Choose one assessment to review from our textbook to review (see below). The assessment should be a reading, math, behavior, or standard assessment. The a

image1.png

13 Reading

LEARNING OUTCOMES After reading this chapter, you will be able to: • Identify and describe three examples of considerations in assessment of

reading. • Name and discuss two examples of subtests in the Woodcock Reading Mastery

Tests-Third Edition.

• Describe the purpose of the Gray Oral Reading Tests-Fihh Edition. • Name and explain two Examples of Subtests in the Test of Reading

Comprehension-Fourth Edition.

• Compare and contrast three measures of phonemic awareness and phonological processing.

• Describe an example of a curriculum-based reading fluency measure. • Compare and contrast two informal reading inventories. • Identify and explain two examples of other informal strategies. • Name and discuss two major factors that relate to reading within the context

of the classroom.

• Define and explain two examples of how reading assessment tools could vary in answering the assessment questions.

348

. '

f,Y reRMS I( d I jteraCV balance ic awareness . phonern ical processing h0nolo9

P d·ng deco ~cabulary ·r1ht V SI~ .

phonics

fluency comprehension skills informal reading inventory miscue analysis doze procedure readability

h rs parents, and the American citizenry place great value on literacy and eading is cons1 ere to _et e most important literacy skill. In the elementary Teac e ' 'd d b h . ,

r des much of the cumculum focuses on skill acquisition in reading, and in ra , . . . . g dary grades, readmg is a maJor vehicle for the presentation of information in

che secon bJ'ects In our society, people are expected to be proficient readers· illiteracy ent su . , cont fi •ce barrier to success. · de 101 d d' . h U . d S 1s 11 he value place on rea mg m t e 01ce tates is highlighted by che Reading

T gram created under the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act. According to this F. est pro · p· 'd 1 bsi· ce Readmg irst prov1 es grants to states to promote research-based strate-

c's we ' a~ for students in lower elementary grades (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). gies R ading is often an area of difficulty for students with disabilities. Young scu-

~ay not learn the basic skills of reading at the expected rate; they may fall far dents · h · b·1· d od d

h. d their classmates m t e1r a 1 tty to ec e an understand the written word. be

10 fu h b h' d · d' Older students who are even . rt er e •.n in rea mg may lack the skills needed to

reading as a tool for learning other skills and subjects. use_ Once students are found eligible for special education services, the focus in assess­ ment shifts to instructional planning. The question that guides this phase of assess­ ment is, What are the student's educational needs? Because reading is often an area of need for students with mild disabilities, the assessment team may ask, What is the student's e11rrent level of reading achievement? What are the student's strengths and weaknesses in the 11ario11s skill areas of readi~g?

At this level of questioning, the team is concerned more about the student's abil­ ity to perform important reading tasks than about how performance compares with that of other students. Although norm-referenced information can be useful in deter­ mining which reading skills are areas of need, criterion-referenced information and other types of informal data provide specific descriptions of the student's current sta­ tus in skill development.

CONSIDERATIONS IN ASSESSMENT OF READING Of all academic skills, reading is most often the subject of special education assess­ ment. For many educators, reading is one of the most critical of all school subjects, P~icularly in the elementary curriculum that focuses on the acquisition of basic skills. In the secondary grades, students are expected to use their reading skills to gain

349

3 5 Q PART IV: ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC SKlll.S

ioformatioo io subject areas such as English, his­ tory, and the sciences. Because many spec!al s_ru­ deots do not meet these expectations, reading 1s a major concern in special education assessment.

P111poses

Students' reading skills are assessed for seve~ reasons. In determining eligibility for spec1~ education programs, overall school performance is investigated, and reading is an important compo• aent of school achievement. In addition, general education teachers monitor their students' pro­ gress in reading. Reading proficiency is one of the minimum competencies assessed by many schools and districts for grade advancement and high school graduation, and reading is always included on the state-mandated tests of school achievement that assess students' progress toward state perfor­ mance standards.

Io special education, reading skills . ~ assessed not only for determining program eltg1- bility, but also for planning instruction, and that is the focus of this chapter. Information from gen­ eral achievement teSts such as the PIAT-RJNU, the WIAT-III, or the Woodcock-Johnson N is insuf­ ficient. It is necessary to gather additional data about the student's specific strengths and weak­ nesses to describe current levels of reading per­ formance. It then becomes possible to develop appropriate annual goals for the student.

Reading assessment does not stop when the student's individualized educational program has been planned. Special educators begin to monitor the student's progress in acquiring targeted skills, and in ongoing assessment, data are gathered on a weekly or even a daily basis. Reading assessment continues throughout the student's special educa­ tion program if reading is a focus of specialized instruction. At least once a year, the educational plan is reviewed, and evaluation data are gathered to determine the student's current levels of read­ ing achievement.

Skill Areas

Reading is a complex process involving many skills. There is continuing debate over the nature of the reading process, but most expercs acknowl­ edge chat reading involves the recognition and

decoding of printed text and the comprehension of that text as meaningful information. According to Schreiner (1983), individuals interpret essen­ tial printed components and then give meaning to those components.

Three divergent models of proficient reading have been proposed (Chall & Stahl, 1982). These models differ in the amount of importance they attach to text and meaning, two aspects of the reading process. In the bortom-11p model, it is hypothesized that proficie~t r~n~ers proceed from text to meaning; first, md1v1dunl letters and words are perceived and decoded, and then com. prehension of the text's rnean_ing take~ place. Reading is considered a text-driven or stunulus­ driven activity; it depends on the reader's skill in lower-level processes such as word recognition. In contrast, the top-</Qwn 11UJ<k/ emphasizes what are considered the higher-level processes of compre. hension. The skilled reader relies on prior knowl­ edge and previous experience, quest~oning and hypothesis testing, and comprehension of the meaning of textual material rather t~an decoding of individual text elements. The thud model is the interactive model, which emphasizes both tel(t and meaning. In this model, reading is accom. plished by applying previous knowledge to text so that the student can build a reply or answer (Walker, 1992).

The debate over the relative importance of text versus meaning or decoding versus compre­ hension carries over into the classroom and the strategies selected for reading instruction. More traditional approaches to reading instruction tend to be skills-based (i.e., bottom-up). Beginning instruction focuses on the development of decod. ing skills; comprehension skills are not empha. sized until learners have some facility with decoding. Examples are traditional basal reader programs, phonics-based approaches, linguistic methods, and programmed instruction.

A newer approach, whole-language instruc­ tion, is based on the top-down and interactive models of reading. Reading is not broken down into subskills such as decoding. In fact, reading is integrated with the ocher language arts (speak. ing, listening, and writing). Whole language is often described as a philosophy rather than an instructional approach (Westby, 1992); in this

philosophy, language is innate and has real-life application through literacy (Lapp & Flood, 1992). In the whole-language classroom, language learn­ ing takes place in a social context in which stu­ dents use language for real (i.e., authentic) purposes. Students read whole texts, not frag­ ments, and those texts tend to be children's litera­ ture rather than stories constructed solely for inclusion in textbooks. Throughout, meaning and motivation are emphasized; the development of isolated skills is deemphasized. Despite the popu­ larity of whole language, research results do not point co the superiority of chis approach over basal reader programs (e.g., Stahl & Miller, 1989). In addition, authors such as Lerner, Cousin, and Richeck (1992) and Mather (1992) warn that stu­ dents with mild disabilities will require supple­ mentary skills instruction if they are to succeed in a whole-language classroom.

In recent years, experts have come co recom­ mend a combined approach to reading instruc­ tion, one that emphasizes the development of abilities not only in the decoding of print hue also in the comprehension of textual meaning. A report of the National Research Council's Com­ mittee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) describes the reading process in this way. They note that both form and context are essential cog­ nitive conditions of reading.

One popular exam pie is the balanced literacy approach. This approach includes both reading and writing and focuses on the acquisition of both decoding and comprehension skills. Cunningham (2003) describes the balanced literacy model called the Four Blocks framework. In this model, each day students engage in four types of literacy activities: working with words (i.e., word study), guided reading, self-selected reading, and writing (Cunningham & Allington, 1999; Cunningham, Hall, & Defee, 1991).

The federal education law, No Cb,ild Left Behind (NQB), and its counterpart in special education, IDEA 2004, place great emphasis on the use of scientifically based instructional meth­ ods to promote student achievement. The Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) identified several

CHAPTER 13: READING 3 5 1

components of evidence-based instruction in the area of reading:

• Phonemic awareness instruction • Phonics instruction • Fluency and guided oral reading • Vocabulary instruction • Text comprehension instruction

Walsh, Glaser, and Wilcox (2006) reported that the National Reading Panel's recommendations include foci on organized and overt instruction of phonics, oral reading, vocabulary construction and reading comprehension.

Phonemic awareness is an important readi­ ness skill for the acquisition of beginning reading skills. Lerner (2000) defines this skill as identify­ ing sound segments within words. Those indi­ vidual sounds are called phonemes, thus the term phonemic awareness. Another term, phonological processing, is used to describe more complex operations with phonemes such as discrimination among phonemes, rhyming, sequencing, and recall. Because failure to develop phonological processing abilities can impede the acquisition of beginning reading skills, it is believed that young children with potential problems in this area should be identified so that they can receive appropriate training (Torgesen & Barker, 1995; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). To this end, several measures of phonological processing skills have been developed in recent years.

In the assessment of reading itself (rather than reading readiness skills), traditional meas­ ures tend co be skills-based. They focus on the student's ability to decode text and respond to questions about the meaning of the text he or she has read. As Garner (1983) observed, these measures are product-oriented, and they are based on a bottom-up view of the reading act. Reading tests and inventories do not stress the interaction between the reader and the text. Thus, informal assessment strategies are needed to gather information about the student's back­ ground knowledge, language facility, knowledge of text structure, and the metacognitive strate­ gies he or she chooses to use when interacting with text (Samuels, 1983).

Formal reading tests and inventories typi­ cally include measures of students' decoding and

3 5 2 PART IV: AS.5~lL.'-'l' OF ACADE.UCSKILLS

comprthension skills. Decoding skills are word

recognition skills; decoding occurs v.·hen • sru­ denc looks at a word, or the letters chat make up the word, and then pronounces the word. Decod­ ing can be accomplished in several \"l)'S· W~rds chat are familiar to the student may be recogmzccl by sight; such words a.re called sight words or sight vocabu!U}•. When words a.re unfamiliar, the scudenc may attempt to use phonic analysis, often called simpl)' phonics. The srudent looks at each letter, or grapheme; rccalls the sound, or pho­ neme, associated with the letter; and blends the sequence of sounds inco a word. Another method of decoding unfamiliar words is smicrural analy­ sis. In chis method, words arc broken inro sylla­ bles to analyze prefixes, suffixes, root words, and endings. In yet another approach ro decoding, the context of the sentence or paragraph in which the unfamiliar word apptarS is the subject of analysis. The srudent uses the meaning of the passage and the grammacioo structwt of the ten as aids in word recognition. Phonic, muawal, and contex­ tual analyses are not necessarily independent strategies; srudents can use one, two, or all three of these methods co demde an unfamiliar word.

Decoding skills arr asstSSed in scveml ways by reading tests and inventories. One typial method is to present students v.ith a list of words tO read aloud. The cask may be unrimed to allow srudents the opportunity co use phonic and strue· rural anal)-sis skills. Howevrr, wks m rimed if the purpose is t0 assess sight vocabu1acy or if the speed of decoding is a concern. ListS of pboneti­ ally regular words or nonsense words may be used to cwluate the student's ability to apply phonic analysis skills. Nonsense words force sru­ dents to analyze each word rather than ttly on sight recognition. Another common method of assessing decoding involves the reading of mn­ oemd rcn .rather than isolated wonfs. Students are presented with sentences or paragraphs to rrad aloud. Passage reading provides srudencs with the opponunity to use mnr.mual analysis skills as wdl as other mtthods of decoding. Also, it bemrnrs possible to observe the student's oml rrading flumcy and phrasing and bis or her me m radios mnoemd rm.

Flumq is me ability to perform a skill with both speed and ICCIUICJ. In the ms of "8d.ing,

the term j111tn<Y typi~ly refers to the abili -d text out loud quickly and with n ty to '"" . ral d" . o or fi errors. Fluency m o rca 1ng 1s often rneas e,, usin" curriculum-bastd measurement tech . Ur'd

"o . . 1 n1qu such as one-minute time samp es. cs On traditional reading tests and inv• .

• bo "ntor1 askins students que_suons a ut cornprchens·cs, skills assesses material they have just read ton dents may read the text silently or orally d · Stu. ins on whether decoding skills are al~ epend. srudy. The text may be a se_ntencc, a !)aragra U~dcr a series of paragraphs making up a story

O p ' or

· · L r essa,, Comprehension questions may ~ multiple- h . 1•

I . . b . c 01cc or comp enon items, ut most ryp1cally, the Stu dent provides oral responses to open-ended •

reh . . ques. tions. Comp ens1on questions may probe th student's undeistanding of the literal meanin ~ the passage or require inferential thinking 8 ~ critical analysis (Bartel, 1986b). For example

811

dents may be asked ro recall the details of th; ;:: sage, remember a sequence of events, State th main ideas, ~lain the meaning of vocabwar; words, make Judgments, draw conclusions

0 d . ' r ~um i eas or amons. .

~e ~ility to use read~ng skills in everyday siruaoons 1s an area rarely mduded on measures of reading performance; informal techniques are needed to evaluate srudems' ability to apply their skills in decoding and comprehension to real reading casks. Reading is a useful skill only when the student is able to read quickly and accunrely enough co use it as a cool to gain new informa­ tion. For example, in everyday life, readers apply their skills when they read signs, posters, letters, roagazio~ and newspapers, television schedules, and the like. These important applications of reading should noc be neglected in assessment.

C11rmrt Practias

In schools today, the assessment of reading achieve­ ment is common practice in both general and spe­ cial eduarion. Because of the high interest in reading and the romplexicy of this skill area. • 8ffllt number and variety of measures and uch· niqucs are available t0 mess reading petformanct·

Academic achievement tests cypially include one or more sulxcsts designed t0 evaluare Stll"

dena· mastaJ ex reading skills. Tb.is is aue both

~J• ,.., • '-

'

roup-administered achievement measures for cb~ g "eneral education and for the individual

ed in o . "al ed ll~cs preferred in spec1d ~bcadti~n. The school c rforrnance measlures escn e . m Chapter 11 pe ncain at east one readmg achievement ell'h co

ea5ure- d ead" J1l Norm-referenc: r _mg tests are more . eedY related to tn~truct1~nal planning. Some­

d_ar called diagnostte reading tests, these meas­ ciJ1leS rvey several subskills within the broad area ores su d "fy "fi f reading to i ent1 spec1 1c strengths and weak- o Because these tests are norm-referenced, nesses. h "d .

• £"0 rmation t ey prov1 e 1s comparative. cbe ,m, f f ead"

A number o o r •~g tescs are available, and chese vary somewhat 1dn t~e range of skills cbeY assess. Some tescs are ~signed for compre­ h nsive assessment of the reading process and . e Iude measures of several of the important read- 1nc 1 . h –'–. skills. One examp e 1s t e Wouuiuc:k Reading ;~tery Tt.Sts-Third Edition. Other measures con­ centrate on a particular component of reading. There are testS that assess only comprehension skills, others that assess only word recognition skills, and still others that evaluate reading flu­ ency. On some measures, oral reading is the con­ cern, whereas on others it is silent reading. The majority of reading tescs are administered indi­ vidually to allow testers the opportunity to observe srudencs' performance.

Another type of measure often used in read­ ing assessment is the informal reading inventory. Reading inventories are made up of graded word lists and graded reading selections. For instance, an inventory might contain a series of word lists and passages ranging from a primer reading level up to grade 8 reading level. Student

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.