<p> Assessment 3 UCM EdCI 5210: Assessment of Literacy Development CASE STUDY</p><p>Overview of Assessment</p><p>Description This assessment focuses on developing a case study on a struggling reader. In order to complete this project, Candidates will administer a number of formal and informal assessments related to reading, writing, and language development; score, interpret, and synthesize the data collected; and report the findings in a written case study. After the analysis of the assessment data, each candidate will provide a list of instructional recommendations which include a rationale for the recommendation. </p><p>Alignment The Case Study addresses the following standards and accompanying elements:</p><p>Standard 1: Foundational Knowledge  Candidates will… o refer to major theories in the foundational areas as they relate to reading. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique the theories. (1.1) o use assessment data in order to determine if the student is integrating the components of phonemic awareness, word identification and phonics, vocabulary and background knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies, and motivation in fluent reading. (1.4)</p><p>Standard 2: Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials  Candidates will… o use assessment data to select a wide range of appropriate instructional practices, approaches, and methods to meet the individual needs of the student. (2.2) </p><p>Standard 3: Assessment, Diagnosis, and Evaluation  Candidates will… o demonstrate appropriate use of assessments in their practice. (3.1) o extend the assessment to further determine proficiencies and difficulties for appropriate services.(3.2) o use in-depth assessment information to plan individual instruction for struggling readers. (3.3) o communicate assessment information to various audiences for both accountability and instructional purposes. (3.4) </p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.1 Standard 4: Creating a Literate Environment  Candidates will… o use assessment data to select materials (books and non-print) that match the reading levels, interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds of students. (4.1, 4.2) o use methods to effectively revise instructional plans to motivate all students and can articulate the research base that grounds their decisions. (4.4)</p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.2 University of Central Missouri Data Analysis for Assessment 3: Case Study Standard 1 Fall Summer Spring Fall Summer Spring 07 Foundational Knowledge: 08 08 08 07 07 Candidates have knowledge of the foundations of reading and writing processes and instruction 1.1 Candidates refer to major theories in the foundational areas as they relate to reading. They can explain, compare, contrast, and critique the theories. Number of Students 5 10 8 5 2 8 Exceptional Level% 60 60 80 40 50 37.5 Proficient Level % 20 10 20 60 50 37.5 Satisfactory Level % 20 30 25 Unsatisfactory Level % % MEETING THE STANDARD 100 100 100 100 100 100 1.4 Candidates are able to determine if students are appropriately integrating the components (phonemic awareness, word identification and phonics, vocabulary and background knowledge, fluency, comprehension strategies, and motivation) in fluent reading. Number of Students 5 10 8 5 2 8 Exceptional Level% 60 60 80 40 37.5 Proficient Level % 20 20 20 60 50 25 Satisfactory Level % 20 20 50 37.5 Unsatisfactory Level % % MEETING THE STANDARD 100 100 100 100 100 100</p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.3 University of Central Missouri Data Analysis for Assessment 3: Case Study Standard 2 Fall Summer Spring Fall Summer Spring 07 Instructional Strategies and Curriculum Materials: 08 08 08 07 07 Candidates use a wide range of instructional practices to support reading and writing instruction. 2.2 Candidates support classroom teachers and in the use of a wide range of instructional practices, approaches, and methods, including technology-based practices. They help teachers select appropriate options and explain the evidence base for selecting practices to best meet the needs of all students. Number of Students 5 10 8 5 2 8 Exceptional Level% 60 60 80 60 50 Proficient Level % 20 10 20 40 50 25 Satisfactory Level % 20 30 50 25 Unsatisfactory Level % % MEETING THE STANDARD 100 100 100 100 100 100 Standard 3 Fall Summer Spring 07 Assessment, Diagnosis, and Evaluation: 07 07 Candidates use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective reading instruction. 3.1 Candidates compare and contrast, use, interpret, and recommend a wide range of assessment tools and practices. Assessments may range from standardized tests to informal assessments. They demonstrate appropriate use of assessments in their practice, and they can train classroom teachers to administer and interpret these assessments. Number of Students 5 10 8 5 2 8 Exceptional Level% 60 40 80 80 100 25 Proficient Level % 20 20 20 20 25 Satisfactory Level % 20 40 50 Unsatisfactory Level % % MEETING THE STANDARD 100 100 100 100 100 100</p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.4 University of Central Missouri Data Analysis for Assessment 3: Case Study 3.2 Candidates support the classroom teacher in the assessment of individual Fall Summer Spring Fall Summer Spring 07 students. They extend the assessment to further determine proficiencies and 08 08 08 07 07 difficulties for appropriate services. Number of Students 5 10 8 5 2 8 Exceptional Level% 60 60 80 80 100 50 Proficient Level % 20 20 20 20 50 Satisfactory Level % 20 20 Unsatisfactory Level % % MEETING THE STANDARD 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.3 Candidates assist the classroom teacher in using assessment to plan instruction for all students. Number of Students 5 10 8 5 2 8 Exceptional Level% 80 50 80 80 100 25 Proficient Level % 20 50 20 20 25 Satisfactory Level % 50 Unsatisfactory Level % % MEETING THE STANDARD 100 100 100 100 100 100 3.4 Candidates communicate assessment information to various audiences for both accountability and instructional purposes. Number of Students 5 10 8 5 2 8 Exceptional Level% 60 50 80 60 50 37.5 Proficient Level % 20 50 20 40 50 37.5 Satisfactory Level % 20 25 Unsatisfactory Level % % MEETING THE STANDARD 100 100 100 100 100 100</p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.5 University of Central Missouri Data Analysis for Assessment 3: Case Study Standard 4 Fall Summer Spring Fall Summer Spring 07 Creating a Literate Environment: 08 08 08 07 07 Candidates create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating foundational knowledge, use of instructional practices, approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments. 4.1 Candidates assist the classroom teacher and paraprofessionals in selecting materials that match the reading levels, interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds of students. Number of Students 5 10 8 5 2 8 Exceptional Level% 40 60 80 40 50 75 Proficient Level % 20 20 20 60 50 12.5 Satisfactory Level % 40 20 12.5 Unsatisfactory Level % % MEETING THE STANDARD 100 100 100 100 100 100 4.2 Candidates assist the classroom teacher and paraprofessionals in selecting books, technology-based information, and non-print materials representing multiple levels, broad interests, and cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Number of Students 5 10 8 5 2 8 Exceptional Level% 60 60 80 80 100 87.5 Proficient Level % 20 20 20 20 12.5 Satisfactory Level % 20 20 Unsatisfactory Level % % MEETING THE STANDARD 100 100 100 100 100 100</p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.6 University of Central Missouri Data Analysis for Assessment 3: Case Study Standard 4 Fall Summer Spring Fall Summer Spring 07 Creating a Literate Environment: 08 08 08 07 07 Candidates create a literate environment that fosters reading and writing by integrating foundational knowledge, use of instructional practices, approaches and methods, curriculum materials, and the appropriate use of assessments. 4.4 Candidates use methods to effectively revise instructional plans to motivate all students. They demonstrate these techniques and they can articulate the research base that grounds their practice. Number of Students 5 10 8 5 2 8 Exceptional Level% 60 50 80 40 37.5 Proficient Level % 20 50 20 40 50 25 Satisfactory Level % 20 20 50 37.5 Unsatisfactory Level % % MEETING THE STANDARD 100 100 100 100 100 100</p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.7 Interpretation of Data The Case Study is an assignment completed in EdCI 5210, Assessment of Literacy Development. This assessment has been a course requirement for several years; however, the faculty made the decision to include this assessment as proof of candidate competency in 2006 in an effort to strengthen our program. The data presented was gathered during the Spring 07, Summer 07, Fall 07, Spring 08, Summer 08, and Fall 08 semesters. </p><p>This course is completed during LEVEL TWO of the program. Even though most of the candidates have been in the classroom for several years and have worked with assessment data, they are not yet adept at the data analysis, synthesis and interpretation process necessary to determine the relevant patterns of student behavior demonstrated across tests.</p><p>The data analysis supports the premise that candidates at this level in their program find it difficult to determine if students are appropriately integrating the components in fluent reading, 1.4, and to interpret the assessment results, 3.1. Even though all of the candidates met the Standards assessed in this assignment, only eighty-two percent were at the Satisfactory Level in Standard 1.4 and Standard 3.1. As result, the instructor has included several opportunities for scaffolded practice in linking data interpretation to instructional decisions in the course beginning in the Fall 07 semester. This appears to have made a difference in candidate competency levels as shown in the Fall 07 data for these two Standards. However, there were still a few students who were still denoting difficulty with these Standards in the Summer 08 and Fall 08 semesters.</p><p>Student Directions</p><p>UCM EdCI 5210: Assessment of Literacy Development CASE STUDY</p><p>IRA Standards: 1.1, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4</p><p>This project focuses on the development of a case study on a struggling reader. In order to complete this project you will be expected to administer the following assessment: Qualitative Reading Inventory-4, Test of Oral Language Development, Monster Spelling Test, completion of a miscue analysis on the oral reading passages, analysis of the written language sample using the Beginning Writer’s Continuum or the 6+1 Writing Scoring Guide. After the completion of the assessment battery, you will score, interpret, and synthesize the data collected; and report the findings using the required format for the case study. In addition, you will create a set of appendices that include the individual test protocols, a rationale behind the administration of each test, and a detailed discussion of the theories and rationale supporting your list of instructional recommendations. </p><p>Introduction (IRA 3.3) Through conversations with teachers, parents, and information found in cumulative school records (if you have access) gather information about the student. UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.8 Include the following information in the Student Introduction section:</p><p>Student: A. Age B. Gender C. Race/ethnicity D. Current grade level placement in school - retentions? E. Special services the child receives in/out of school F. Uses physical aids – glasses, hearing aids, etc… G. Other factors that may include: number of years in the school, number of schools attended, and family status H. Child’s attitude toward / behavior during the testing I. Rapport with classroom teacher and classmates J. Rapport with test administrator</p><p>Community / School: A. Geographic location B. School population C. Testing environment</p><p>Student Assessment (3.1) Administer the assessments listed below to collect data regarding student literacy performance. Administration must follow each test’s guidelines and protocols must be complete, accurate, and neat.  Garfield Reading Attitude Inventory (McKenna and Kear)  Qualitative Reading Inventory - 4  Test of Oral Language Development  Monster Spelling Test (Gentry)  Completion of Goodman’s Miscue Analysis on oral passages  Analysis of written language sample using the Beginning Writer’s Continuum or the 6+1 Writing Scoring Guide</p><p>Each of the completed and scored test protocols must be included in appendix A of the Report of Testing.</p><p>Data Summary and Observations (1.4, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) In the Tests/Inventories Administered section provide a brief statement regarding the intended purpose and administration of each test. Next, summarize student performance data and observational data from each test. </p><p>Data Analysis and Synthesis (1.4, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) Analyze the data from each test. Discuss the patterns/trends in processes, skills, and strategies revealed across the tests. State the child’s current placement on the developmental continuum - emergent, early, transitional, or fluent. Determine the student’s reading potential using Harris and Sipay’s Reading Expectancy Age and Grade. UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.9 Synthesize these findings in the following the organization described under Report of Testing Organization (see below)</p><p>Recommendations for Instruction (1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4) Using the findings from data analysis and synthesis, write specific, detailed recommendations for future instruction. Include:  Discuss the strategies and skills that need to be further developed.  Provide specific instructional methods and materials required to accomplish these goals. Cite specific examples from the testing and observation data to inform your recommendations and support these recommendations with theory. </p><p>Report of Testing Organization The Report of Testing should be organized as follows:</p><p>1. Student Introduction a. Reason for referral b. General Information c. Testing Environment 2. Overview of Tests/Inventories Administered 3. Interpretations and Discussion of Student Behavior a. Graphophonemic Cueing System i. Sight word Development ii. Context Clues iii. Phonetic Development b. Syntactic Cueing System iv. Syntactic Acceptability v. Organizational Patterns in Written Language vi. Organization Patterns in Recall c. Semantic Cueing System vii. Semantic Acceptability viii. Comprehension d. Oral / Silent Reading Comparison e. Fluency in Reading 4. Strengths and Areas of Instructional Need 5. Instructional Recommendations 6. Appendix A – completed and scored test protocols 7. Appendix B – rationale for instructional recommendations 8. Reference page – APA 5th edition style</p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.10 Case Study Final Project Rubric 100 points total Exceptional Proficient Satisfactory (Basic) Unsatisfactory Overall Format: The candidate All of the components and All of the components and All of the components of the One or more of the followed the required format for subparts of the Case subparts of the Case Case Study are included and components of the Case Study organizing and writing the Case Study are included and Study are included and two or fewer may be are missing. Of those present, Study. The report includes the complete. The document complete. The document incomplete. Some of the more than two are incomplete. required information in under the is organized according to is organized according to subparts may be missing. Some of the subparts are following areas: student the specified format. the specified format. For The document is partially missing. The document is not introduction, overview of Writing is clear and in the the most part, writing is organized according to the organized according to the test/inventories administered, objective case. There are clear and in the objective specified format. For the specified format. The writing interpretations and discussion of no errors in grammar, case. There are five or most part, writing is clear lacks clarity and is not written student behavior, strengths and spelling, or conventions. fewer errors in grammar, and in the objective case. in the objective case. There areas of instructional need, spelling, or conventions. There are six to ten errors in are more than ten errors in recommendations for future grammar, spelling, or grammar, spelling, or instruction, appendices, and conventions. conventions. reference page following APA format. 9-10 pts. 8 pts. 7 pts. 6 or fewer pts. Introduction of Student: The The Case Study student The Case Study student The Case Study student The Case Study student candidate followed the standard introduction is well introduction is well introduction lacks some introduction lacks organization format for organizing and organized, written clearly, organized, written clearly, organization and clarity. At and clarity. More than 6 of the developing a Case Study and includes all of the and includes all of the least 9 of the required pieces required pieces of information introduction for the student. The necessary information in necessary information. of information are present are missing. Areas included heading data, reason for referral, detail. Detail is lacking in one or but may lack detail. lack detail. general observations and testing two areas. environment are all included and organized according to specified format. (IRA 3.3) 9 -10 pts. 8 pts. 7 pts. 6 or fewer pts.. Administration and Scoring: The required tests are The required tests are The required tests are One or more of the required The candidate administers and administered according to administered according to administered according to tests are not administered scores all required tests according specified standards, specified standards, specified standards but according to specified to specified procedures. The scored correctly, and all scored correctly, and all scoring may be incomplete standards. Scoring is scores are figured accurately and test protocols are clearly, but one test protocol is or inaccurate in one case. incomplete or inaccurate in test protocols are clearly, fully, fully, and neatly marked. clearly, fully, and neatly Two or fewer test protocols more than cases. Two or more and neatly marked. (IRA 3.1) marked are not clearly, fully, and/or test protocols are not clearly, neatly marked fully, and/or neatly marked</p><p>9-10 pts. 8 pts. 7 pts. 6 or fewer pts.</p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.11 Case Study Final Project Rubric 100 points total Exceptional Proficient Satisfactory (Basic) Unsatisfactory Overview of the The purpose of each test The purpose of each test The purpose of most tests is The purpose of most tests is Tests/Inventories Administered: is briefly stated. The is briefly stated. The briefly stated. Most not stated. Numerical data are The purpose of each test is briefly numerical data are numerical data are numerical data are not summarized accurately, stated. The numerical data from summarized accurately summarized accurately summarized accurately and clearly, and/or organized each test is summarized according and clearly and organized and clearly and organized clearly and organized according to the specified to the specified format. A brief according to the specified according to the specified according to the specified format. A brief overview of overview of student test behavior format. A brief overview format. A brief overview format. A brief overview of student test behavior and and observations recorded during of student test behavior of student test behavior student test behavior and observational data are missing testing are included. (IRA 1.4, and observations are and observational data are observational data are for most tests. 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) written objectively and provided for most tests provided for most tests but with clarity and detail. and written with clarity clarity and detail are lacking and detail in most cases. in some cases.</p><p>9-10 pts. 8 pts. 7 pts. 6 or fewer pts. Interpretations and Discussion Data analysis and Data analysis and Data analysis and synthesis Data analysis and synthesis is of Assessment: Analyze the data synthesis effectively synthesis discusses most discusses most of the incomplete or inaccurate. Key from each test. Discuss the discusses the relevant of the relevant relevant patterns/trends in findings are not discussed or patterns/trends in the relevant patterns/trends in the patterns/trends in processes, skills, and are inaccurate based upon processes, skills, and strategies processes, skills, and processes, skills, and strategies revealed across data. revealed across the tests. strategies revealed across strategies revealed across the tests. Analysis and Synthesize these findings (IRA the tests. Analysis and the tests. Analysis and synthesis states key findings 1.4, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) synthesis is clearly synthesis is clearly but lacks clarity. An written, states key written, states key understanding of the literacy findings, and findings, and processes is not clear. demonstrates demonstrates understanding of the understanding of the literacy processes. literacy processes..</p><p>18-20 pts. 16-17.5 pts. 14-15.5 pts. 13.5 or fewer pts.</p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.12 Case Study Final Project Rubric 100 points total Exceptional Proficient Satisfactory (Basic) Unsatisfactory Instructional The recommendations for The recommendations for The recommendations for The recommendations for Recommendations: The future instruction are future instruction are future instruction are future instruction are not candidate uses the findings from clearly linked to data linked to data analysis and somewhat linked to data linked to data analysis and data analysis and synthesis to analysis and synthesis synthesis. The candidate analysis and synthesis. The synthesis. The candidate write specific, detailed The candidate provides a provides a clear rationale candidate provides a rationale does not provide a rationale recommendations for future clear, detailed rationale for each instructional for each instructional for each instructional instruction. The candidate for each instructional recommendation. The recommendation; however recommendation. Two or discusses the rationale for each recommendation. The rationale addresses each clarity and/or accuracy may be more of the specified instructional decision. This rationale addresses each specified question. lacking. The rationale questions are not addressed. discussion includes answers to the specified question. addresses one of the specified Clarity and/or accuracy are following questions: questions. lacking.  What interpretations of the data led me to determine that this is an appropriate instructional recommendation?  What theories support that improvement of this skill will enhance student literacy behavior?  How will enhancement of this 8 pts. 7 pts. skill improve literacy 9-10 pts. 6 or fewer pts. behavior? (IRA 1.1, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2 4.4) Rationale for Test Use: The The candidate provides a The candidate provides a The candidate provides a The candidate does not candidate discusses the rationale clear, detailed rationale clear rationale for each rationale for each test in the provide a rationale for each for each test in the Case Study. for each test in the Case test in the Case Study. Case Study; however clarity test in the Case Study. Two This discussion includes answers Study. The rationale The rationale addresses and/or accuracy may be or more of the specified to the following questions: addresses each specified each specified question. lacking. The rationale questions are not addressed.  What do I want to know? question. addresses two of the specified Clarity and/or accuracy are  Why do I want to know? questions. lacking.  How will this test help me discover this information? (IRA 3.1, 3.2, 3.4) </p><p>9-10 pts. 8 pts. 7 pts. 6 or fewer pts.</p><p>UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.13 UCM Assessment 3 Case Study P.14</p>