You are on page 1of 2

Universidad Nacional

Centro de Investigacin y Docencia en Educacin

Divisin de Educologa- Sistema de Estudios de Posgrado
Maestra en Educacin con nfasis en el Aprendizaje del Ingls
Evaluacin en el Aprendizaje del Ingls
Facilitadora: Cindy Rodrguez Soto

Name: _____

Jose Pablo Amador _______ Date. July 5th,2015 . Obt. Pts 56/ __39__ %15/__10.4___ Grade 100/____69___
Design of a Written/Listening Test

Rubric instructions: The following rubric will be used to grade your assignment and also to guide you through the
assignment requirements. After reading your assignment, the facilitator will assign a level of completion to each
criterion. Each level of completion is described bellow, so that you understand what the facilitator means with a
developing or accomplished. Please take some time to read the descriptors and the criterion. The facilitator will
also add comments when necessary.
Exemplary: It means that the corresponding criterion was evident and/or well developed. Participant demonstrates mastery and understanding of the
criterion requested. 4pts
Accomplished: It means that the criterion was well developed but the is room for improvement. Participant demonstrates good understanding of the criterion
requested. There might be something missing and not fully developed but it did not compromise the quality of the assignment. 3pts
Developing: Participant demonstrated understanding of the criterion by developing it, however it is somewhat incomplete or needs improvement. Participant
demonstrates to be moving forward in her/his learning process but further support and deeper development or completeness is required. Participant may want
to double check notes, readings; or ask for further explanations/support from peers or facilitator. 2pts
Needs further improvement: It means there was a modest development or presence of the corresponding criterion. Participant may want to double read
assigned readings. Student may want to consider double-checking notes and requesting for the support of peers and facilitator. The criterion needs more
development and analysis, or needs to be entirely stated. 1pt. If the criterion was not included, student will get 0pts.

Design of a Written/Listening Test


The test designed was a minimum of 40pts including a listening, a Reading

comprehension, grammar and/or vocabulary (a total of three sections
All the cornerstones where clearly taken into account while designing the




1-2 pts
The instructions were clear, including the chronology of the exam (e.i I
Part, II Part, etc), skill assessed, context, item instruction, total points, and
any other aspect that the participant considers important, or the item



5-6 pts


Please check on cornerstone of

authenticity , validity (in terms of
the exam matching with course
objectives) and usefulness, specially
for the level.

The items designed had an evident communicative purpose where
students have specific context, and meaning making is required.
All items designed were challenging enough, including, when necessary,
extra options, paraphrasing, or any other strategy to avoid giving away the
right answer.
The test included complete answer key and the corresponding audios. The
images and texts included were clear to understand (in terms of quality of
images, font side and type, etc).
Audios, texts, grammar and vocabulary, and the exam in general were
authentic texts or situations were the target language/content could be
The listening part took into account listening conventions such as not
asking for answers said within the first 30 seconds, providing three options
in case of MCQ, playing the recording twice, and any other studied in class
or included in the readings.
There were variety of formats used, allowing students to demonstrate
knowledge through different skills and items (for example, not only gap
filling, not only identify items, etc).
The vocabulary and grammar items were designed avoiding biased
responses or give-away answer. This was assured by compiling all the item
design conventions discussed in class and within the reading (such as
apple and oranges, one extra option in TRUE and FALSE, not overlap of
content, etc)
The reading items were designed avoiding biased responses or give-away
answer. This was assured by compiling all the item design conventions
discussed in class and within the reading (such as using paraphrasing to
promote meaning making, writing items in the same order as answers are
found in the reading, etc).
The rationale was at least one page (no more than two) long and included
an analysis of each of the parts of the exam, explaining why an specific
item was chosen (in terms of content or objectives), why was an specific
text chosen, or any other aspect that the participants considers is
necessary to explain.


Test did not include answerkey.

Please take into account that it did

not include context either.

It was mostly fill in the blanks or


1-2 pts


5-6 pts