Thursday, March 20, 2014
Weather, A Brave new World,Dead Batteries and Fun Days at the Gray Bar Motel
Between school closings due to weather and being frozen at work, I have been having a rough time meeting with my assigned student. Next week will hopefully be more productive. Overall, my experience has been excellent. Karen Maull, my mentor teacher, is awesome! I sat in on two English Dept. PLCs. During the first the discussion centered on a father who was trying to ban Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and during the second PLC, testing data was reviewed. Also learned that if your computer battery isn't holding a charge you should by a new one before your computer no longer operates.
|
Reading Diagnostic Assessment
|
Purpose of Assessment
|
Strengths
|
Weaknesses
|
Assessment
Appropriateness
|
|
Slosson Intelligent Test
(SIT)
|
Estimation of general
verbal cognitive ability or index of verbal intelligence
|
-Quick (10-20) min.
-Easy to administer
-question-and-answer format
|
- Should only be used as screening measure
-follow-up assessment usually necessary
|
Appropriate for screening
purposes for individuals ages 4 and over
|
|
Slosson Oral Reading Test
(SORT)
|
Estimation of target word
recognition levels for children and adults
|
-Quick(3-5) min
-Can also be used to assess student progress
-can determine the student’s reading level
|
- Does not measure all aspects of reading such as word knowledge
and comprehension
|
Appropriate as a
screening instrument and to assess a student's progress, grade level in
reading, and needs
|
|
Basic Reading Inventory
(BRI)
|
Used to help gather
information for instructional decision-making in reading
|
-Easy to administer
-allows teachers to gain insight into reading behaviors and
reading ability
|
Resulting scores do not always align with other assessments
|
Appropriate literacy
assessment that identifies needs, suggests strategies, and tracks progress
|
|
Wepman's Auditory
Discrimination Test (WADT)
|
Used to measure the
ability of children to recognize small differences between English phonemes
|
-Quick(5-10)min
-inexpensive
-identifies auditory discrimination problems
|
- A poor results could be the result of a hearing impairment and
not the ability of the child
-usually not a sole assessment
|
Appropriate for screening
children for auditory discrimination deficits and for identifying children
who are slower than average in developing auditory discrimination skills
|
|
TEST OF VISUAL PERCEPTUAL
SKILLS – 3RD Edition (TVPS-3)
|
Used to determine a
child's visual perceptual strengths and weaknesses in multiple skill areas
one of which is visual discrimination
|
-Easy-to-use
-answers to questions can be vocalized or pointed at with finger
scoring is quick and easy
|
-No time limit on responding to answers plus multiple subtests
could lead to longer testing times
|
Appropriate in the
determination of the child's visual perceptual strengths and weaknesses
|
|
Psychological Processing
Checklist–Revised (PPC–R)
|
Used to evaluate the
processing disorder is likely in a child by rating observable and measurable
characteristics and behaviors in the classroom.
|
-Quick scoring process
-results easy to interpret
-results can be used to facilitate communication between professionals
and parents
|
-Relies on observational skills of the administer
|
Appropriate in assessing
psychological processing disorders
|
When my youngest son was in third grade I was told by his teacher that he was reading a 10th grade level. This is not surprising as a kid is constantly reading something. My oldest son, while making much improvement, still struggles with reading because of a processing delay. Only recently has my oldest son found enjoyment in reading. So how do two kids from the same environment end up on opposite ends of the reading spectrum ? It's not really a mystery. Sure, they had different personalities and different abilities. That's just a small part of it. There are so many aspects, skills and abilities that affect a child's ability to not only read but learn to read. One deficit in one area of reading could easily prevent the child from mastering the reading process. This is why assessment for reading is a necessity. Identifying reading deficits through assessment enables teachers to determine areas of need for student seven difficulty with reading. Different reading tests assess different aspects of the reading process. The above table compares and contrasts five assessments in regard to their purpose, strengths, weaknesses, and appropriateness.
The Slosson Intelligent Test (SIT) is intended to provide a quick estimate of general verbal cognitive ability or index of verbal intelligence. Stress is easy to administer and score. All 187 items are presented in question-and-answer format and assess the cognitive domains of vocabulary, General Information, similarities and differences, comprehension, quantitive ability, and auditory memory. It is recommended that this assessment be used for screening purposes and that follow-up assessment also be administered.
The Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT), much like the The Slosson Intelligent Test is a quick and easily administered assessment. It is used to estimate target word recognition levels for children and adults. This is not a diagnostic assessment and does not measure all aspects of reading such as word knowledge and comprehension. An estimated reading level for students is the result of this assessment. The SORT can also be used to assess student progress, student grade level in reading, and to determine if further diagnostic assessment is necessary.
The Basic Reading Inventory is a relatively quick and easily administered individual test that assesses the five core components of effective reading instruction. This assessment is also used to gather information for instructional decision-making in reading. The BRI is an appropriate literacy assessment that identifies needs, suggests strategies, and tracks progress.
The Wepman's Auditory Discrimination Test (WADT) is an assessment used to measure the ability of children to recognize small differences between English phonemes. It is a quick and easily administered assessment that identifies auditory discrimination problems. It is appropriate for screening children for auditory discrimination deficits and for identifying children who are slower than average in developing auditory discrimination skills. One drawback of this assessment is that poor scores could actually be the result of a hearing problem and not an auditory discrimination deficiency.
The Test of Visual Perceptual Skills– 3RD Edition (TVPS-3) Is used to determine a child's visual perceptual strengths and weaknesses in multiple skill areas one of which is visual discrimination. The interesting thing about this assessment is that answers can be either vocalized or pointed at with a finger. This means that the student doesn't necessarily have to have command of verbal language to take a test. Another interesting characteristic of this test is that there no time limit on answers. This could, however, result in longer test times.
The Psychological Processing Checklist–Revised (PPC–R) Used to evaluate the processing disorder is likely in a child by rating observable and measurable characteristics and behaviors in the classroom. This is an appropriate assessment for identifying psychological processing disorders. Out of the five assessments that I researched, this is the only one that didn't directly involve the student. This assessment usually consists of a teacher rating observable and measurable behaviors of the student classroom. Therefore, the results of this assessment are somewhat affected by the observational skills of the administer.
Most of the above assessments were relatively inexpensive and are easy to administer. They were all appropriate in determining deficiencies in different areas of the reading process. While all of the assessments had some degree of weakness, none were at the point where the assessment would be considered invalid.
Slosson Oral Reading Test: http://cps.nova.edu/~cpphelp/SORT.html
Slosson Intelligence Test:http://www.cps.nova.edu/~cpphelp/SIT.html
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Prezi Presentation
Check out my Prezi presentation on the research article " Addressing Summer Reading Setback Among Economically Disadvantaged Elementary Students"
Prezi Presentation
Prezi Presentation
Research Article Summary and Reflection
This is my research article summary and reflection. The article, "Addressing Summer Reading Setback among Economically Disadvantaged Elementary Students " was written by Richard L. Allington and Anne McGill-Franzen and describes the purpose method and results of their study that tested their hypothesis that providing elementary school students from low income families with the supply of self-selected books would improve summer reading setback.
Research Article Summary and Reflection
Joseph Rezac
MAS 7998 Reading Practicum III
In their article “Addressing Summer Reading Setback Among Economically
Disadvantaged Elementary Students” Richard L Allington and Anne McGill Franzen described
the purpose, method and results of their study that tested their hypothesis that providing
elementary school students from low-income families with a supply of self-selected books
would improve summer reading setback. The article was originally published in Reading
Psychology: An International Journal Fall 2010.
The summer reading setback is a well-established phenomenon (Alexander, Entwisle, &
Olson, 2007; Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2003; Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, &
Greathouse, 1996; Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 1997) Briefly, research on summer learning
loss has provided reliable evidence that the reading achievement of economically disadvantaged
students slides back a few months every summer. Although the role that summer reading setback
plays in the reading achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and economically
advantaged students began to be discussed 20 to 30 years ago (Hayes & Grether, 1983; Heyns,
1978, 1987), little educational policies addressing either the issue or the impact of summer
reading setback has been produced. (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010). Allington and McGill-
Franzen designed their study as an initial step in developing an evidence base for interventions
that might address summer reading setback and thereby narrow the persistent achievement gap
between more and less economically advantaged children. In their study they incorporate factors
that influence the summer reading setback such as summer reading activity and book access.
Additionally, they conducted their study over a three-year period. The majority of previous
studies had been conducted over only a one-year period.
Allington and McGill-Franzen selected students from 17 high poverty elementary schools
into large school districts in Florida. The students were divided into two groups, an experimental
treatment group and a control group. For three consecutive years the children the experimental
treatment group selected books during a book fair that Allington and McGill-Franzen ran to
supply books for summer reading. The children of the control group received no books. Both
groups were considered demographically equivalent(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010). As a
primary measure of reading proficiency, they relied on the state-mandated reading assessment
known as The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT). They gathered survey data at
the end of each summer from both the treatment and the control groups. Questions and possible
responses were read aloud to participants to ensure they understood the questions being asked.
The primary interest was with items that requests information about summer reading activity,
access to books, and home reading support(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010). In the spring of
each year a book fair was held at each school and the students were able to come down and
select 15 books of which they would receive 12. The books available were selected by a research
team with a concern for text difficulty and interestingness. Books were selected in four broad
categories: Pop Culture, books that feature characters and topics that were current in the broader
popular media, Series Books, titles from the most popular series books as indicated by sales
figures, Culturally Relevant, books by minority authors and/or featured minority characters or
regional themes, and Curriculum Relevant, books whose topics were topics that would be
studied by the participants of the study the following year(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010).
Allington and McGill-Franzen’s findings indicate that providing easy access to self-
selected books for summer reading over successive years does, in fact, limit summer reading
setback. “We found that the experimental treatment group, which received the summer books for
three consecutive summers, reported more often engaging in voluntary summer reading and had
significantly higher reading achievement than the control group” (Allington & McGill-Franzen,
2010). They also found that the reading gains the students from the most economically
disadvantaged families in the study were found to be larger, perhaps because he students have
the most restricted access to books. Allington and McGill-Franzen state that their longitudinal
outcomes are more consistent larger than those reported for other summer book interventions.
They also state of their study differs from earlier summer book studies in several ways: younger
subjects completed grades one and two at outset versus completed grades 3,4,5 or 6, self-selected
summer books versus experimenter-selected books, three years of book distribution versus single
yearbook distribution(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010). Each of these factors, Allington &
McGill-Franzen state, may be important in explaining the observed positive effects on reading achievement.
Allington & McGill-Franzen conclude that their study provides the best evidence to date
that ensuring easy and continuing access to self-selected books for summer reading is one
potential strategy for addressing summer reading setback and, therefore addressing the reading
achievement gap that exists between students from more and less economically advantaged
families(Allington & McGill-Franzen,2010).
I was not surprised of the outcome of the study, mainly because of my own personal
experience with summer reading programs. When it comes to reading and any other activity for
that matter I'm more likely to spend more time doing something that I enjoy or that interests me.
Having students select books that they connect with or have an interest in makes sense and I
wonder why no one has considered this possibility before. The book access factor in the positive
effect it had on the results of the study was also something that I would have expected to happen.
I was however impressed by the comparison they did of their study to the practice of summer
school attendance. Both practices produce similar results in limiting the summer reading setback.
However, Allington & McGill-Franzen’s practice of supplying students selected books proved to
be less expensive. In today's budget driven world, I feel this is a program that should be implemented.
Research Article Summary and Reflection
Joseph Rezac
MAS 7998 Reading Practicum III
In their article “Addressing Summer Reading Setback Among Economically
Disadvantaged Elementary Students” Richard L Allington and Anne McGill Franzen described
the purpose, method and results of their study that tested their hypothesis that providing
elementary school students from low-income families with a supply of self-selected books
would improve summer reading setback. The article was originally published in Reading
Psychology: An International Journal Fall 2010.
The summer reading setback is a well-established phenomenon (Alexander, Entwisle, &
Olson, 2007; Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2003; Cooper, Nye, Charlton, Lindsay, &
Greathouse, 1996; Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 1997) Briefly, research on summer learning
loss has provided reliable evidence that the reading achievement of economically disadvantaged
students slides back a few months every summer. Although the role that summer reading setback
plays in the reading achievement gap between economically disadvantaged and economically
advantaged students began to be discussed 20 to 30 years ago (Hayes & Grether, 1983; Heyns,
1978, 1987), little educational policies addressing either the issue or the impact of summer
reading setback has been produced. (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010). Allington and McGill-
Franzen designed their study as an initial step in developing an evidence base for interventions
that might address summer reading setback and thereby narrow the persistent achievement gap
between more and less economically advantaged children. In their study they incorporate factors
that influence the summer reading setback such as summer reading activity and book access.
Additionally, they conducted their study over a three-year period. The majority of previous
studies had been conducted over only a one-year period.
Allington and McGill-Franzen selected students from 17 high poverty elementary schools
into large school districts in Florida. The students were divided into two groups, an experimental
treatment group and a control group. For three consecutive years the children the experimental
treatment group selected books during a book fair that Allington and McGill-Franzen ran to
supply books for summer reading. The children of the control group received no books. Both
groups were considered demographically equivalent(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010). As a
primary measure of reading proficiency, they relied on the state-mandated reading assessment
known as The Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT). They gathered survey data at
the end of each summer from both the treatment and the control groups. Questions and possible
responses were read aloud to participants to ensure they understood the questions being asked.
The primary interest was with items that requests information about summer reading activity,
access to books, and home reading support(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010). In the spring of
each year a book fair was held at each school and the students were able to come down and
select 15 books of which they would receive 12. The books available were selected by a research
team with a concern for text difficulty and interestingness. Books were selected in four broad
categories: Pop Culture, books that feature characters and topics that were current in the broader
popular media, Series Books, titles from the most popular series books as indicated by sales
figures, Culturally Relevant, books by minority authors and/or featured minority characters or
regional themes, and Curriculum Relevant, books whose topics were topics that would be
studied by the participants of the study the following year(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010).
Allington and McGill-Franzen’s findings indicate that providing easy access to self-
selected books for summer reading over successive years does, in fact, limit summer reading
setback. “We found that the experimental treatment group, which received the summer books for
three consecutive summers, reported more often engaging in voluntary summer reading and had
significantly higher reading achievement than the control group” (Allington & McGill-Franzen,
2010). They also found that the reading gains the students from the most economically
disadvantaged families in the study were found to be larger, perhaps because he students have
the most restricted access to books. Allington and McGill-Franzen state that their longitudinal
outcomes are more consistent larger than those reported for other summer book interventions.
They also state of their study differs from earlier summer book studies in several ways: younger
subjects completed grades one and two at outset versus completed grades 3,4,5 or 6, self-selected
summer books versus experimenter-selected books, three years of book distribution versus single
yearbook distribution(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2010). Each of these factors, Allington &
McGill-Franzen state, may be important in explaining the observed positive effects on reading achievement.
Allington & McGill-Franzen conclude that their study provides the best evidence to date
that ensuring easy and continuing access to self-selected books for summer reading is one
potential strategy for addressing summer reading setback and, therefore addressing the reading
achievement gap that exists between students from more and less economically advantaged
families(Allington & McGill-Franzen,2010).
I was not surprised of the outcome of the study, mainly because of my own personal
experience with summer reading programs. When it comes to reading and any other activity for
that matter I'm more likely to spend more time doing something that I enjoy or that interests me.
Having students select books that they connect with or have an interest in makes sense and I
wonder why no one has considered this possibility before. The book access factor in the positive
effect it had on the results of the study was also something that I would have expected to happen.
I was however impressed by the comparison they did of their study to the practice of summer
school attendance. Both practices produce similar results in limiting the summer reading setback.
However, Allington & McGill-Franzen’s practice of supplying students selected books proved to
be less expensive. In today's budget driven world, I feel this is a program that should be implemented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)