targeted instruction - interpretation of the data - next steps for instruction

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides descriptions of at least two types of family support provided including specific demographic information used in planning. Activity and strategy description is clear, with sufficient detail to illustrate what the educator and families did to gain new information, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the activity and how they determined success. The responses provide specific information and examples where necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and families, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Annotated planning tool includes all information to identify, review, and summarize data used to determine workshops or supports.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Annotated planning tool includes some information to identify, review, and summarize data used to determine workshops or supports.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Annotated planning tool includes little or no information to identify, review, and summarize data used to determine workshops or supports.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Review of data for at least two workshops and/or family supports is comprehensive, including demographics of families and conclusions of identified need. The link between the two is clearly explained. - Learning plans include sufficient information about the support for families selected as well as the literacy topic of focus. - Annotations are comprehensive and include detailed rationale for inclusion. Planning for family engagement is clear.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Review of data includes demographic information of families and conclusions of identified need are partial – either components are missing or fewer than two are submitted. The link between the data review and the activity is not clear. - Learning plan includes insufficient information about the support for families selected as well as the topic of literacy focus. - Annotations are included but are incomplete. Planning for family engagement is unclear.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: There is insufficient or no data review present. Learning plan includes brief or limited information. Annotations are not included or not complete. There is no clear plan for family engagement.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Rationale for the method for choosing family or group of families is clear. It is clear if additional supports or accommodations were used to meet the needs of diverse learners. - All artifacts of literacy content for workshops and/or family support have been uploaded. - Summary and data analysis are complete.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Rationale for the method of choosing family or group of families is unclear or not specific. Explanation of necessary accommodations does not clearly address steps the educator took to support the diverse learners. - Some artifacts were uploaded, but not all of the samples for the workshops and/or family support. - Summary and data analysis are incomplete.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Rationale is not addressed and/or no explanation of supports is provided. - No artifact samples were uploaded for workshops and/or family support. - Summary and data analysis are not provided.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how students increased their proficiency in the synthetic phonics. Description includes evidence that demonstrated learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all four elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses fewer than four elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Video/audio is annotated. - Instruction is 10–20 minutes, shows whole group instruction and clear expectations, and student engagement is evident and clear across the majority of students and occurs multiple times. - Educator provides immediate and specific feedback to the majority of students.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Video/audio is annotated. - Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or occurs only a few times. - Minimal educator feedback is provided to students.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Video/audio is not annotated and/or evidence of whole group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. - All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - A group of students is chosen, but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. - Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but not all of the samples focused on letter–sound relationships; feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports is provided. - No student writing samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how students increased their high-frequency word knowledge. Description includes evidence that demonstrated learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses some elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Video/audio is annotated Instruction is 10–20 minutes, shows small-group instruction and clear expectations, and specific and immediate teacher feedback is given to the majority of students and occurs multiple times. - Student engagement is evident.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Video/audio is annotated. Instruction may or may not be 10–20 minutes, and shows only partial class instruction with minimal teacher feedback. - Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or occurs only a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Video/audio is not annotated and/or evidence of small group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. - All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - A group of students is chosen, but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. - Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but feedback from the educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports provided. - No student writing samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the lesson that shows evidence of flexible goals aligned to standards, goal-aligned flexible assessments, clear description of how the goal was flexible and understood by students, and description of how the assessment allowed for goal mastery in different ways.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this lesson went, learning goal attainment and mastery, and barriers and their mitigation. The responses provide specific information and examples where necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the importance of writing clear and flexible goals and assessments aligned to that goal in your classroom.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses both elements of the suggested implementation. - Annotations address the lesson context and how the goals and assessment are aligned.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses only one element of suggested implementation. - Annotations may be present but do not clearly address how the goals and assessment are aligned.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and/or addresses no elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations are not included.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: N/A (required artifact)

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows: - Sharing of a clear and flexible goal aligned to a standard - Options for flexible assessment of the learning goal

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be at least 10 minutes but only shows partial evidence of: - Sharing of a clear and flexible goal aligned to a standard - Options for flexible assessment of the learning goal

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: No video of instruction is uploaded.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the group of students. - Three student work samples with teacher feedback on the work have been uploaded - The student work samples represent a group of three students that best demonstrate students working on clear and flexible goals and options for assessments aligned to the goal in your classroom.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The rationale for the method of choosing students or the group of students is unclear or not specific. - Student work samples are uploaded, but there may be fewer than three students represented and/or no educator feedback - The student work does not fully represent students working on clear and flexible goals and options for assessments aligned to that goal.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - The rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports is provided. - Fewer than three or no student work samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the lesson that shows evidence of Multiple Means of Action and Expression, descriptions of, reasoning for, and barriers mitigated for implementing specific learning activities and checkpoints.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this lesson went. It describes student engagement, learning goal attainment, and barriers and their mitigation. The responses provide specific information and examples where necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the importance of providing Multiple Means of Action and Expressing and reducing barriers in the classroom to meet the needs of all students in the classroom.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all three elements of the suggested implementation. - Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be offered Multiple Means of Action and Expression.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses fewer than three elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be offered Multiple Means of Action and Expression.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and/or addresses only one or no elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations are not included.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: N/A (required artifact)

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows: - Options for physical action - Options for expression and communication - Options for executive function

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be at least 10 minutes but shows only partial evidence of: - Options for physical action - Options for expression and communication - Options for executive function

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: No video of instruction is uploaded.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The rationale for the method of choosing the group of students is clear. - Three student work samples with educator feedback have been uploaded. - The student work samples represent how options for physical action, expression and communication, and executive function were provided. - The student work samples demonstrate how the educator planned for providing Multiple Means of Action and Expression.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The rationale for the method of choosing the group of students is unclear or not specific. - Student work samples are uploaded, but the work of fewer than three students may be represented and/or no educator feedback supplied. - The student work samples do not fully represent how options for physical action, expression and communication, and executive function were provided. - The student work samples do not provide a clear demonstration of how the educator planned for providing Multiple Means of Action and Expression.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - The rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports is provided. - Fewer than three or no student work samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the lesson that shows evidence of Multiple Means of Engagement, descriptions of, reasoning for, and barriers mitigated by implementing specific learning activities and checkpoints.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this lesson went. It includes a description of student engagement, learning goal attainment, and barriers and their mitigation. The responses provide specific information and examples where necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the importance of providing Multiple Means of Engagement and reducing barriers in the classroom to meet the needs of all students in the classroom.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all three elements of the suggested implementation. - Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be offered Multiple Means of Engagement.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses fewer than three elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be offered Multiple Means of Engagement.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and/or addresses only one or no elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations are not included.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: N/A (required artifact)

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows: - Options for recruiting interest - Options for sustaining effort and persistence - Options for self-regulation

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be at least 10 minutes but shows only partial evidence of: - Options for recruiting interest - Options for sustaining effort and persistence - Options for self-regulation

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: No video of instruction is uploaded.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - Representation of the layout of the classroom shows consideration in the areas of providing students options for recruiting interest, sustaining effort and persistence, and self-regulation, and includes explanations about the design’s purpose and how providing the students Multiple Means of Engagement drove the design. - A video or images that show the classroom design in action are included.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - Representation of the layout of the classroom shows consideration of one or two areas of providing students options for recruiting interest, sustaining effort and persistence, and self-regulation, and includes partial explanations about the design’s purpose and how providing the students Multiple Means of Engagement drove the design. - A video or images that show the classroom design in action are included.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - Representation of the layout of the classroom shows consideration of only one or two areas of providing students options for recruiting interest, sustaining effort and persistence, and self-regulation, and includes partial explanations about the design’s purpose and how providing the students Multiple Means of Engagement drove the design. - A video or images that show the classroom design in action were not submitted.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the group of students. - Three student work samples with educator feedback have been supplied. - The student work samples represent providing options for recruiting interest, sustaining effort and persistence, and self-regulation and demonstrate how the teacher planned for providing Multiple Means of Engagement.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The rationale for the method of choosing the group of students is unclear or vague. - Student work samples are uploaded, but the work of fewer than three students may be represented and/or no teacher feedback supplied. - The student work samples do not fully represent how options for recruiting interest, sustaining effort and persistence, and self-regulation were provided, and/or it is not clear how the teacher planned for providing Multiple Means of Engagement.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - The rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports provided. - No student writing samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the lesson that shows evidence of Multiple Means of Representation, descriptions of, reasoning for, and barriers mitigated by implementing specific learning activities and checkpoints.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this lesson went. It includes a description of student engagement, learning goal attainment, and barriers and their mitigation. The responses provide specific information and examples where necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the importance of providing Multiple Means of Representation and reducing barriers in the classroom to meet the needs of all students in the classroom.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all three elements of the suggested implementation. - Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be offered Multiple Means of Representation.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses fewer than three elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be offered Multiple Means of Representation.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations are not included.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: N/A (required artifact)

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows: - Options for Perception - Options for Language and Symbols - Options for Comprehension

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be at least 10 minutes but shows only partial evidence of: - Provide Options for Perception - Options for Language and Symbols - Options for Comprehension

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: No video of instruction is uploaded.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The rationale for the method of choosing the groups of students is clear. - Three student artifacts with educator feedback have been uploaded. - The student work samples represent providing options for perception, language and symbols, and comprehension, and demonstrate how the educator planned for providing Multiple Means of Representation.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The rationale for the method of choosing the group of students is unclear or not specific. - Student work samples are uploaded but may represent the work of fewer than three students and/or no educator feedback is supplied. - The student work samples chosen do not fully represent providing options for perception, language and symbols, and comprehension, and/or it is not clear how the educator planned for providing Multiple Means of Representation.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - The rationale for the method of choosing the groups of students is not addressed. No explanation of supports provided. - No student writing samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the lesson that shows evidence of planning for variability, descriptions of, reasoning for, and barriers mitigated by implementing specific learning activities and strategies.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this lesson went, learning goal attainment, and barriers and their mitigation. The responses provide specific information and examples where necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of the importance of considering learner variability and reducing barriers in the classroom to meet the needs of all students in the classroom.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all three elements of the suggested implementation. - Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses fewer than three elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. - Annotations are not included.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: N/A (required artifact)

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows: - Sharing of a clear and flexible goal - Activities that allow for variability within students - Flexible assessment of the learning goal

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be at least 10 minutes but shows only partial evidence of: - Sharing of a clear and flexible goal - Activities that allow for variability within students - Flexible assessment of the learning goal

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: No video of instruction is uploaded.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Representation of the layout of the classroom shows consideration in the areas of goals, materials, and assessment, and includes explanations of the design’s purpose and how learner variability drove the design. A video or images that show the classroom design in action are included.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Representation of the layout of the classroom shows consideration of one or two of the areas of goals, materials, and assessment, and includes partial explanations of the design’s purpose and how learner variability drove the design. A video or images that show the classroom design in action are included.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Representation of the layout of the classroom shows consideration of one or two of the areas of goals, materials, and assessment, and includes partial explanations of the design’s purpose and how learner variability drove the design. A video or images that show the classroom design in action were not submitted.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: - The rationale is clear as to the method for choosing students or groups of students. - Three student artifacts with educator feedback have been uploaded. - The student work samples represent student variability and demonstrate how the educator planned for that variability.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: - The rationale for the method of choosing students or the group of students is unclear or not specific. - Student work samples are uploaded, but the work of fewer than three students may be represented and/or no educator feedback is supplied. - The student work samples do not fully represent student variability and/or it is not clear how the educator planned for variability.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: - The rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports is provided. - No student writing samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 4
quality: Option Not Chosen
description: This option was not chosen.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Instructional steps are clear with sufficient detail to understand how instruction builds background knowledge to impact comprehension.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of how this lesson impacted student learning. Description includes evidence collected to determine learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all three elements of suggested implementation. Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses fewer than three elements of suggested implementation. Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes, shows whole-group instruction, and clear expectations. Student engagement is evident across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows partial-class instruction. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or occurring only a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Evidence of whole group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: A group of students is chosen but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but not all of the samples focused on text structure instruction. Feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports provided. No student assessment samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of instructional steps used to improve reading comprehension and a description of activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how students improved reading comprehension through a deeper understanding of vocabulary. Description includes evidence that demonstrated learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all four elements of suggested implementation. Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses fewer than four elements of suggested implementation. Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes, shows small-group instruction and clear expectations. Specific and immediate educator feedback is given to the majority of students and occurs multiple times. Student engagement is evident across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes, shows partial-class instruction with minimal educator feedback. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or occurring only a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Evidence of small group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: A group of students is chosen but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or provide an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports is provided. No student assessment samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of instructional steps they used to build student knowledge, and activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator describes how students improved reading comprehension through the use of reading strategies. Description includes evidence that demonstrated learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all four elements of suggested implementation. Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses fewer than four elements of suggested implementation. Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes, shows small-group instruction, and clear expectations. Specific and immediate educator feedback is given to the majority of students and occurs multiple times. Student engagement is evident across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes, shows partial-class instruction with minimal educator feedback. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or occurring only a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Evidence of small group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: A group of students is chosen but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports provided. No student assessment samples were uploaded, nor was feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. Current practices in fluency instruction are discussed. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Instructional steps are clear with sufficient detail to understand how the instruction built fluency to facilitate comprehension.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how this lesson impacted student learning and engagement. Description includes evidence collected to determine learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all three elements of suggested implementation. Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses fewer than three elements of suggested implementation. Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes, shows repeated oral reading through educator modeling and partner reading and a comprehension discussion. Student engagement is evident across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows partial-class instruction. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or occurring only a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Evidence of whole group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. The video recording has been uploaded and shows evidence of both the third read and a brief comprehension discussion. Observation notes that address both fluency and comprehension are included.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: A group of students is chosen but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. The video recording has been uploaded, but is not complete. Observation notes from educator were not complete.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Neither video nor observation notes were supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides research-backed methods in the lesson plan summary or activity description that connects to building inferential skills.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description or data that supports student growth in this area and shares details about how educator recognized that student skills were enhanced through teaching. Evidence is clear and appropriate for student progression.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: The educator’s reflection on the topic is thorough and includes specificity. It demonstrates how this activity impacted the educator’s strategy and how it will affect the educator’s future instruction.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: The lesson plan is complete and includes one or more components of suggested implementation. The lesson rationale is clear and addresses the needs of diverse learners.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: The lesson plan is incomplete. Suggested teaching model and/or strategies are missing or are not clearly addressed. Lesson rationale is clear but does not address the needs of diverse learners.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: The lesson plan is incomplete and addresses one or none of the components of suggested implementation. Lesson rationale is not clear and does not address the needs of diverse learners.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Video/audio is annotated. Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows small group instruction and clear expectations. Student engagement is evident and clear across most of the students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Video/audio is annotated. Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows minimal instruction. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or only occurring a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Video/audio is not annotated and/or evidence of inference instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to how pre- and post-assessment data was used before and after learning. All pre- and post-assessments from students were uploaded.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Rationale explaining assessment data is unclear or vague. Some data is incomplete (pre or post).

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale does not address how the pre- and post-assessment data was used. Student pre- and post-assessments were not uploaded.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides research-backed methods in the lesson plan summary or activity description that connect to improving morphology.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description or data that supports student growth in this area and shares details about how educator recognized that student skills were enhanced through teaching. Evidence is clear and appropriate for student progression.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: The educator’s reflection on the topic is thorough and includes specificity. It demonstrates how this activity impacted the educator’s strategy and how it will affect the educator’s future instruction.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: The lesson plan is complete and includes one or more components of suggested implementation. The lesson rationale is clear and addresses the needs of diverse learners.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: The lesson plan is incomplete. Suggested teaching model and/or strategies are missing or are not clearly addressed. Lesson rationale is clear but does not address the needs of diverse learners.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: The lesson plan is incomplete and addresses one or none of the components of suggested implementation. Lesson rationale is not clear and does not address the needs of diverse learners.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Video/audio is annotated. Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows small group instruction and clear expectations. Student engagement is evident and clear across most of the students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Video/audio is annotated. Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows minimal instruction. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or only occurring a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Video/audio is not annotated and/or evidence of inference instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to how pre- and post-assessment data was used before and after learning. All pre- and post- assessments from students were uploaded.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Rationale explaining assessment data is unclear or vague. Some data is incomplete (pre or post).

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale does not address how the pre- and post- assessment data was used. Student pre- and post- assessments were not uploaded.

quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on educator collaborating with a colleague.
position: 0

quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

quality: Passing
description: Educator provides research-backed methods in the lesson plan summary or activity description that connects to improving phonemic awareness.
position: 0

quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description or data that supports student growth in this area and shares details about how the educator recognized that student skills were enhanced through teaching. Evidence is clear and appropriate for student progression.
position: 0

quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

quality: Passing
description: The educator’s reflection on the topic is thorough and includes specificity. It demonstrates how this activity impacted the educator’s strategy and how it will affect the educator’s future instruction.
position: 0

quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

quality: Yes
description: Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses components of narrative language and explicit instruction of narrative language skills. Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.
position: 0

quality: Almost
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses either components of narrative language or explicit instruction but not both. Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.
position: 1

quality: Not Yet
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses neither components of narrative language skills nor explicit instruction. Annotations are not included.
position: 2

quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 15 minutes and shows small-group instruction and clear expectations; specific and immediate educator feedback is given to the majority of students and occurs multiple times. Student engagement is evident and clear across most of the students and occurs multiple times.
position: 0

quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows partial-class instruction with minimal educator feedback. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or only occurring a few times.
position: 1

quality: Not Yet
description: Evidence of small group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.
position: 2

quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.
position: 0

quality: Almost
description: A group of students is chosen, but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or provide an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.
position: 1

quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports provided. No student assessment samples were uploaded; no feedback supplied.
position: 2

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how this lesson impacted student learning. Description includes evidence collected to determine learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all four elements of suggested implementation. Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses less than four elements of suggested implementation. Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows whole-group instruction and clear expectations. Student engagement is evident and clear across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows partial-class instruction. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students, or only occurring a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Evidence of whole-group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: A group of students is chosen but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but not all of the samples focused on informational writing instruction; feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports provided. No student assessment samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how this lesson impacted student learning. Description includes evidence collected to determine learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all components of narrative writing instruction and the writing process. Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses some components of narrative writing instruction and the writing process. Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, addresses one or no components of narrative writing instruction, and/or does not follow the components of the writing process. Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows whole-group instruction and clear expectations. Student engagement is evident and clear across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows partial-class instruction. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students, or only occurring a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Evidence of whole-group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were made. All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: A group of students is chosen but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were made. Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but not all of the samples focused on informational writing instruction; feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports provided. No student assessment samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how this lesson impacted student learning. Description includes evidence collected to determine learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all components of opinion writing instruction and the writing process. Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete and addresses some components of opinion writing instruction and the writing process. Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, addresses one or no components of opinion writing instruction, and/or does not follow the components of the writing process. Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes and shows whole-group instruction and clear expectations. Student engagement is evident and clear across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows partial-class instruction. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students, or only occurring a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Evidence of whole-group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were made. All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: A group of students is chosen but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were made. Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but not all of the samples focused on informational writing instruction; feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports provided. No student assessment samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides description of instructional steps they used to build student knowledge, and activities that students did to gain competencies, including the data used.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description for how this lesson impacted student learning. Description includes evidence collected to determine learning gains. Descriptions are specific, with examples provided when necessary.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how this activity impacted both educator and students, and how it will affect the educator’s future practice.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses all four elements of suggested implementation. Annotations address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses fewer than four elements of suggested implementation. Annotations may be present but do not clearly address the lesson context and how all students will be supported.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Annotated lesson plan is incomplete, and addresses one or no elements of suggested implementation. Annotations are not included.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Instruction is at least 10 minutes, shows whole-group instruction, and clear expectations. Student engagement is evident and clear across the majority of students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows partial-class instruction. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or occurring only a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Evidence of whole group instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the diverse group of students and provides an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. All original student assessment samples have been uploaded with educator feedback. Feedback is specific, relevant, timely, and appropriate to the phase of learning in the larger lesson.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: A group of students is chosen but the description is unclear and does not explain the diversity or an explanation of what, if any, modifications and/or accommodations were given. Some student assessment samples were uploaded, but not all of the samples focused on text structure instruction. Feedback from educator was lacking one of the following elements: specific, relevant, timely, or appropriate to the phase of learning.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale is not addressed. No explanation of supports provided. No student assessment samples were uploaded, nor feedback supplied.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom that includes grade level, class size, demographic information, and any other relevant information. If relevant, information is provided on the educator collaborating with a colleague.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides research backed methods in the lesson plan summary or activity description that connects to improving Tiered Vocabulary awareness.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description or data that supports student growth in this area, and shares details about how the educator knew student skills were enhanced through teaching. Evidence is clear and appropriate for student progression.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Passing
description: The educator’s reflection on the topic is thorough and includes specificity. It demonstrates how this activity impacted the educator’s strategy and how it will affect the educator’s future instruction.

position: 2
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: The lesson plan is complete and includes one or more components of suggested implementation. The lesson rationale is clear and addresses the needs of diverse learners.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: The lesson plan is incomplete. Suggested teaching model and/or strategies are missing or are not clearly addressed. Lesson rationale is clear, but does not address the needs of diverse learners.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: The lesson plan is incomplete and addresses one or none of the components of suggested implementation. Lesson rationale is not clear and does not address the needs of diverse learners.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Video/audio is annotated. Instruction is at least 10 minutes, shows small group instruction and clear expectations. Student engagement is evident and clear across most of the students and occurs multiple times.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Video/audio is annotated. Instruction may or may not be less than 10 minutes and shows minimal instruction. Student engagement is minimal, limited to a few students or only occurring a few times.

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Video/audio is not annotated and/or evidence of inference instruction is not evident in the video/audio clip. Student engagement is not evident.

position: 1
quality: Yes
description: Rationale is clear as to how pre assessment data was used in planning instruction. All pre assessments and student work samples from students were uploaded.

position: 2
quality: Almost
description: Rationale explaining pre assessment data is unclear or vague. Some data and/or work samples are incomplete (pre or post).

position: 3
quality: Not Yet
description: Rationale does not address how the pre assessment data was used. Student pre assessments and work samples were not uploaded.

description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:26:49.619Z
position: 0
quality: Passing

description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:26:49.619Z
position: 1
quality: Not Passing

description: Educator completely answers each of the questions using personal examples and supporting evidence. Responses clearly illustrate experience with and knowledge of particular digital tools. Writing is organized and easy to understand.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:27:16.317Z
position: 0
quality: Passing

description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:27:16.317Z
position: 1
quality: Not Passing

description: The description is complete and clearly addresses how it will enhance interpersonal or presentational communication. The task clearly outlines how the learner will interact with the digital tool and what steps they will take to complete the task. Information regarding designed scaffolds to ensure that learner access and success is included.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:27:57.191Z
position: 0
quality: Yes

description: The description may or may not be complete and may or may not clearly address how it will enhance interpersonal or presentational communication. The task may or may not clearly outline how the learner will interact with the digital tool and/or what steps they will take to complete the task. Information regarding designed scaffolds to ensure learner access and success may or may not be included.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:27:57.191Z
position: 1
quality: Almost

description: The description is not complete and/or does not clearly address how it will enhance interpersonal or presentational communication. The task is missing or does not outline how the learner will interact with the digital tool and/or what steps they will take to complete the task. Information regarding designed scaffolds to ensure learner access and success is not included.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:20.200Z
position: 2
quality: Not Yet

description: The uploaded video/audio is at least 10 minutes long and clearly demonstrates the task using the digital tool. The video/audio also demonstrates learner responses using the tool.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:26.315Z
position: 0
quality: Yes

description: The uploaded video/audio may or may not be at least 10 minutes long and may not clearly demonstrate the task. The video/audio also may not demonstrate clear evidence of the clear use of the digital tool with learner responses.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:26.315Z
position: 1
quality: Almost

description: No video/audio was uploaded, or it did not demonstrate the task. The video/audio did not demonstrate evidence of the clear use of the digital tool with learner responses.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:28.980Z
position: 2
quality: Not Yet

description: This artifact was not chosen as one of the two options.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:29.684Z
position: 3
quality: Optional

description: The rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the three learners. Work samples from three learner work samples with educator feedback have been supplied. The learner work samples clearly demonstrate their use of the digital tool as they completed the learning task.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:30.248Z
position: 0
quality: Yes

description: The rationale is unclear or vague as to the method for choosing the three learners. Learner work samples are uploaded, but the work of fewer than three learners may be represented, or educator feedback may be missing. The learner work samples may not clearly demonstrate their use of the digital tools as a part of the learning task.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:30.248Z
position: 1
quality: Almost

description: The rationale is not addressed. Work samples from three learners with educator feedback were not provided.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:35.847Z
position: 2
quality: Not Yet

description: This artifact was not chosen as one of the two options.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:28:36.449Z
position: 3
quality: Optional

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:32:51.725Z
position: 0
quality: Inadequate

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:32:51.725Z
position: 1
quality: Adequate

description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates what they have learned about selecting and implementing digital tools and what impact these tools had on their learners.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:33:08.925Z
position: 0
quality: Passing

description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:33:08.925Z
position: 1
quality: Not Passing

description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:34:52.526Z
position: 0
quality: Passing

description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:34:52.527Z
position: 1
quality: Not Passing

description: Educator completely answers each of the questions using personal examples and supporting evidence. Response clearly illustrates experience with and knowledge of implementing a research-backed grammar in context approach, such as the PACE model or the CAPA sequence. Writing is organized and easy to understand.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:35:15.827Z
position: 0
quality: Passing

description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:35:15.827Z
position: 1
quality: Not Passing

description: Educator submits a video or audio that depicts a grammar in context lesson during which learners are: 1. Providing multiple examples in context, 2. Analyzing examples for patterns and proposing rules, and 3. Providing additional opportunities to practice in additional authentic contexts. If PACE or CAPA were not used, the educator shares which model or sequence was used instead.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:12.514Z
position: 0
quality: Yes

description: The video or audio does not address all three elements for grammar in context, and a model other than CAPA or PACE were used and was not explained.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:12.514Z
position: 1
quality: Almost

description: An audio or video was not uploaded.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:24.525Z
position: 2
quality: Not Yet

description: The annotation is specific and accurately addresses the sequence of grammar in context lesson.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:25.292Z
position: 0
quality: Yes

description: The annotation is uploaded, however does not accurately match the video or audio, and may not be specific in its annotation.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:25.292Z
position: 1
quality: Almost

description: An annotation was not uploaded.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:33.493Z
position: 2
quality: Not Yet

description: Contains 3 learner work samples that show how learners are engaging with grammar in context. The examples should be from the same activity. Evidence and explanation are thorough and pertain to the three functions of grammar in context in the classroom.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:34.543Z
position: 0
quality: Yes

description: Contains fewer than 3 pieces of evidence and does not address how learners were engaged with grammar in context.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:34.543Z
position: 1
quality: Almost

description: Learner work samples were not included.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:36:40.701Z
position: 2
quality: Not Yet

description: Educator shared specific observations on learner engagement, successes, and areas of growth. Reflection is clear regarding learner autonomy regarding grammar rules, and any shifts in practice that may have occurred are explained.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:38:37.276Z
position: 0
quality: Passing

description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:38:37.276Z
position: 1
quality: Not Passing

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:45:01.664Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:45:07.297Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:44:45.487Z
quality: Yes
description: Unit goals are submitted and are clearly reflected in the summative assessment prompt
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:44:45.487Z
quality: Almost
description: Unit goals are submitted, however, the correlation with the summative assessment is somewhat weak.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:47:54.192Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Unit goals are not submitted and/or do not reflect the tasks of the summative assessment.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:47:54.845Z
quality: Yes
description: All modes of communication are assessed and submitted. Learners are assessed using real-world scenarios. The assessment reflects the learning that occurred through unit goals.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:47:54.846Z
quality: Almost
description: Summative assessment is submitted but missing one of the following: a mode of communication assessed, a real-world scenario, or a strong connection to unit goals.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:48:01.799Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Summative assessment is not submitted or missing two or more of the following: a mode of communication assessed, a real-world scenario, or a strong connection to unit goals.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:48:00.759Z
quality: Yes
description: A learner sample is submitted, along with a brief description of learner performance.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:48:00.759Z
quality: Almost
description: A learner sample is submitted but does not include a description of learner performance.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:48:06.243Z
quality: Not Yet
description: A learner sample is not submitted.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:46:42.251Z
quality: Inadequate
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:46:42.251Z
quality: Adequate
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:49:30.727Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator thoughtfully reflected on their new learning and demonstrated how they will continue to grow in this area. Educator included their successes and areas for growth.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:49:30.727Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:58:54.696Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:58:54.697Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:59:27.077Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator completely answers each of the questions using personal examples and supporting evidence. Response clearly illustrates knowledge and experience in differentiating between performance and proficiency within the world language classroom. Writing is organized and easy to understand.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:59:27.077Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T16:00:19.940Z
quality: Yes
description: The unit plan is detailed and clearly demonstrates alignment to the unit’s objectives, the unit’s performance targets, and the end-of-course proficiency target. The unit explains the 3 assessments and how they relate to the unit targets.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T16:00:19.940Z
quality: Almost
description: The unit plan may not be detailed and/or clearly demonstrate alignment to the unit’s objectives, the unit’s performance targets, and the end-of-course proficiency target. The unit may not explain all 3 assessments and how they relate to the unit targets.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T17:43:27.462Z
quality: Not Yet
description: The unit plan is not detailed and does not clearly demonstrate alignment to the unit’s objectives, the unit’s performance targets, and/or the end-of-course proficiency target. The unit does not explain the relationship between the assessments and the unit targets.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T17:43:28.058Z
quality: Yes
description: All three learner work samples demonstrate proficiency-oriented feedback provided by the educator to level up their work. The work samples also demonstrate how learners took this feedback and used it as a part of a self-reflection cycle to reflect on their language performance and make improvements for the future.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T17:43:28.059Z
quality: Almost
description: Fewer than three learner work samples demonstrate proficiency-oriented feedback provided by the educator to level up their work. The work samples may not demonstrate how learners took this feedback and used it as a part of a self-reflection cycle to reflect on their language performance and make improvements for the future.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T17:43:35.909Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Learner work samples do not demonstrate proficiency-oriented feedback provided by the educator to level up their work. The work samples do not demonstrate how learners took this feedback and used it as a part of a self-reflection cycle to reflect on their language performance and make improvements for the future.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T17:44:57.012Z
quality: Passing
description: Response thoughtfully addresses the impact that the micro-credential has had on the educator’s practice in promoting proficiency in the world language classroom. Reflection includes personal examples and supporting evidence that are organized and easy to understand.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T17:44:57.012Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:23:38.396Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:23:38.397Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:24:15.919Z
quality: Yes
description: PDFs/photos provide evidence of an inclusive learning environment and resources representing the learner population.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:24:15.919Z
quality: Almost
description: Evidence does not represent all backgrounds of learners.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:24:32.466Z
quality: Not Yet
description: No effort has been made to represent the diverse learner population.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:24:33.615Z
quality: Yes
description: Educator analyzes how lesson plan and assessment(s) represent the learner population they teach. There should be a strong connection between Part 1 content and this artifact.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:24:33.615Z
quality: Almost
description: Educator analyzes connection of lesson plan and learner assessment with learner demographics, but does not include samples of assessment.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:24:39.033Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Samples do not accurately reflect learners in the classroom.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:25:43.376Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and explains the impact this method will have in their future classroom practices.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T15:25:43.376Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:55:29.964Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:55:29.964Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:55:51.978Z
quality: Yes
description: Video/audio recording or set of classroom photos demonstrate multiple efforts of creating a safe and supportive classroom for WL learners (including high expectations of learners, self-efficacy practices, and extrinsic motivators).
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:55:51.978Z
quality: Almost
description: Artifacts submitted include two or more components of a safe and supportive classroom.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:56:28.013Z
quality: Not Yet
description: There is no evidence of a safe and supportive classroom environment suitable for learners to take risks using the TL.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:57:29.030Z
quality: Yes
description: Lesson plan is complete. It includes comprehensible input and learner-centered activities.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:57:29.030Z
quality: Almost
description: Lesson plan is incomplete and is missing one of the key components required (comprehensible input or learner-centered activities).
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:57:32.159Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Lesson plan does not include both comprehensible input and learner-centered activities.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:58:54.865Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and explains the impact this method has in classroom practices leading to learner TL production.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:58:54.865Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:40:15.219Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:40:15.219Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:40:56.968Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator completely answers each of the questions using personal examples and supporting evidence. Response clearly illustrates experience with and knowledge of World Language Proficiency. Writing is organized and easy to understand.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:40:56.969Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:22.619Z
quality: Yes
description: The plan demonstrates backward planning using Can-Do Statements and shows specific alignment between the Can-Do Statements, the unit’s performance targets, and the end-of-course proficiency target. The plan addresses how Can-Do Statements are shared with learners and referenced throughout the lesson. An explanation of the implementation and how it pertains to any of the above functions of Can-Do Statements is clear and specific.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:22.619Z
quality: Almost
description: The plan does not address all elements of the prompt; evidence is provided that only shows minimal use of Can-Do Statements in planning the unit/lesson. Contains limited explanation of the artifact and how it pertains to any of the above functions of Can-Do Statements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:41.350Z
quality: Not Yet
description: The plan is not provided or does not show use of Can-Do Statements in planning the unit/lesson. There is either vague or no explanation of the artifact and how it pertains to any of the above functions of Can-Do Statements.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:42.417Z
quality: Yes
description: All three learner work samples are submitted, and they include learner reflections regarding their ability to meet the Can-Do Statements, receive feedback, and set a goal. An explanation of the implementation and how it pertains to any of the above functions of Can-Do Statements is clear and specific.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:42.417Z
quality: Almost
description: Fewer than three learner work samples are submitted, and do not fully address reflections regarding their ability to meet the Can-Do Statements, receive feedback, and set a goal. Contains limited explanation of the artifact and how it pertains to any of the above functions of Can-Do Statements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:48.867Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Either no or minimal learner work samples are submitted, and reflections are unclear or non-specific. Work samples do not demonstrate self-reflection. There is either vague or no explanation of the artifact and how it pertains to any of the above functions of Can-Do Statements.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:50.401Z
quality: Yes
description: Goal Setting document explains how educator and learners set goals as a result of their assessment and reflection. Goals are specific and relevant to the unit/lesson and learner reflection. An explanation of the implementation and how it pertains to any of the above functions of Can-Do Statements is clear and specific.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:50.401Z
quality: Almost
description: Goal Setting document does not directly explain how educator and learners set goals as a result of their assessment and reflection. Goals are vague and/or not relevant to the unit/lesson and learner reflection. Contains limited explanation of the artifact and how it pertains to any of the above functions of Can-Do Statements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:41:57.251Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Either no or minimal Goal Setting is provided. There is either vague or no explanation of the artifact and how it pertains to any of the above functions of Can-Do Statements.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:44:11.370Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator shared specific observations on learner engagement, successes, and areas of growth. Reflection clearly explains any shifts in practice that may have occurred.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T14:44:11.370Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:51:36.472Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:51:36.472Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:52:22.685Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a description of their classroom grade level, language level, class size, demographic information, and responses to each of the reflection questions.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:52:22.685Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:31.020Z
quality: Yes
description: Lesson or unit plan is complete and directly shows planning for the use of ACTFL proficiency guidelines.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:31.020Z
quality: Almost
description: Lesson or unit plan is incomplete and does not directly demonstrate planning for the use of ACTFL proficiency guidelines.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:50.232Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Lesson or unit plan is incomplete or not submitted.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:50.881Z
quality: Yes
description: Three learner work samples are submitted. The work samples show a clear understanding of the guidelines for each of the proficiency levels in the target or first language.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:50.882Z
quality: Almost
description: Only one or two learner work samples are submitted, or the work samples do not clearly outline an understanding of the guidelines for each of the proficiency levels in the target or first language.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:56.723Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Learner work samples are incomplete or not submitted.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:57.357Z
quality: Yes
description: The educator created a rubric that is robust and aligns to appropriate proficiency goals and that allows for learners to thoroughly self-reflect and rate their own level of proficiency. Five learner self-reflections are submitted and clearly relate to the rubric.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:53:57.357Z
quality: Almost
description: The educator created a rubric that does not align or is not appropriate for proficiency goals. The rubric does not allow learners to thoroughly self-reflect and rate their own level of proficiency. Fewer than five learner self-reflections are submitted.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:54:07.041Z
quality: Not Yet
description: The submission is incomplete, and it does not include either the rubric or contains fewer than five of the learner self-reflections.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:55:30.315Z
quality: Passing
description: Response thoughtfully addresses the impact the micro-credential has had on the educator’s practice in promoting proficiency in the world language classroom. Reflection includes personal examples and supporting evidence that is organized and easy to understand.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-05T20:55:30.315Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:13:34.265Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:13:34.266Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:02.390Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator completely answers each of the questions using personal examples and supporting evidence. Response clearly illustrates experience with and knowledge of World Language Proficiency. Writing is organized and easy to understand.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:02.390Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:31.829Z
quality: Yes
description: Action plan addresses three (3) targeted interest groups, details how and why they could communicate to them, and uses current research to support their plan.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:31.829Z
quality: Almost
description: Action plan is missing or has one incomplete component: addresses three (3) targeted interest groups, details how and why they could communicate to them, and uses current research to support their plan.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:57.470Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Action plan is missing or has more than one incomplete component: addresses three (3) targeted interest groups, details how and why they could communicate to them, and uses current research to support their plan.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:58.466Z
quality: Yes
description: Product is professional, includes examples from research and experience, and is suitable for the target audience.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:14:58.466Z
quality: Almost
description: Product is almost thorough and professional enough to present to the target audience, but it is missing a few details.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:15:04.432Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Product is not ready to present to the target audience. Product is missing several components.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:15:05.352Z
quality: Yes
description: Artifact includes feedback from the audience and demonstrates what they learned and how they plan to use the information.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:15:05.352Z
quality: Almost
description: Artifact includes feedback from the audience but does not demonstrate what they learned or how they plan to use the information.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:15:10.834Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Artifact does not contain feedback from the audience.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:16:35.973Z
quality: Passing
description: Response thoughtfully addresses the impact the micro-credential has had on the educator’s practice in promoting World Language Proficiency. Reflection includes personal examples and supporting evidence that is organized and easy to understand.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T16:16:35.973Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:47:20.218Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:47:20.218Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:47:41.728Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator completely answers each of the questions using personal examples and supporting evidence. Responses clearly illustrate experience with and knowledge of formative assessment strategies. Writing is organized and easy to understand.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:47:41.728Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:12.782Z
quality: Yes
description: The annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses evidence of planning for formative assessments. Annotations clearly address rationale for use of formative assessment strategies.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:12.782Z
quality: Almost
description: The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and/or addresses some evidence of planning for formative assessments. Annotations may be present, but they do not clearly address rationale for use of formative assessment strategies.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:30.197Z
quality: Not Yet
description: The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and/or does not address evidence of planning for formative assessments. Annotations are not included.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:30.847Z
quality: Yes
description: The uploaded video/audio is at least 10 minutes long and clearly demonstrates the instruction outlined in the annotated lesson plan. The video/audio also clearly demonstrates evidence of the clear use of formative assessment strategies with learner responses and the timely feedback provided by the educator.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:30.847Z
quality: Almost
description: The uploaded video/audio may or may not be at least 10 minutes long and may not clearly demonstrate the instruction outlined in the annotated lesson plan. The video/audio also may not demonstrate clear evidence of the clear use of formative assessment strategies with learner responses and/or the timely feedback provided by the educator.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:36.363Z
quality: Not Yet
description: No video/audio was uploaded, or it did not demonstrate the instruction outlined in the annotated lesson plan. The video/audio did not demonstrate evidence of the clear use of formative assessment strategies with learner responses and/or the timely feedback provided by the educator.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:36.982Z
quality: Optional
description: This artifact was not chosen as one of the three options.
position: 3

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:38.032Z
quality: Yes
description: The rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the three learners. Work samples from three learner work samples with educator feedback have been supplied. The learner work samples clearly demonstrate their responses to the formative assessment identified in the annotated lesson plan.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:38.032Z
quality: Almost
description: The rationale is unclear or vague as to the method for choosing the three learners. Learner work samples are uploaded but the work of fewer than three learners may be represented, or educator feedback may be missing. The learner work samples may not clearly demonstrate responses to the formative assessment identified in the annotated lesson plan.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:43.997Z
quality: Not Yet
description: The rationale is not addressed. Work samples from three learners with educator feedback were not provided.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:44.668Z
quality: Optional
description: This artifact was not chosen as one of the three options.
position: 3

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:45.467Z
quality: Yes
description: Lesson plan is submitted that clearly shows how instruction has been adjusted to respond to formative assessment results.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:45.467Z
quality: Almost
description: Lesson plan is submitted but it may not clearly show how instruction has been adjusted.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:52.382Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Lesson plan is not submitted or does not demonstrate adjustments in instruction made from formative assessment results.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:48:53.033Z
quality: Optional
description: This artifact was not chosen as one of the three options.
position: 3

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:54:15.012Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how they were able to adjust instruction based on their learners’ needs. The responses provide specific information and examples where necessary and include how the educator’s assessment practices may change in the future.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:54:15.012Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:07:29.049Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:07:29.049Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:07:53.719Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides complete responses to each of the reflection questions on inclusive world language instructional practices or universal language actions.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:07:53.719Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:08:27.355Z
quality: Yes
description: The annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses evidence of using inclusive world language instructional practices or universal language actions. Annotations clearly address rationale for use of the identified strategies.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:08:27.355Z
quality: Almost
description: The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and/or addresses some evidence of planning for inclusive instruction. Annotations may be present, but they do not clearly address rationale for use of identified strategies.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:08:45.200Z
quality: Not Yet
description: The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and/or does not address evidence of planning with inclusive strategies or universal language actions Annotations are not included.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:08:57.653Z
quality: Yes
description: The uploaded video/audio is at least 10 minutes long and clearly demonstrates the instruction outlined in the annotated lesson plan. The video/audio also clearly demonstrates evidence of the clear use of inclusive instructional strategies or universal language actions with learner responses and timely feedback provided by the educator.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:08:57.653Z
quality: Almost
description: The uploaded video/audio may or may not be at least 10 minutes long and may not clearly demonstrate the instruction outlined in the annotated lesson plan. The video/audio also may not demonstrate clear evidence of the clear use of inclusive instructional strategies or universal language actions with learner responses and/or timely feedback provided by the educator.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:08:59.917Z
quality: Not Yet
description: No video/audio was uploaded, or it did not demonstrate the instruction outlined in the annotated lesson plan. The video/audio did not demonstrate evidence of the clear use of inclusive instructional strategies or universal language actions with learner responses and/or the timely feedback provided by the educator.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:09:00.905Z
quality: Optional
description: This artifact was not chosen as one of the two options.
position: 3

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:09:01.752Z
quality: Yes
description: The rationale is clear as to the method for choosing the three learners. Work samples from three learner work samples have been supplied. The learner work samples clearly demonstrate their responses to inclusive instructional strategy or universal language action identified in the annotated lesson plan.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:09:01.752Z
quality: Almost
description: The rationale is unclear or vague as to the method for choosing the three learners. Learner work samples are uploaded but the work of fewer than three learners may be represented. The learner work samples may not clearly demonstrate responses to the inclusive instructional strategy or universal language action identified in the annotated lesson plan.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:09:09.384Z
quality: Not Yet
description: The rationale is not addressed. Work samples from three learners were not provided.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:09:10.469Z
quality: Optional
description: This artifact was not chosen as one of the two options.
position: 3

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:16:42.338Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and provides information and examples where necessary about how the educator’s use of inclusive world language instructional strategies or universal language actions impacted how they see their learners, as well as how they will plan for the future.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-22T18:16:42.338Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:51:50.323Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator provides a thorough description of their classroom, including grade and language level, class size, relevant demographic information, and accommodation supports for learners with IEP or 504 plans.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:51:50.323Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:55:30.869Z
quality: Passing
description: Description of the lesson educator and learners engaged in is thorough, and includes an understanding of language proficiency as a critical career and workplace skill. Educator describes their learners’ career interests, how they connect to the school’s CTE pathways, and a clear assessment strategy on understanding the connection between careers and language proficiency.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:55:30.869Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:53:23.667Z
quality: Yes
description: The annotated lesson plan is complete and addresses evidence of planning for developing an understanding of language proficiency as a career and workplace skill. Annotations clearly address rationale for use of the assessment(s) contained in the lesson or lessons. Lesson plan includes what data will be collected from the formative assessment, and intentions for how the data will drive future instruction.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:53:23.668Z
quality: Almost
description: The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and/or addresses some evidence of planning for developing an understanding of language proficiency as a career and workplace skill. Annotations may be present, but they do not clearly address rationale for use of the assessment(s) contained in the lesson or lessons. Lesson plan is not specific or convincing with regard to what data will be collected from the formative assessment, and intentions for data use are not tied to future instruction.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:26.915Z
quality: Not Yet
description: The annotated lesson plan is incomplete and/or does not address evidence of planning for developing an understanding of language proficiency as a career and workplace skill. Annotations are not included.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:28.028Z
quality: Yes
description: The uploaded video/audio is at least 10 minutes in duration and clearly demonstrates the instruction outlined in the annotated lesson plan. The video/audio also clearly demonstrates evidence of the clear use of authentic resources and formative assessments with learner responses and the timely feedback provided by the educator.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:28.028Z
quality: Almost
description: The uploaded video/audio may or may not be at least 10 minutes in duration and may not clearly demonstrate the instruction outlined in the annotated lesson plan. The video/audio may not clearly demonstrate evidence of the clear use of authentic resources and formative assessments with learner responses and/or may not demonstrate the timely feedback provided by the educator.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:35.212Z
quality: Not Yet
description: No video/audio was uploaded or it did not demonstrate the instruction outlined in the annotated lesson plan. The video/audio did not demonstrate evidence of the clear use of authentic resources and formative assessments with learner responses and/or may not demonstrate the timely feedback provided by the educator.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:35.896Z
quality: Optional
description: This artifact was not chosen as one of the three options.
position: 3

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:38.763Z
quality: Yes
description: The reflection is 150 words. It clearly addresses why the individual learners were chosen, explains how the choice of activity aided in the gathering of information to maximize learning opportunities, and addresses what was learned about learners and their understanding of the connection between proficiency and career readiness. The reflection also addresses how the results of the assessments will drive future instruction.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:38.763Z
quality: Almost
description: The reflection is less than 150 words. It addresses to some extent why the individual learners were chosen, attempts to explain how the choice of activity aided in the gathering of information to maximize learning opportunities, and attempts to address what was learned about learners and their understanding of the connection between proficiency and career readiness. The reflection also attempts to address how the results of the assessments will drive future instruction.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:44.345Z
quality: Not Yet
description: The reflection is far less than 150 words and does not address all questions.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:45.095Z
quality: Optional
description: This artifact was not chosen as one of the three options.
position: 3

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:50.296Z
quality: Yes
description: Lesson plan shows use of evidence from the assessments to inform instruction—for example, adjusted activities to address misconceptions or provide additional learning resources before moving to the designed instructional sequence.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:50.296Z
quality: Almost
description: Lesson plan shows some use of evidence from the assessments to inform instruction. Lesson plan shows only one adjusted activity to address misconceptions or provide additional learning resources before moving to the designed instructional sequence.
position: 1

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:52.130Z
quality: Not Yet
description: Lesson plan shows little or no use of evidence from the assessments to inform instruction. Lesson plan shows no adjusted activities to address misconceptions or provide additional learning resources before moving to the designed instructional sequence.
position: 2

last change date time: 2023-05-04T15:01:53.280Z
quality: Optional
description: This artifact was not chosen as one of the three options.
position: 3

last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:57:50.294Z
quality: Passing
description: Educator reflection is specific and demonstrates how they were able to adjust instruction based on their learners’ needs. The responses provide specific information and examples where necessary and include how the educator’s assessment practices may change in the future.
position: 0

last change date time: 2023-05-04T14:57:50.294Z
quality: Not Passing
description: Submission does not meet passing requirements.
position: 1