Kmtreven.weebly.com



EDU-6225/6 Assessment and Intervention ReportGeneral InformationYour NameKristy TrevenStudent’s PseudonymLDate(s) of Assessment1/21/16Student BackgroundL is a first grade student. He attended Montessori school for kindergarten with no concerns noted. In fall benchmarking, L was unable to identify any letters or letter sounds. He was able to copy and trace letters, but could not sound out words. He participates in a reading intervention 5 days a week and is now able to identify all letter names & sounds as well as decode CVC and more complicated word parts including suffixes, beginning consonant blends, digraphs and most double vowels. He does not know all first grade sight words, but is making progress. He understands what he reads, can answer questions correctly (factual, inferential, cause/effect). He receives speech/language services.Assessment AdministrationName of AssessmentTest of Phonological AwarenessDomain AddressedPhonemic AwarenessDuration10 minutesTesting EnvironmentSmall resource classroom containing 1 table. Two walls are lined with cabinets, one has a whiteboard, and the other has a bulletin board. There are no windows. Room is located across from the school library.DescriptionThe test is criterion referenced needing 4/5 or 80% correct in each domain (as well as the total composite) to obtain mastery. Components of the test include rhymes, phoneme isolation, phoneme identity, phoneme categorization, blending, phoneme addition, phoneme deletion, and phoneme segmentation. The student did not need any materials or visuals to complete the assessment (all auditory). In each category, the test administrator orally gave short directions including one example to engage the participant and check for understanding. The proctor then orally provided each task to the child. For example, in the rhyming component, the proctor shared two words that rhymed (pat, mat). She then asked the student to come up with a word that rhymed with hat to which the student responded with “cat”. Knowing the student understood the task, she then proceeded with the assessment items. The student was allowed to ask for clarification and/or repetition of the directions or test items.JustificationPhonological Awareness is a foundation of successful readers and a precursor to many phonics and more advanced skills (including but not limited to decoding, fluency and comprehension). The student’s educational team was looking for L’s present levels of performance in the area of phonemic awareness considering his literacy performance as a whole is below the expected level of mid-year first graders. Based on the results, the team will determine if additional intervention or instructional support is needed in this area. APA CitationMcKenna, M.C, & Stahl, K.A. (2015). Assessment for reading instruction. New York, NY: The Gilford Press.Test ObservationsThere were no external occurrences during testing. The student willingly participated, but became very focused on wanting to know if he made any errors or mistakes. He asked for his number of errors after each component and more often during sections that were more challenging for him.Results of AssessmentRaw DataRhymes A: 5/5 (100%)Rhymes B: 1/5 (20%)Rhymes Total: 6/10 (60%)P Isolation A: 5/5 (100%)P Isolation B: 5/5 (100%)P Isolation Total: 10/10 (100%)P Identity: 5/5 (100%)P Categorization: 4/5 (80%)Blending: 5/5 (100%)P Addition: 4/5 (80%)P Deletion: 0/5 (0%) --discontinuedP Substitution: 1/5 (20%) --discontinuedP Segmentation: 9/10 (90%)Total Composite: 44/60 (73%)Norms (if available) The test is criterion referenced needing 4/5 or 80% correct in each domain (as well as the total composite) to obtain mastery. L did not meet mastery criterion with his total composite score. He achieved mastery criterion in each category except for rhyming, phoneme deletion, and phoneme substitution (the latter two both being discontinued).Interpretation of DataAnalyze Results (What do they mean?)Overall, L performs below expected levels of performance on phonemic awareness tasks. L is at or above expected levels of proficiency in phonemic categories including phoneme isolation, phoneme identity, phoneme categorization, blending, phoneme addition, and phoneme segmentation. Rhyming:L is above expected mastery regarding identification of teacher generated or provided rhymes, but significantly below expected performance at rhyme production when provided with the first word. In the first section (generated rhyme identification), L consistently requested that the words be repeated. He consistently repeated them to himself, mixing and matching the words until he identified the rhyming partners. In the second section (rhyme production), L provided words that started with the same sound for the first three. On the third item, his produced word shared a similar sound (moving the onset to the end), and on the final item, he was able to produce a correct rhyme.Phoneme Categorization:L met criterion, but his method of responding changed. For the first three, he only identified the specific sound that didn’t belong (ie: /sh/ instead of saying /shut/). This was marked as correct, but shows that the student was able to identify the specific reason why the word did not fit with the other two. In the last two items, he responded with the entire word he felt did not fit.Phoneme Addition:L met criterion in this section. His one error (saying /scan/ instead of /stand/) may be related to his speech impairment in that he misarticulated the /st/ blend and had a hard time following through with producing the final consonant sound.Phoneme Deletion:This section was discontinued after the first three items. A pattern is evident in his incorrect responses. Instead of eliminating the initial sound/digraph, L eliminated the final sound illustrating difficulty with separating the initial sound from the rest of the word. The student has been observed to be successful in this skill area outside of the testing environment (but at a more basic level using compound words such as ‘birthday’ without ‘birth’ you’re left with ‘day’).Phoneme Substitution:L made 1 correct response out of the three attempted (task discontinued). The one correct response shows an ability to manipulate the final sound in a word, while the errors mimic those of the deletion component where he had difficulty manipulating the initial sound.Phoneme Segmentation:L met criterion in this section. His only error was the result of adding an /y/ sound to the end of the word ‘hay’. L is not typically observed to add the /y/ or the /u/ sound following words ending in stop sounds illustrating a random error.Interpret Data (So what is next?)L, while showing significant growth since fall 2015, continues to struggle in targeted areas of phonemic awareness. Based on L’s performance on this assessment, and analysis of the data, additional intervention or further support is recommended specifically in the areas of rhyming (production), phoneme deletion (initial & middle sounds) and phoneme substitution (initial and middle sounds).Identify StrengthsL has a strong ability to identify rhyming pairs, isolate initial and final sounds, identify same initial sounds across words, categorize initial sounds across words (and identify the sound that doesn’t fit), blend sounds together, segment words into their sounds, and add initial sounds to existing words or word parts. Identify WeaknessesL demonstrated weaknesses regarding the manipulation (deletion and substitution) of sounds other than the initial and produce rhyming pairs.RecommendationsFuture assessmentFor this particular student, I would first recommend testing components of this assessment at a lower level. For example, I’d assess phoneme deletion and substitution at a lower level that would include manipulating compound words to see if the student is successful with larger units of sounds in order to establish a more accurate/precise level of performance. Then, after one round of intervention (6-8 weeks) I would recommend re-assessing L using the non-mastered components of this same test (Test of Phonological Awareness) to measure growth.Remediation/InterventionName of Specific Instructional Recommendation(s)Based on L’s performance, I would recommend using the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Program as an intervention tool to target his deficits in the areas of rhyming and adding/deleting phonemes. I would recommend starting within the kindergarten curriculum around week 15 of the program. In this portion of the curriculum, it targets his deficit areas as described above. It especially pinpoints the manipulation of the initial sound in words that was a common error in L’s assessment. It also offers the chance to support his areas of strength.Describe the ActivityIn this lesson, L participated in a series of word play games. There were 8 mini-activities: rhyming, onset fluency, blending, medial sounds, segmenting, substituting, adding phonemes, and deleting phonemes. In the rhyming section, we used the –ip family (the teacher provides 2 examples and the student generates a third). For onset fluency, the student repeats a word (starting with the short ‘i’ sound) stressing the initial sound. In blending, the teacher chops up a CVC word and the student “glues” them back together. In medial sounds, the student repeats a CVC word (with the short ‘i’ sound) using a roller coaster hand movement to physically illustrate the three individual sounds. In segmenting, the teacher says the whole word and the student chops it up into individual sounds. In substitution, CVC words are used. The child changes the initial sound to a different consonant sound (ie: dig to big). In adding phonemes, the student is given the word family and asked to say the word with a new sound at the beginning (ie: -in with /f/, fin). In deleting phonemes, the student repeats the word and says it again without the initial sound (ie: lid without the /l/, id).Citation of ActivityHeggerty, M. (2005). Phonemic awareness: The skills that they need to help them succeeed! River Forest, IL: Literacy Resources, Inc.Describe Your Experience Teaching the LessonLesson Taught: Week 15, MondayL showed excitement and was very willing to participate in the lesson. Not having previously been exposed to Heggerty in kindergarten (L attended Montessori), it was difficult at first to gain the momentum typically associated with this curriculum even though it was similar to the assessment. Additional time was spent on the rhyming section. L was unsuccessful with providing a rhyming partner when 2 words were provided. It became necessary to provide 3-4 words within the –ip family before he was able to generate one on his own. However, at that point he was able to provide multiple rhyming words both real and non-sense (ie: gip, lip, sip, vip). L performed well in the blending, segmenting and medial sounds sections though getting a little over zealous with his roller coaster motion. I chose to save the substitution category for last and instead went straight to adding and deleting phonemes. In these categories hand motions had to be added to provide a visual that he could “attach” the sound to after initially being unsuccessful (even with teacher models of the activity). L would mimic the teacher saying he understood, but continued to be unsuccessful on the next attempt. With the hand motions, he was able to perform these tasks successfully. If he had continued to be unsuccessful with the hand motions, I would have gone back to an earlier point in the curriculum. In future lessons, I would recommend continuing the hand motions and slowly fading away that support as he becomes more confident with the auditory piece. The lesson took about fifteen minutes to complete.Detail Two Specific Verbal Exchanges During the Teaching of the LessonL was given two rhyming words (dip, nip) and asked to provide another that rhymed. L shared, “pit.” T: Not quite. Pit does not have the same ending sound as dip and nip. We want a word that has –ip at the end.L: Oh, okay. Um, pill?T: No, do pill and dip rhyme?L: No, they don’t. They don’t sound the same.T: Let me see if it helps to give you more examples. Dip, nip, sip, tip.L: lip, vip, gip, sip.In the onset fluency section, the student was able to think critically and apply the skill to other words he was familiar with.L: All these words start with the /i/ sound. That means they start with the letter ‘i’. T: You’re absolutely right! Do you know any other words that start with the /i/ sound?L: Igloo does. Ice cream starts with the letter ‘i’ but it doesn’t make the short ‘i’ sound. It says it’s name, so that one wouldn’t fit here.Assessment and Intervention ReflectionBrief Reflection of Assessment and Intervention AdministrationI was expecting the assessment to go more quickly than it did. Even though I was comfortable with the format and the activities, I still found myself pausing between some of the items because the skills seemed to jump around within a few of the sections. I feel that this definitely could have had an impact on the student’s performance and would make me want to question the results a little bit. It seemed troublesome to me that some of the categories (ie: substitution) contained multiple skills within the scope and sequence of that targeted area instead of just one which made it a bit more difficult to identify where the breakdown was occurring at first. L was also very preoccupied with knowing how many he got right or wrong which caught me off guard as well.The analysis of the results felt very natural to me as it’s what I typically do during every assessment (formal or informal) I give as well as every lesson I teach (hazard of my position), but it made it very easy for me to pinpoint exactly where I needed to start within the Heggerty program for the lesson, as well as provide specific details and targeted areas within his non-mastered sections for his educational team instead of just saying work on these general skills. I enjoyed teaching the lesson, but was surprised at the need to provide the hand motions for the last three sections. L did very well once he was given that additional visual. However, upon reflection, it makes sense that he would need it. One of his speech/language goals is related to auditory processing. What would you do differently next time?If I were to administer this assessment again in the future, I would group like test items (within the substitution category) instead of providing them in the given order. Switching back and forth between manipulating the initial, final and medial sounds may have impacted the student’s performance. I might even add additional examples/items of each subskill and break that one section into three different ones. Because I am familiar with Heggerty, it was easy for me to follow the prompts and/or adlib as needed. However, if I had not been familiar with Heggerty, I would definitely need to write out a better script for each category’s directions that were more clear and concise. What would you keep the same?I liked the set up of the rest of the assessment. The categories had a good flow from easy to more difficult while still ending with an easier task.Any Lingering QuestionsNone ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download