06 Jul Part 1 Article ReviewAcross the nation, states are joining toge

Part 1 Article ReviewAcross the nation, states are joining together to create technology-based assessments aligned with the Common Core State Standards in English language arts, literacy, and math. These assessments will build a pathway to college and career readiness by the end of high school, mark students’ progress toward this goal from third grade on, provide teachers with information to inform instruction and provide student support. Considering what you know about assessing reading performance, what are the benefits and drawbacks of using one of these computer-based programs?Investigate the Internet and other resources for different types of electronic assessments. Determine if an electronic assessment is more efficient than the traditional method, or is it just a replication of the traditional method online.Critique (3) professional journal articles that discuss reading assessment, using the format listed below. The references should be from cited from 2009-Present.Please include the current original article. All assignments should be in APA Style. The articles will be critiqued using the following format. 12 pt. font double spaced. 700 word count.Author of article.Title of article.Source of article, publication date and volume.Source of article (summary).State its impact on education.Give your personal reactions.Part 2 Reflection Review In a 640 word count discuss your final thoughts as a teacher and student in the classroom: 1) what was your learning experience in this course. 2) identify some ideas that you would use in a classroom for students in all grades research and contact this to one of the Common Core Standards. 3) what was your overall experience in the course and did the course meet your expectations. Use 12 pt. fontReferencesAfflerbach, P. (Ed.). (2010). Essential readings on assessment. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Allington, R. L. (2005). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Allington, R. L., & Walmsley, S. A. (2007). No quick fix, the RTI edition: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Athans, S. K., & Devine, D. A. (2010). Fun-tastic activities for differentiating comprehension instruction, grades 2-6. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Blythe, T., Allen, D., & Powell, B. S. (2007). Looking together at student work (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). (2008). Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. (2010). Standards for the assessment of reading and writing. Newark, DE: author.Israel, S. E. (2007). Using metacognitive assessments to create individualized reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Scanlon, D. M., Anderson, Kimberly L. (2010). Using the interactive strategies approach to prevent reading difficulties in an RTI context. In M. Y. Lipson & K. K. Wixon (Eds.), Successful approaches to RTI: Collaborative practices for improving K-12 literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1994). The road not taken: An integrative theoretical model of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27(2), 91-103, 122.Valencia, S. W., & Buly, M. R. (2004). Behind test scores: What struggling readers really need. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 520-531.6203