Reading Assessment Methods - Term Paper Example

Foundations of Reading Assessment and Intervention Research Paper Foundations of Reading Assessment and Intervention Research Paper Introduction Reading assessment methods teaches tutors the principles of scientifically, evidence-based reading guidelines. It is important to improve the reading guidelines and interventions of teachers to help develop a deeper insight of all competencies that add to proficient reading. The following paper researches these criteria using reading assessment strategies necessary for ensuring students have grasped concepts in class. Reading relevant course material and recent research articles is crucial for class participation and discussions on best practices for reading assessment and instruction. Informal Assessments The key purpose of informal assessments is to match the reader to text. This purpose characterizes the second criterion of the 2010 edition of the International Reading Association Standards for Reading Professional (Gambrell, Morrow, & Pressley, 2007). A broad array of literary works ranging from conventional print, computerized, to online sources define this criterion. Informal assessments seek to make students have the essential reading, writing, and intellectual skills for complicated books. Secondly, informal assessments present an opportunity for teachers to offer responses to their class individually (Reutzel & Cooter, 2011). This opportunity comes about by acquiring information on students’ learning progress. A third purpose of informal assessment is to drive guidelines by removing guesswork and enabling teachers to target precise shortages instead of teaching a whole lesson or unit once again. Examples The perception of print. Teachers sit with students individually, request them to read a print text, and later answer questions about it (DeVries, 2011). The posed questions should follow formats recommended by the informal assessment model or reading criteria. Rhymes. A teacher should make sure her students are able to come up with words that actually rhyme and not depend on their ideas of rhyme. Formal Assessments The purpose of formal assessments is to determine the volume of knowledge students have grasped from previous lessons (DeVries, 2011). Formal assessments can present a method of comparing one student to the rest of the class. Teachers can expand this method to comparing their student individually outside the class. The difference between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessments is that norm-referenced assessments aim to weigh the amount of knowledge retained by a test subject while criterion-referenced assessments determines the knowledge a test subject knew prior to and after completing a task (Reutzel & Cooter, 2011). Using and Interpreting Data One should interpret data reports by comparing the data acquired with the question design and not try to change the data to fit the question design (DeVries, 2011). Compensating for poor survey design by changing the data is a bad method of interpreting a data report. Changing data means an assessor is presenting findings to an audience that did not partake in the survey or was represented poorly. Data reports can also be interpreted by projecting it to only individuals who responded to the survey or study. Examples Standardized trials Program trials (DeVries, 2011). Measuring Assessment Tests Test reliability. This is how reliably or regularly a test determines a feature. When a student performs a test twice, whether he or she scores more or less similar or significantly different is test reliability (Reutzel & Cooter, 2011). A test that produces the same scores for an individual who takes it repeatedly measures a feature dependably. Test validity. This is the specific feature a test measures. Additionally, how effectively the test measures this feature is test validity as well. Test validity is the most problematic step during test selection in any type of study or survey (Reutzel & Cooter, 2011). Standard error of measurement. This measurement approximates how regular measures of students using similar instruments tend to revolve around their true scores (Rhodes & Ochoa, 2005). A real score always remains an unknown factor since no measure can be built to offer an ideal reflection of the factual score. The standard error of measurement directly relates to test reliability in the sense that a bigger standard error of measurement means reduced test reliability. Reduced test reliability means less accuracy in the measures imposed and scores acquired (Rhodes & Ochoa, 2005). It is very unlikely that any test will produce similar scores for a given individual every time they he or she takes it because all measurement has some inaccuracies. Reading Assessments A quantitative reading assessment is an unbiased method of measurement that applies formal evaluation processes and techniques to emphasize highly stipulated aspects of child development. On the other hand, qualitative reading assessments measure class level reading, fluency, understanding, word choice, and verbal reading precision (Reutzel & Cooter, 2011). One can observe and score quantitative reading assessments easily while qualitative processes are ongoing. This means teachers should always strive to finish qualitative assessments a number of times all through their student’s education. Instruments for quantitative reading assessments are well-thought-out and use devices with stipulated instructions for test management (Rhodes & Ochoa, 2005). Qualitative reading assessments use informal processes and normally apply to students undergoing preschool education. Teachers should perform qualitative reading assessments thrice a year while quantitative reading assessments require the collection of information once and comparison of student scores with peer groups (Reutzel & Cooter, 2011). Examples The Second Bayley Scales of Infant Development. This is a norm-referenced instrument that performs quantitative reading assessments effectively. Findings of quantitative reading assessments might show whether a student has mastered particular goals set by fixed standards like criterion-referencing instruments like the Hawaii Early Learning Profile (Gambrell et al., 2007). On the other hand, qualitative reading assessments call for more inventory performances when a student seems to be struggling with a topic, lesson, or task to acquire a clear image of the his or her progress. Differentiating Instruction Using Data One can use data to differentiate instructions by analyzing it when organizing a distinguished classroom because differentiated instructions depend on knowing the variety of students (DeVries, 2011). Data lets teachers know an individual student’s strong suits and weaknesses, learning modes, personal and educational history, and propensities. Using data to differentiate instruments allows teachers to understand their students immediately and deeply, as well as their needs. Teachers can use data to figure out three crucial bits of information that enforce distinguished instruction, which are student willingness, education profile, and interests. One can also use data to intensify interventions by applying it in experimental and problem-solving procedures to find out which strategy is most suitable for an individual student (DeVries, 2011). Using data the same way a pilot uses cockpit tools to steer the plane intensifies interventions. As a result, when used like this, data prevents learning institutes from constantly failing their hardest-to-teach students (Rasinski, Padak, & Fawcett, 2010). Teachers can use data to determine the occurrence and length of an intervention and examine the impacts of a specific instructional technique on a student. In the process, teachers who use data to differentiate instructions and intensify interventions meet the needs of all students (DeVries, 2011). Devices like grouping exercises and proper curriculum materials have the knowledge of student’s special abilities. Teachers can gather evaluation data and change syllabi and instructions to learn about every student’s progress levels and propensity for learning. Appropriate Criteria Monitoring language progress. One appropriate criterion for selecting materials to include in portfolios for observing student development over time is monitoring the English language and educational progress (Gambrell et al., 2007). The motive for observing the English language and educational progress is to evaluate the student’s continuing progress and accomplishments in English. Deciding withdrawal. A second criterion is deciding when to withdraw students from services (Gambrell et al., 2007). The logic for this criterion is to make sure students meet a high degree of English proficiency needed for success in educational lessons. This logic normally guarantees the acquisition of adequate and proper language support services until students achieve English proficiency. Post-service observation. A third criterion is post-service observation to guarantee an effective transformation into a consistent instructional initiative (Gambrell et al., 2007). A course of action by the Office for Civil Rights demands schools to observe students’ performance after they are withdrawn from a substitute language initiative. Interpretive Issues Determining validity. The modern theory says teachers do not confirm the test itself but the particular explanations and uses shown by a specific test (Rasinski et al., 2010). As a result, tests are not valid on their own. More and more evidence proves that specific explanations or uses of a test are justifiable and demonstrate validation. Convergence. Convergence is considering the degree to which test marks and other courses of action for the same concept interrelate (Rasinski et al., 2010). A teacher may search for convergence or extreme interrelations between test marks on a certain course of action and other real-time courses of action to assess reading and prove divergence. Predictive legitimacy. Predictive legitimacy takes into account the degree to which test marks predict criterion scores acquired positively (Gambrell et al., 2007). For instance, a teacher may use certain English skill tests to assign his or her students to various instructional initiatives. He or she may try to see whether the score and the tests match the ensuing results. Differentiated Instruction or Intervention Sociocultural Variables Tutors should consider sociocultural variables when differentiating reading instruction for all students. Teachers can begin by being sensitive to students’ cultural backdrops. Sensitivity to students’ backdrops allows teachers to tackle the child’s reading needs (Gambrell et al., 2007). Sociopolitical Variables Sociopolitical variables are considered during the differentiation of reading instruction by concentrating on the reallocation of decision-making processes. This focus explains how, when, and which students partake in reform. Psychological Variables Psychological variables are important to distinguishing reading instruction since they facilitate proper responses by educators towards individual student performance. Psychological variables facilitate an effective exploration of the relationship between students’ usage of eligibility approaches (Rhodes & Ochoa, 2005). Student gender, ethnicity, native languages, and interests in learning enable educators to choose the most suitable reading assessment tests for the class. Stages of English Language Acquisition for ELLs Five stage of learning English for ELL exist. The first stage is preproduction, which is the silent stage. Here, the student usually has a maximum of 500 English words in their diction but are unable to speak them (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2007). The second stage is prompt production that can last a maximum of six months and students will build a responsive and dynamic vocabulary of nearly 1,000 English words. Here, students normally talk in one or two-word phrases. The third stage, speech occurrence, has students with nearly 3,000 English words and can build and use simple phrases and sentences while speaking (Bear et al., 2007). The fourth stage is transitional fluency, which includes students with diction of up to 6,000 active, English words. Students in this phase begin constructing more compound sentences during speech and in their writing too, and are ready to express views and share their opinions (Bear et al., 2007). The last stage is mastered fluency and takes students between four and ten years to accomplish intellectual, educational language skill in a nonnative language (Bear et al., 2007). Focusing on ELLs’ Diverse Backgrounds Teachers should focus on ELLs diverse backgrounds and various levels of prior education when differentiating instruction because it determines the success or failure of their students (Rhodes & Ochoa, 2005). This unique duty by educators leads ELLs in their twin process of grasping English as quickly and proficiently as possible. In the process, ELLs benefit in knowledge and skills to achieve the optimal learning outcomes possible. These accomplishments are difficult for educators to realize without considering ELLs various backgrounds and levels of former education when distinguishing instruction (Rasinski et al., 2010). Considering students’ various backgrounds helps teachers involve all students and teach them concurrently by differentiating instruction. Additionally, teachers learn that students vary in skills and abilities to learn because of background variables. Such teachers always adjust the ways they teach to avoid failing their classes (Rhodes & Ochoa, 2005). Impact of Language and Cognitive Development Characteristics of language and cognitive development affect reading proficiency by enacting study-based exercises in understanding, verbal language, phonological consciousness, phonics, fluency, and diction to distinguish instruction for the whole class (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2007). Cognitive development affects reading proficiency through the implementation of study-based exercises for building systems of strategic activity for students. Language characteristics apply autonomous, collective, small group, and entire class instruction to support individual learning objectives. In the process, language characteristics offer diverse alternatives for the way students show mastery (Rasinski et al., 2010). Cognitive development positively contribute to second-language learning and echo reading proficiencies of certain students through motor skills, reading abilities, idea formation, and approach development (Gambrell et al., 2007). Conclusion Reading relevant course material and recent research articles is crucial for class participation and discussions on best practices for reading assessment and instruction. Informal assessments match the reader to text while formal assessments determine the volume of knowledge students have grasped from previous lessons. Test reliability is how reliably or regularly a test determines a learning feature. The standard error of measurement estimates how regular measures of students using similar instruments tend to revolve around their true scores. Teachers should consider sociocultural variables when differentiating reading instruction for all students. Teachers should focus on ELLs diverse backgrounds and various levels of prior education when differentiating instruction because it determines the success or failure of their students. Characteristics of language and cognitive development affect reading proficiency. References Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. & Johnston, F. (2007). Words their way: Word study for phonics, spelling, and word study instruction. (4th ed). New York: Prentice Hall. DeVries, B. (2011). Literacy assessment and intervention for classroom teachers. (3rd Ed.). Scottsdale, Arizona: Holcomb Hathaway, Publishers, Inc. Gambrell, L. B., Morrow, L. M., & Pressley, M. (Eds.) (2007). Best practices in literacy instruction. New York: Guilford Press. Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., & Fawcett, G. (2010). Teaching children who find reading difficult. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Reutzel, D. R. & Cooter, R. B. (2011). Strategies for reading assessment and instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson. Rhodes, R. L. & Ochoa, S. H. (2005). Assessing culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical guide. Guilford Press. Read More