SL Smiley
SL Smiley
RE 5715 Midterm Quiz
Dr. Schlagal
Appalachian State University
Fall 2007
1. What is meant by the term “instructional levels”? What are they and what importance do they play in assessing and correcting reading difficulties?
In the field of education the term “instructional levels” is heard on a daily basis. That being said, it saddens me that given its popularity, it is not being utilized correctly (in my opinion) in the majority of our nation’s classrooms. Unfortunately, the “testing mania” and highly “scripted lessons” of present (in my “big city” school system), do not allow for teachers to think, analyze data, and tailor instruction in a way that research clearly suggests would merit the most progress.
An instructional level is the grade or level of difficulty at which a student should be taught. This “instructional level” can be measured and determined through a battery of diagnostic assessment that includes word recognition, contextual reading, and spelling. This assessment is structured by grade level and therefore is an accurate determiner of overall reading ability. Using “instructional levels” in assessment easily transfers to and plays an equally important role in teaching. By careful analysis of an IRI, a teacher is able to plan more effectively to meet the needs of the individual student. It has been proven that a struggling student who is instructed on his/her appropriate reading level makes far more progress than the one who is taught at his/her grade level. Common sense tells us that a student in the second grade may not be reading at a second grade level, and therefore may become frustrated, discouraged, and may even lead to future drop-out. Using instructionally appropriate material allows teachers to teach more effectively. This is effective because teaching at a student’s “instructional level” will enable the teacher to better correct mistakes and assist with reading difficulties. Moreover, there is a greater chance that the reading errors are the same in nature within a given level. This makes for precise identification and correction on behalf of the teacher and an easier (hopefully) to grasp concept for the student. Teacher instruction and student learning using proper instructional levels provides a stronger foundation, thus the “scaffolding” to becoming a successful reader.
2. Why is the assessment of word recognition important? Why is differentiating timed (flash) from untimed responses good practice in evaluating word recognition?
Word recognition skill in reading is central in the learning process. I like to think of it as the “car” that drives the reader forward up the road of progress. Now at first, this car isn’t “fully loaded” with all of the “premium packages”. However, as it develops and moves from grade to grade, it becomes more accurate and automatically (hopefully) better equipped with the necessary options for reading growth and success; hence, a “fully loaded, premium package”!
Assessing word recognition is important because it gives an indication of both a child’s sight vocabulary and decoding skills. Testing words in an isolated format (list) provides the instructor with a clear, context-free measure of a child’s word recognition ability. These “lists” are 20 words in length and begin at the pre-primer level, continuing through to eighth grade. Because the lists are grouped by “grade level”, they can be powerful tools in diagnosing a child’s ability and instructional level. A score of 90% indicates independent level. A score that falls between 70% and 80% is considered instructional level. When a child scores 50% and below, it is considered frustration level and the test should be immediately stopped. There is a “gray” area that falls between 50% and 65%, which means that it may be less reliable in predicting reading level.
When administering a word recognition test, two scores are taken into consideration. The flash score is timed (1/4-1/2 of a second per word) and represents a child’s accuracy and automaticity. By using this “tachistoscopic” or flash technique, (D. Morris) the examiner is able to identify what words the child has firmly stored in his/her memory. Obviously, the more sophisticated and developed this is, the more advanced the word knowledge. The second score is the untimed score. This represents accuracy, or the ability the child has to decode the given word. One must remember that the flash score is a better indicator/predictor of contextual reading ability than that of the untimed score. However; it is beneficial to analyze both scores and the difference between them. A substantial increase in the untimed score indicates that given ample time, a child can decode those words and possesses good word attack ability at that particular level of difficulty. However; only a slight increase would indicate that there is a lack of decoding skill, again at that particular level. It is also important to look at the types of errors a child is making on individual words. For instance, is the child only attending to the beginning letter of a word or does he/she have difficulty with simple one-syllable vowel patterns?
In summary, word recognition provides knowledge about a child’s reading ability in three areas: 1. measures a child’s ability to recognize words immediately, 2. measures decoding skills and, 3. provides information regarding error type. A word recognition test paired with assessment in contextual reading and spelling, can serve to provide the instructor with valuable information to teach a child on his/her instructional level.
3. Why is comprehension the least reliable measure in the informal assessment of reading ability?
Comprehension… It is a key component of reading because it is the ability to extract and gather meaning from what is read. It is a process that happens internally and without it, reading becomes a meaningless and tedious act of insignificant word recall. However, in the IRI it is the least reliable measure of a student’s reading ability. Why? In part, this is due to the fact that a student’s response may be vague and require the examiner to probe the student’s thinking further. To score an answer correctly or incorrectly, or give full or partial credit, is completely subjective and dependent upon making good/fair judgments on the part of the examiner. However, these are not the only factors that influence comprehension and the measuring thereof.
Scoring and understanding a student’s comprehension is a difficult task for several reasons. First, the language of the text needs to be considered. Does the author use idioms, expressions or terminology that the reader is familiar with? Is the reader going to be able to relate to this text given his/her current background knowledge and life experience? (Which for some very young students, this proves to be quite a challenge.) Linking prior knowledge with personal experiences is the basis on which the reader is able to derive meaning from text. If this information, when taken in, can not be organized and connected to what the reader already knows, then comprehension will not occur. The next point of interest is the questions themselves. Obviously, it is important to ask a variety of questions, but what exactly makes good, qualitative thought-provoking questions for a first or second grade reading passage? Content related questions that are directly related to the text are one type of comprehension question to ask. Conversely, there are also the “beyond the text” questions. Are these inferential, higher-order thinking questions really suitable for such simple readings? Can these lower level texts and if so, to what degree, truly lend themselves to thoughtful discussion? Even if there was the opportunity for such discussion, would young students be able to express themselves fully, given their little history with language? We use our knowledge of language in reading, writing, speaking, and listening. If a student’s speaking knowledge is underdeveloped, (such as may be the case for an ELL student), then expressing thoughts and feelings may prove to be quite difficult.
Since comprehension (and the expression thereof) is such an individual and intrinsic skill that is not represented by data alone, it is true that it can not be held as a highly reliable measure of a student’s overall reading ability. It does however; provide useful insight on how a student is constructing meaning, if he/she is making sense out of the print, and if the student has a sufficiently developed vocabulary and possesses the skills needed to communicate such an understanding.
4. How does timing reading rate contribute to an overall understanding of reading ability?
Reading rate is calculated by words read per minute on an oral reading passage. It is a dependable representation of a child’s oral reading fluency. Fluency is the combination of the child’s knowledge of print and the automatic recognition of words. When a child is reading fluently, he/she is reading in phrases or grouping words together appropriately. Meaning of text is contained within phrases or chunks of words and is often lost if the child is reading (decoding) word-by-word. When a child reads with a good rate, it frees up “brain power” and allows him/her to process the information being read. When this happens, meaning is not lost, and there is a better chance the child is indeed understanding or comprehending the text. Both word identification and comprehension suffer when a child must split his/her attention between the two. Encouraging children to orally practice chunking text into syntactically appropriate units is a good practice exercise (repeated readings) to increase reading rate.
Reading rate (words per minute) can be found by multiplying 60 by the number of words read, and dividing that by the number of seconds it took to read the passage. There are suggested reading rates for each grade level, but caution, common sense, and the individual child’s performance should be taken into account. Therefore, it is suggested that a range or variable of reading rate be accepted, especially when speaking of a beginning reader. One must also consider other aspects such as the number of errors made (including meaning errors), how many self-corrections were made, amount of help given, and phrasing and intonation. Combined with all of the aforementioned, reading rate provides greater insight and understanding of a child’s overall reading ability.
5. Why is it important to code oral reading errors? What is gained by actually noting oral reading errors a reader makes as opposed to just counting them?
Much insight about the reading process can be gained through careful observation of a student’s oral reading performance. It is more involved than simply marking and counting errors. From a student’s oral reading, three scores can be obtained: word reading accuracy, rate, and comprehension. All three of these scores must be taken into account when trying to establish a student’s instructional reading level. (A standard chart representing percentage scores for independent, instructional, frustration and even the “gray” area is used in determining instructional reading levels.) To better understand and interpret these results, coding the types of errors the reader makes is crucial. When the test is administered, there are five types of errors that are recorded and scored: substitutions, omissions, insertions, self-corrections, and teacher help. (Repetitions are also noted, but do not play a factor in calculating a student’s score.) As a rule, a tape recorder is turned on during the entire test, which allows for later review and double-checking of errors. A stop watch is also used to record the time (minutes and seconds) it takes the student to completely read the passage.
By carefully analyzing the types of errors made, the teacher/examiner is able to identify both strengths and weaknesses of a student’s reading performance. We know that context supports both word recognition and meaning so, if a student substitutes a word, is he/she substituting a word with similar meaning; or does it change the meaning? Is the student attending to letter features within the words or simply guessing based on the beginning letter? Are the error types mainly sight words? Does the student add words or skip several words when reading the passage and how does this affect the overall meaning of the story? Several meaning change errors need to be closely examined because they can be reason for concern and raise questions about the student’s ability to read successfully with accurate comprehension at a particular level. Note that strengths (which need to continue to be developed) are also identified more easily by coding. By critically looking at the scores of word reading accuracy, rate, and comprehension, the teacher is able to better choose appropriate materials for the student, pinpoint the exact types of mistakes, and provide more accurate assistance in helping the student correct them. This type of assessment allows for lessons to be developed with specificity of an individual student’s needs in mind.
6. Determine Sedgewick’s instructional levels and justify your decisions. What are the primary problems here?
Although Sedgewick is in the fifth grade, according to the results of the IRI, he is not reading successfully at a fifth grade level. I will discuss each part of the assessment
and then determine an overall instructional reading level for him.
Word recognition (flash and untimed):
Sedgewick’s word recognition scores in the pre-primer, primer, and first grade level are near perfect. However, at the second grade level, he scores a 75% on flash which falls in the instructional category. Here, he shows good decoding skills in the untimed where he was able to correct 3 of his previously missed words, which makes the score an instructional level of 90%. On the third grade list, he scored 35% on the flash which is frustration level, but had good compensation on the timed as he increased his score to 70%. This 70% is instructional, HOWEVER; it is the lowest score in that category and getting pretty close to the “gray” area. He bottomed out at fourth grade, where he scored 10% on flash, and 45% on the untimed.
Due to the difference between the second and third grade levels, I would say that Sedgewick would benefit from instruction in word recognition at the second grade level. He really needs to build his sight vocabulary before he moves to the next level.
Oral reading:
At the first grade level, he scores 98% on reading accuracy (independent), 100% on comprehension, and 75 wpm, which is well within the acceptable range for this level. The results on the second grade assessment show a score of 96% on reading accuracy which is the mid-point of instructional level. He scored 80% on comprehension which also falls at about the mid-point of instructional level. However, his rate of 70 wpm is a good 10 words below the acceptable range of 80-120 wpm for second grade. At third grade, he only scored 88% in reading accuracy which is frustration level. However, in comprehension, he was able to score 80% which is again at the mid-point of instructional level. Another decline in rate was recorded with a score of 62 wpm – this is way below the accepted range of 95-135 wpm for third grade.
Due to the discrepancy between the reading accuracy of second and third grade levels, (96% and 88%) AND the EXTREMELY slow reading rate for both, Sedgewick falls within the second grade instructional level here.
Silent reading:
Since the silent reading passage is to begin one level below the instructional level in oral reading, Sedgewick was administered a passage at the first grade level. Here, his comprehension was perfect, with 100% and his rate was 80 wpm which falls into the normal range of 50-90 wpm. At second grade, his comprehension score is 80% which falls within the instructional range. However, his rate again falls to 76 wpm – way below the range of 95-145. At third grade, he comprehension score was instructional at 90%. This time his rate dropped even further to 65 wpm, a little over half of the low end of the range of 120-170.
On all three grades (first through third) Sedgewick is able to manage a solid instructional level score in comprehension. Without looking at the type of errors he made, I can assume that they are not meaning change errors, as he is still able to understand what he is reading. This would probably not be typical for a third grader to pull off, given the extremely slow rate here. However; Sedgewick, having had two more years of schooling, has a broader knowledge of vocabulary and personal experience he brings with him to the texts he reads. He is probably also better equipped to organize and remember such information. His silent reading rate for second grade is still below where it needs to be (only 10 below), but since his comprehension is consistent, I would recommend that he continue to work on texts that are at the second grade level for silent reading.
Instructional level:
I believe that Sedgewick would greatly benefit from an effective reading intervention to help him “catch up” on his reading skills. He demonstrates good sight word recognition skills at second grade, and shows some compensation/decoding ability at third. His oral reading scores fall within mid instructional level on both reading accuracy and comprehension at the second grade level. His rate is 10 wpm below the range, but given his age and other strengths, second grade would be his instructional level here. When assessed on silent reading, his comprehension again was solid, but his rate continued to fall almost 20 words below the bottom of the range. Taking all of these scores and factors into consideration, I believe that Sedgewick would best be instructed at the second grade reading level. Although his rate on both oral and silent reading is slow, he appears to perform solidly and consistently on the other components. With the drop in word recognition between second and third grade, this tells me that Sedgewick has a limited sight vocabulary stored in memory. Instruction focused on sight words is going to help him automatize even more words, which in turn, will help increase his rate as well. Since Sedgewick is a fifth grader, finding books on his instructional level that interest him may prove to be a challenge. Perhaps the Sunday comics or even other comic books would appeal to him. Nevertheless, I would take an interest survey so that tutoring with him remains of high interest, builds his confidence, and ultimately his overall reading success. I would be interested to know how Sedgewick is performing in school today. (
SL Smiley
RE 5715 Final Exam
Dr. Schlagal
Appalachian State University - fall 2007
From the examiner’s comments, Jeffy sounds like he would be quite an interesting “challenge” to have as a student. I personally don’t believe Bart or Homer Simpson are the best role models for an impressionable fifth grade boy, but since Jeffy’s parents are not students themselves in the tutoring program (HA!), the focus must remain on how to help Jeffy become a successful reader. Thoughtful tutoring with carefully planned lessons will hopefully provide some positive influence so that in the future Jeffy will choose a career other than “cow-tipping”. (Comedian comes to my mind.()
According to Jeffy’s IRI, he is independent in all aspects of the test on the third grade level. (The one exception to this is the score of 60% which is in the “gray” area on silent comprehension.) I will note that his silent reading rate is 10 words below the range, but I believe that to be acceptable because the other aspects of reading are in place. Looking more closely at the fourth grade level, he is instructional on the flash WRI (85%) and exhibits strong decoding skills on the untimed to score 100%. He is independent on the oral accuracy (99%), but his comprehension falls to 74% - a mere one point away from being at the instructional level. He reads at a rate of 127 wpm, which falls in the 110-150 range. His silent comprehension is 93% (independent) and his reading rate is 167 wpm (within range). His score is 75% (instructional) on the spelling test. At the fifth grade level, he scores 75% (instructional) on the flash WRI, and again demonstrates good decoding by correcting 4 of the 5 words missed on the flash, raising his untimed score to 95%. On the oral reading, he scores 97% on accuracy (instructional), but his comprehension plummets to 46%! This frustration level is perhaps due in part to his exceptionally fast oral reading rate at 178 wpm! (This is 23 words above the range!) On the silent reading passage, his comprehension is 100%. Although his silent reading rate is 18 words lower than the acceptable range, this tells me that when Jeffy takes his time to read, he does indeed understand it. His spelling falls within the instructional range – 60%. (Without a copy of Jeffy’s spelling test, I am unable to analyze specific error types.) At the sixth grade level, his performance is sporadic from independent to frustration to the absurd! His silent reading rate of 213 wpm is probably not accurate – no wonder he scored 46% on comprehension!
Taking all of his scores (and his personality) into consideration, I would provide instruction to Jeffy at the fifth grade level. I would concentrate on slowing his reading rate down, so that he has time to make meaning of what he is reading instead of calling the words as fast as he can. I believe that DR-TA would be a beneficial activity to engage him in – especially since he appears to be quite social. This activity would allow him to participate even more in the reading through discussion. He may even view it as a “game-like” activity! Word study activities (Words Their Way) may also prove to be fun as well as productive in teaching him how words work and spelling patterns. I would also provide him with high-interest reading materials (hobby-related) so that he would perhaps become a little more serious about his studies, and maybe even find that he enjoys reading more than marking his parents’ walls with permanent pictures of Bart and Homer. I wish Jeffy the best of luck in his school career, and his parents and teachers much patience in that endeavor! (
SL Smiley
RE 5715 Final Exam
Dr. Schlagal
Appalachian State University - fall 2007
Silesia is a sixth grader and has now entered the tumultuous hormonal world of middle school where it sometimes is a drastic change from the nurturing, “kiddy” environment of elementary school. She now has a different teacher for every class, and with her shy personality, may not feel comfortable asking her teachers for help when she needs it. None the less, Silesia is struggling academically and if help doesn’t arrive soon, she is in jeopardy of becoming more “disinterested” and may run the risk of possibly never catching up with her “on grade level” peers.
According to Silesia’s IRI, the pre-primer through the second grade levels of the WRI are all independent. At third grade, she scores 75% (instructional) on flash, and 90% on untimed. Her oral reading accuracy is 98% (independent), her comprehension is 100%, and her reading rate is 109 wpm which is within the acceptable range. On the silent reading passage, her comprehension is 100% and she read at a rate of 111 wpm – 9 words lower than the range. (This does not concern me, though.) At fourth grade, she fell to 55% on the flash WRI (“gray” area). However; she was able to decode the words when given time to correct 6 of the 9 words that she had previously missed, to raise her score to 85%. Her oral reading accuracy was 97% (instructional), comprehension was 100%, and her reading rate was 98 wpm. (This is 12 below the range of 110-150.) Her silent comprehension was 86% (instructional). Her rate took a dive to 99 wpm – very low from the 135-185 range. At fifth grade, her flash hit frustration level at 45% and she was only able to decode 4 of her missed words on the untimed to give a score of 65% (“gray” area). Although her oral reading accuracy was 96% (instructional) and her comprehension perfect (100%), her rate was very low at 89 wpm! Her silent comprehension was 100%, but here her rate was even lower at 74 wpm – a rate one would expect of a typical first grader! At the sixth grade level she continued to struggle, hitting the frustration point on the WRI, as well as reading at extremely slow rates both orally and silently.
Taking all of Silesia’s scores and her grade level in account, I would instruct her on a fourth grade level. Even though her flash score is 55% and is in the “gray” area, I believe that with systematic instruction in word recognition she would catch up pretty quickly. (I am amazed at her ability to comprehend while extending so much energy decoding at the same time!) The “disinterest” that she exhibits in class and the lack of completing class work is probably coming from the fact that reading on and working at two levels above her instructional level is tedious, effortful, and time-consuming for her. The actual score sheets from her oral reading tests would need to be analyzed for error types such as – are there affixes and suffixes that she is constantly missing or what word patterns can be identified that she continues to miss? I believe she would benefit from Word Study activities that involve games such as Pity-Pat (ASU Reading Clinic) and others listed in the Words Their Way text. Repeated readings would help her build fluency, learn prosody (the “music and rhythm” of reading), increase her reading rate, and build her confidence as well. (Confidence is so important to the success of children!) I also believe that giving Silesia the spelling part of the IRI would be most helpful in planning instruction; because it would provide yet another tool for analyzing her errors and give more insight as to how she thinks that words work. Silesia needs help now – I hope she gets it! (
Test
Reading Assessment and Correction
RE 5715
Please address the following cases. Indicate and justify what you judge to be instructional levels, and suggest appropriate strategies in each case for improving academic performance. No more than one double spaced page for each response.
1. Jeffy (or “Chigger,” as he is called at home), is a bright, robust, well-fed, red-headed 5th grader. His parents complain that his grades are slipping and that he has had to stay in after school suspension for failing to complete his homework. Jeffy’s hobbies at home include dirt biking, origami, shuffleboard, basketball, and on-line gaming. He also plays on several organized sports teams including youth football, baseball, and basketball. In addition, he spends a good deal of time text messaging. He told the examiner that he wants to “tip cows” for a living when he grows up. His parents indicate that they have no problems with him at home except that he talks with his mouth full at dinner and from time to time draws pictures of the Simpsons with indelible markers on the walls of his room.
During testing Jeffy was pleasant and conversational, though he often interrupted testing to offer anecdotes about his dog, Sac, to ask the examiner about his watch, or to wonder about the outcome of the next Panthers game. He offered to take the examiner on a ride on his dirt bike track.
2. Silesia is a bright though quiet, somewhat shy 6th grader. Over the years her grades have generally been good, although her teachers now indicate that she often does not finish her work at school and seems increasingly disinterested. Her parents report that she avoids reading at home, preferring to spend her time talking with friends, petting her cat, Sac, or watching the Three Stooges on DVD.
During testing Silesia was cooperative, though neither forthcoming in speech nor expressive in manner. She answered comprehension questions very precisely and with little difficulty.
Summary of Student’s Performance
Informal Reading Inventory
Name_______Jeffy______________________ Date_________________
Grade____5____ Age______10___ Examiner_____________
School____________________________ Test______ Form_____
| |Word Recognition | | | |
| | |Passage A | | |
| | | |Passage B | |
| | | | |Spelling |
| | | |Acc |Comp |
| |Flash |Untimed | | |
|
Flash |
Untimed |Acc |Comp |Rate |Acc |Comp. |Rate |
| |
PP |
100 |
100 |
| | | |
|
|
| |
P |
100 |
100 |
| | | |
|
|
| |
1st |
100 |
100 |
| | | |
|
|
| |
2nd |
95 |
100 |
|
| | |
|
|
| |
3rd |
75 |
90 |
98 |
100 |
109 | |
100 |111 |
| |
4th |
55 |
85 |
97 |
100 |
98 | |
86 |
99 |
| |
5th |
45 |
65 |
96 |
100 |
89 | |
100 |
74 |
| |
6th |
40 |
55 | 96 |
86 |
67 | | 86 |
51 |
| |
7th |
|
|
| | | |
|
|
| |
8th | | | | | | | | | | |
Functional Reading Levels: Independent Level ________
Instructional Level ________
Frustration Level ________
Comments:
SL Smiley
Informal Reading Inventory
Dr. Schlagal
Appalachian State University
Fall 2007
Jada – first grader
Word recognition (flash and untimed):
Jada is near perfect at the pre-primer and primer levels. However, on the first grade level, she drops to a 70% on the flash, but decodes well to earn a 95% on the untimed. At second grade, she again scores 70% on flash, but decodes well to earn a 100% on the untimed. At the third grade level, she bottoms out at 35% on flash, but does do some compensating to score 75% on the untimed. Being curious about the strength of her decoding skills, I tested her on the fourth grade level where she scored 25% on flash and 45% on the untimed. I thought that perhaps she might exhibit a little better untimed score.
Due to such similar scores on the first and second grade levels, (the second grade level is actually 5% higher on the untimed), I would say that she is instructional at second grade. This is subjective, but Jada would do better if she concentrated more the first time she saw the words, because I felt that some of her mistakes were very careless.
Oral reading:
I began the assessment at the primer level, since she scored a 90% on the flash at that level. She scored a 92% on accuracy (gray area), 50% on comprehension (gray area), and read 57 words per minute, which is within the acceptable range for primer based on the first grade words per minute range of 45-85. On the first grade reading passage, she scored 98% on accuracy (independent), 100% on comprehension, and read 60 words per minute which is acceptable for that level. During her reading, I noticed that since she did NOT score at least a 95% on the primer level, I was supposed to take her back to the pre-primer level – my mistake. However, after such a convincing performance on the first grade level, I continued on, but at the end went back to test her on the pre-primer which she scored a 100% and said that it was too easy for her. (She has quite a personality as you may have noticed from listening to the tape.) On the second grade passage, she scored 90% on accuracy (gray area), 40% on comprehension (frustration), and read at a rate of 49 words per minute which is well below the 80-120 range. At third grade, she scored 94% on accuracy (high gray area), 28% on comprehension (frustration), and read 52 words per minute which is again well below the 80-120 range. At fourth grade, she scored 89% on accuracy (frustration), and read 43 words per minute; again well below the 110-150 range. Her meaning change errors at level 2 are 4, level 3 are 5, and at level 4 are 5. This number of errors can play a factor in overall understanding of the text being read.
Based on her performance, I would say that Jada would best be instructed at the late first grade level, since her second grade accuracy rate is in the gray area, and her comprehension takes a dive at the second grade level. Jada appears to have strong decoding skills, but needs help with comprehension now so that it doesn’t become an issue in the later grades.
Silent reading:
At the second grade level, Jada scored 40% (frustration) on comprehension and read at a rate of 78 words per minute which is lower than the 95-145 range. When compared to her oral rate at that same level (49 wpm), this tells me that she really didn’t read the passage. Although her comprehension score of 40% was identical to the oral passage score. I really don’t think she was putting forth much effort at this point in the assessment, but we were so close to the end that I wanted to finish! On the third grade level, she scored 14% on comprehension (frustration) and read 83 words per minute (lower than the 120-170 range).
For instructional purposes, I would back Jada up to the late first grade level to build her confidence and solidify her skills here.
Spelling:
At the first grade level, Jada scored 58% which is within the 50-79 range of instructional level. Proceeding on to the second and third grade levels, she scored .08%, or +1/12 words correct. At the first grade level, she has all of her beginning and ending sounds correct, medial vowels in place, and even the /dr/ and /sh/. She left out the “h” in when, reversed the “t” and “s” in sister, left out the “l” in plane, and omitted the “m” in bump. Overall, these are pretty high level errors for this level. At the second grade level, she again correctly wrote the beginning and ending sounds. When it came to the vowel patterns, she missed doubling the “e” in queen, the “ai” pattern in train, and the “ou” in cloud. She also needs work on “ck” in thick, the silent “e” marker in chase, and consonant doubling in trapped, shopping, and stuff. Her errors on the third grade level are similar to that of second grade.
In spelling, she would benefit from instruction at the first grade level. If her teacher would work with her on certain patterns from second grade level, I believe Jada would catch on quickly.
Instructional level:
Jada is a solid first grader, who, at this time in the school year (mid- November) is performing at a late first grade level. If she is instructed correctly, she has the potential to really excel and perhaps even be reading at an early third grade level by the end of the year. Unfortunately, I have my doubts for that happening, given the teacher’s inexperience and limited knowledge, the challenging learning environment that she is in, her behavior issues, and the lack of home support. That being said, I am not worried about Jada at this time, as she has exhibited a strong foundation of reading skills. (Her behavior is more of a concern to me.) (
SL Smiley
Informal Reading Inventory
Dr. Schlagal
Appalachian State University
Fall 2007
Chrissy – second grader
Word recognition (flash and untimed):
Chrissy was perfect at the pre-primer level scoring 100%. She surprised me at the primer level scoring 85% on flash, but then she raised her score on untimed to 100%. At first grade, she scored 90% on flash, and 100% on untimed. At second grade, she scores 90% on flash and 95% on untimed. She is independent at all of these levels. At third grade, she dropped to a 65% on flash (which is in the gray area), but decoded nicely to earn 95%. At fourth grade, she plummeted to a 30% on flash, but at a second look on the words, was able to correctly identify 9 of them to raise her untimed score to 75%.
I would instruct her on the third grade level for word recognition, even though her score of 65% falls in the gray area – it is in the higher range of the gray area. With a little instruction, she could be soaring!
Oral reading:
I began the assessment at the second grade level where Chrissy scored 95% on accuracy (instructional), 30% on comprehension (frustration), and read at a rate of 86 words per minute. The acceptable range is 80-120. At third grade, she again scored 95% on accuracy (instructional), dropped to 14% on comprehension (frustration), and read 67 words per minute, which is lower than the range of 95-135. At fourth grade, she read with 91% accuracy (gray area), scored 14% on comprehension (frustration), and read 74 words per minute, which is again lower than the range of 110-150. At fifth grade, she scored 90% on accuracy (gray area), 21% on comprehension (frustration), and only read 61 words per minute, falling way below the 125-155 range.
Based on her performance, Chrissy’s instructional level here is late first grade to early second grade, because of her frustration level in comprehension. She is able to call out words, but it is obvious that she is missing meaning because her meaning change errors double from level 3 to level 4 (3 to 6) and from level 4 to level 5 (6 to 13). Chrissy needs help with her comprehension skills now because these errors are significant!!!
Silent reading:
At the second grade level, Chrissy scored 60% on accuracy which is in the gray area read 86 words per minute which is low. (The range is 95-145.) On third grade, she scored 21% on accuracy (frustration) and read 68 words per minute. (The range is 120-170.)
I would instruct her on second grade level, and even use some late first grade materials to increase her reading rate. Repeated readings would be very beneficial for Chrissy.
Spelling:
At the first grade level, Chrissy scored 83% (independent). At second grade, she scored 75% which is instructional. At third and fourth grades, she scored 25% which is frustration level. At first grade, she wrote “wine” for when. (After the session, I pointed this out to her, so perhaps she will remember it now.) She also left off the final “e” on plane. At second grade, she wrote “shase” for chase and didn’t double the vowel in queen. She also didn’t double the consonant in trapped, as well as ending it with a “t” instead of “d”. Although she scored in the frustration level in both levels three and four (25%), she is making high level errors. For instance, she needs to work on the silent “k” in knock, the “r-controlled” vowels in thirsty and scurry (when to use “er” “ir” “ur”, etc.), double the consonant in slammed, sudden, and cabbage. In cabbage, she wrote “cabige” which tells me she is not quite sure of the “age” ending.
Chrissy is a solid second grade speller.
Instructional level:
Chrissy is performing solidly at the second grade level –with comprehension being the one exception. She exhibits strong decoding skills, but makes many meaning change errors, accounting for her low comprehension scores. Taking all of the components into consideration, I would instruct Chrissy on the second grade level. I am concerned about her comprehension and am afraid that she may not get the instruction that she desperately needs here, as her teacher is scheduled to go on maternity leave any day now. (Who knows what will happen to her if a qualified teacher doesn’t fill the position.) Chrissy is an eager learner, wants to please, and is just a joy to be around. Since I am not teaching this year, I have volunteered to tutor this little girl who gets very little support at home. I just can’t allow a child like this to get behind, especially when there is a strong foundation so far. It will be interesting to see the progress she makes this spring! (
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.