ELAR Module 28 Performance Assessment Instructions ✓ Solved

ELAR Module 28 Performance Assessment Instructions: Directions Part I

Review the teacher's notes on the three informal reading inventories attached. For each student’s informal reading inventory, record any reading behavior that occurred during the assessment other than a checkmark. Describe the student's reading behavior—what did the student do when reading the passage? Indicate if the reading behavior counts as an error. Calculate each student’s reading accuracy by dividing the total number of words read correctly by the total number of words in the passage. Identify each student's reading level as independent, instructional, or frustrational.

Part II – Analyzing Word Reading Errors: Review Kaleb's reading errors, identify the two patterns of errors indicating which specific word recognition skills Kaleb struggled with repeatedly. For each error pattern, list two strategies the teacher can use to help Kaleb improve word recognition. Upload your completed assessment to the drop box. Ensure your assignment includes all requirements based on the grading rubric provided.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The assessment of reading behaviors and errors is crucial in identifying a student's reading level and necessary instructional interventions. This paper details the process of analyzing informal reading inventories (IRIs) for students, focusing on verbal behaviors, error patterns, and targeted strategies to improve word recognition skills, with a specific case analysis of a student named Kaleb.

Part I: Recording Reading Behaviors and Accuracy

Effective assessment begins with meticulous observation of student behaviors during reading. As per the instructions, all behaviors other than checkmarks should be documented. These behaviors include pausing, re-reading, self-correcting, substituting words, vocalizations, or hesitations. Documenting these behaviors provides insight into the student's processing during reading, which complements the quantitative accuracy measure.

For each student, the process involves reviewing their IRIs, noting particular behaviors, and then calculating accuracy. For example, if a student read 90 words correctly out of a 100-word passage, their accuracy rate would be 90%. This rate helps classify their reading level: if accuracy exceeds 95%, the student is usually considered independent; between 90-95%, instructional; below 90%, frustrational.

Part II: Analyzing Word Reading Errors and Developing Strategies

In analyzing Kaleb's errors, the goal is to discern patterns that reveal underlying word recognition challenges. Common error patterns include phonetic decoding errors, sight word recognition deficits, or morphological misunderstandings. Identifying the pattern helps in selecting targeted instructional strategies.

Suppose Kaleb's errors included frequent substitutions of similar-looking words or incorrect decoding of multisyllabic words. These errors suggest difficulties with visual word recognition and phonological decoding. Recognizing these patterns, the teacher can implement specific interventions.

To improve visual word recognition, the teacher can use strategies such as:

• Repeated sight word practice through flashcards or word walls.
• Explicit phonics instruction focusing on decoding multisyllabic words.

Similarly, if the pattern involved substituting words with similar phonetic structures, strategies could include:

• Phonemic awareness activities to enhance phoneme-grapheme correspondence.
• Guided reading sessions emphasizing contextual cues to reinforce word recognition.

Implementing these targeted strategies can help Kaleb develop more accurate and efficient word recognition skills, thereby improving overall reading proficiency.

Conclusion

Assessing and analyzing reading errors systematically provides invaluable insights into the student's reading development needs. By carefully observing behaviors, calculating accuracy, and identifying error patterns, educators can tailor instruction with targeted strategies that facilitate growth. This process is essential for fostering independent readers capable of decoding and comprehending text effectively.

References

• Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2017). The Fountas & Pinnell literacy continuum: A tool for assessment, planning, and teaching.
• Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.
• National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
• Strickland, D. S., & Riley-Ayers, S. (2006). Literacy assessment and instruction Educational practices series—assessment and instruction in reading. National Institute for Literacy.
• Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2017). From phonics to reading: An integrated, balanced approach (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Vellutino, F. R., Steger, J., & Kurnitzky, B. (2015). Reading intervention for students with reading disabilities: A review of the research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48(2), 139-157.
• Moats, L. C., & Moats, M. (2008). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
• Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (2013). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26, 393-416.
• Lesaux, N. K., & Kieffer, M. J. (2010). The role of language in the development of reading proficiency. In T. N. Torgesen & R. M. MacMillan (Eds.), Handbook of reading disabilities research (pp. 71-102). Guilford Press.
• Snow, C. E., & Uccelli, P. (2009). The challenges of academic language in diverse classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 596-602.