Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EDCS 647
Informal Reading Inventory-
Literacy Learners Case Study
(artifact 2)
Both the ILA 3 and IDA D standards recognize the importance of the proper
administration and analysis of assessments and the importance of using standard based tools.
Both standards place emphasis on collecting data, both initially and continuously through
progress monitoring. Results are then used to shape and guide instruction in order to optimize
student learning and maximize positive outcomes, which is the ultimate goal. Both standards
highlight the importance of creating a comprehensive report that is easily communicated. The
standards differ in that the IDA Standard D places emphasis on the importance of a thorough
understanding of the phonological, decoding, oral reading, spelling, and writing skills that are
typically assessed. This is important in order to understand when atypical results show up in
assessments.
The main reason for administering assessments is to discover what skills students have
and which skills they need. To use the appropriate assessment, literacy specialists must be very
familiar with different assessments types used in their school and also be familiar with other
research based assessments available. The ultimate goal of assessing and evaluating student
performance is to optimize student learning outcomes. Analysis of assessment information can
indicate whether the student is reading at grade level (or above or below) and areas of strengths
and need, such as oral reading fluency, spelling, comprehension etc. Students’ progress should
be continuously monitored and, through data collection and analysis, instruction should be
adjusted accordingly. In my current position as a trained literacy specialist, collaborating with
classroom teachers is essential for student success. Reports of my findings are generated and
shared with the RTI team and classroom teachers. Literacy Specialists must be able to create
comprehensive reports that are easily communicated to inform teachers, parents and
administration and recommend further instruction.
Summary of Artifacts
The pre / post assessment information shown below in artifact 1 was extracted from a
semester long Literacy Learner’s Case Study (LLCS) from a Literacy Assessment class (EDCS
647). The subject of the case study was a first grade student who struggled with reading. The
assessment data shown was collected using the Observation Survey (Clay, 2013). The
intervention for the student in between the two assessments, was based on Clay’s (2005) Reading
Recovery Program and sought to develop oral reading fluency through building sight word
fluency. The assessment information on the left was collected after the first week of school. The
instruction was modified to reflect assessment results. On the right, the post text information was
collected in December and shows the student’s skill level after the intervention.
Justification of Artifacts
A third artifact (artifact #3) is added to further demonstrate my ability to show that I am
able to use a variety of assessment tools so that I may choose the best assessment tool for the
student and situation. IDA Standard 3 states that literacy professionals are able to choose and
administer an appropriate assessment and interpret the results to evaluate and plan instruction.
The Qualitative Reading Inventory - (QRI-6), the Spelling Inventory and the CBM Writing
assessment are 3 tools I received training in through Sped 639 Advanced Fundamentals of
Language and Literacy. Competence in administration of and analysis of these assessment tools
is demonstrated through the summary of implications / analysis portion of the table shown in
artifact 3 below. The student scored at an instructional level pre-primer for the word list, oral
reading fluency and comprehension. Word automaticity is very low, affecting oral reading
fluency which is slow and halting. Reading words in context was slower and choppier than when
he read the sight word list in isolation. This suggests a need for an increased sight word bank to
in turn assist fluency. Analysis of the expository text passage at the primer level on which the
student scored at a frustration level revealed that when the student comes to a word he doesn’t
know, he will fill in, omit, or miscue subsequent words to create a meaningful sentence. It seems
as though his strategy is to invent his own story following the unknown word. This greatly
disrupts the text’s authentic meaning and throws the student off for subsequent sentences.
Analysis of the narrative text passage at the pre-primer level on which the student scored at an
instructional level revealed that he uses visual strategies to read words. That is, his miscues have
similar letter and / or sound patterns. He read there for where, here for he and stable for table
(which affected his retell in which he talked about horse stables which was not in the story at
all). Additionally it should be noted that the student self-corrected one time during passage
reading saying here for he and then correcting. Analysis of the concept questions, retell and
comprehension questions revealed that the student tends to go off topic. Repeating the questions
seemed to ‘bring him back’. He was unable to answer in a concise way and gave additional
non-relevant information with the concept questions and the retelling of the story. The
comprehension questions revealed that he was better able to answer explicit questions than
implicit questions and this suggests that concrete information versus inference may be easier for
this student to process. The Elementary Spelling Inventory revealed the student’s overall spelling
stage is at a Middle in Within Word Pattern. He correctly spelled 6 out of 25 words and
accumulated 29/62 feature points. The areas of strength for the student were initial and final
consonants and digraphs. He did not know the ch digraph when it occurred in the middle of the
word (marched) and he did not know wh. The student did well on blends, attaining 6/7. He did
not know pl. The student needs work with vowel blends (oi, er, ew, ar, ow). He experiences
confusion with syllable junctures and made errors with double r’s, t’s, l’s and p’s. This student
seems to enjoy writing and this is a strength. He is also very imaginative and this fuels his
writing. He writes significantly slower than same aged peers. He produced 19 words in 3
minutes. Of the words he wrote, 18 / 19 were spelled correctly. The story starter from the CBM
written expression probe peaked and maintained his interest. He used periods but not capitals.
The above analysis demonstrates my ability to effectively apply ILA standard 3 and IDA
Standard D. I have demonstrated through detailed explanation of the artifacts that I am able to
choose the appropriate assessment and interpret and evaluate the results to guide individual
student instruction.