![References
Afflerbach, P., Cho, B. – Y., Kim, J. – Y., Crassas, M. E.,, & Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: What else matters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 440 – 448.
Calkins, L. (2013). Units of Study for Teaching Writing. Retrieved from www.heinemann.com/shared/onlineresources/E04717/WritingInstructionEssentials.pdf
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012). English language arts standards. Retrieved from www.corestandards.com/ELALiteracy
Coskie, T. L. & Hornof, M. M. (2013). E-best principles: Infusing technology into the writing workshop. The Reading Teacher, 67(1), 54-58.
Education Northwest. (2013). 6+1 Trait writing. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/traits
Hiebert, E. H., (2013). Supporting students’ movement up the staircase of text complexity, 66(6), 459-468.
Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as
readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470-482.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2014). Cognitive and noncognitive assessments [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2014b). Conversations with Ray Reutzel: Supporting comprehension [Interactive Media]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
NCTE. (2016). Professional knowledge for the teaching of writing. Retrieved from www. ncte.org/positions/statements/teaching-writing
Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B., Jr. (2016). Strategies for reading assessment and instruction in an era of Common Core Standards: Helping every
child succeed. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/gettingtoknowtheliteracylearnerpowerpoint-160526020511/85/Getting-to-Know-the-Literacy-Learner-27-320.jpg)
Getting to Know the Literacy Learner
- 1. Getting to Know the Literacy Learner By Wendi Ankrim
- 2. Meet Student B: The Reader Student B is an eleven year old, male, fifth grade student. He is an intermediate literacy student as evidenced by the way he interacts with texts. I chose to work with student B because despite a lack Developmental Reading and Writing Stages Continuum of focus and motivation, he demonstrates an interest in learning from reading when working one-on-one with the teacher and shares that he would like to improve his reading ability.
- 3. Part 1: Using Assessment to Inform Instruction Both cognitive and noncognitive assessments provide valuable information about literacy learners (Henk & Melnick, 1995). Noncognitive Assessment : The Reader Self-Perception Scale * Measures intermediate-level readers’ attitudes toward reading *Can be administered to whole class or individuals Rational for using this assessment: *Was designed specifically for intermediate-level readers *Provides valuable information which allows the teacher to tailor reading instruction and environment to the needs of the student *Is quick to administer – 15 minutes
- 4. Cognitive reading assessments focus on reading behaviors such as comprehension, fluency and vocabulary (Laureate Education, 2014). Cognitive Assessment : Running record with miscue analysis * Student reads a text orally to teacher *Allows teacher to assess decoding ability by examining errors Rationale for using this assessment: *Shows what a student can do so teacher can determine what instruction should come next (Reutzel & Cooter, 2016) *Miscue analysis informs teacher about strategies student uses *Is easily adapted to include comprehension assessment *Is easily adapted to include a vocabulary assessment
- 5. Summary of Assessment Data Assessment informs and maximizes instruction (Reutzel & Cooter, 2016). Assessment Type Assessment What it Tells About Student B Noncognitive Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS) *Overall self-efficacy as a reader is low *Perceived progress is low *Perceived comparison to other readers is low *Perceived social feedback about student’s reading is low *Physiological state in relation to reading is low Cognitive Running Record *97% accuracy on grade level texts *Errors occur when relying solely on visual cues *Self-corrects with meaning cues and background knowledge *Extensive sight word vocabulary Cognitive Comprehension *Earned 4/10 comprehension points *Strength – literal comprehension *Challenge –understanding implied messages Cognitive Vocabulary *Effectively uses context clues to determine meaning of unknown and content specific vocabulary
- 6. What do the assessments tell us ? The noncognitive reading assessment indicates that Student B perceives himself as making progress is reading skills but still lagging behind his classmates. He feels that others in his life do not think he is a good reader. Results also indicate that he is neutral about how he feels about reading in general but has poor self-efficacy in regards to reading out loud. In general, Student B is ready and willing to receive information via reading but in a one-on-one setting as opposed to a whole class or small group setting. The running record indicates that Student B reads with reasonable accuracy (97%). Most errors occur when he relies solely on visual cues (phonics). He is able to use meaning cues in conjunction with existing background knowledge to decode unknown words with success. His receptive reading vocabulary is extensive as he does not have to stop often to figure out unfamiliar words. The comprehension assessment tells us that Student B has satisfactory understanding of literal meaning in grade level texts. He struggles to understand implicit messages and think “beyond” the text. Information gained from the vocabulary assessment supports that Student B effectively uses context clues and schema theory (Reutzel & Cooter, 2016) in determining the meaning of unfamiliar and content specific vocabulary words and is a relative strength. Assessments tell us what children know and can do (Reutzel & Cooter, 2016).
- 7. How Do These Assessments Inform Instruction for Student B? The noncognitive assessment - Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS) - provides information about ways Student B needs to be supported affectively. The RSPS informs how I structure the reading environment for Student B – the number of times I confer with him, if I see him individually or in a group, what data I share with him about his reading progress. This assessment helps me ensure reading success and confidence. Cognitive assessments inform the content of instruction – what strategies Student B learns and practices. The running record tells me what accuracy strategies Student B does and does not use effectively. The comprehension assessment provides evidence of literal and inferential comprehension strategy use and dictates which type of comprehension is most needed for Student B. The vocabulary assessment affords knowledge regarding Student B’s use of context clues to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words as well as which words are in his receptive vocabulary. Through this assessment I can decide if Student B needs to practice using context clues or exposure to a wider range of vocabulary.
- 8. Next Steps: Adjustment to Instruction Based on Assessment Data Performance Goal Instructional Adjustment To increase positive affect in regards to reading: *Develop a system to motivate to read each night at home * Confer individually and daily with student for reading strategy work *Share data with student about his reading progress and in relation to the class To increase reading accuracy: *Reinforce cross-checking strategies for accuracy: Does it look right? Does it sound right? Does it make sense in the sentence? To increase comprehension: *Explicit instruction in context clues to understand implied messages *Direct strategy instruction to self-monitor for comprehension To continue vocabulary growth: Explicit instruction context clues to understand implied messages *Direct instruction to self-monitor for comprehension
- 9. Insights I have always been aware of the immense importance of cognitive assessments in informing reading instruction. However, through the data collected here I have also come to realize the impact affective elements have on literacy learning and ways I can support positive self-efficacy in my students. By structuring the reading environment in a way that provides each student with the appropriate support, I am encouraging reading engagement and motivation which in turn lead to increased literacy development (Henk & Melnick,, 1995). By analyzing how this data informs instruction I have become aware of the advantages of making changes to both the reading environment and instructional content for student learning. I now understand the ease with which such assessments can be administered and how valuable the information gleaned from them can be for teaching and learning.
- 10. Part 2: Identifying Developmental Stages of Writing Developing writers require support that comes from thoughtfully constructed writing instruction focused on the acquisition of new strategies and skills (NCTE, 2016). The number of everyday experiences which require writing have increased substantially in the last decade. In order to ensure students’ are prepared for these experiences teachers must be experts in instructing multiple genres of writing as well as each child’s developmental stage of writing in order to facilitate optimal learning.
- 11. Meet Student B: The Writer Stage of Writing Development: Early Transitional Identifying Characteristics of Student B’s Writing: *Writes for various purposes *Writes in logical order *Develops paragraphs *Uses developmentally appropriate spelling patterns *Lacks consistently accurate writing conventions *Does not edit and revise
- 12. Student B’s Writing Sample (composed in digital format) Muffin And Wonder In Muffin and Wonder they both have similarities and differences. Like they both have bullies in the story like “Julian” made a game of the plug if you touch Auggie you Auggie that game him seemed sad . summer did not want to do the game also she told muffin alice hearts Daisy and the old lady helped daisy from getting in trouble from Alice. Daisy had a old lady wo had her back and auggie had summer and Via on his back . They both have people on there side. Both stories have a character with the same name which is daisy the dog and daisy the main character. They both have dogs in the stories like when Auggie said”mom pushed daisy over”auggie came to sit by him and when Daisy said” Muffin came rushing”. Muffin ran to help daisy .Those are the similarities of the story. Wonder and Muffin has differents too. Like they have different storyline. In Wonder Auggie sees his dad but in Muffin, Daisies dad is at war so she can't see him that much. The main characters are different in the books also and they don’t have the same problem
- 13. Student B’s Writing Needs *Increased motivation to write, edit and revise *Introduction to a variety of graphic organizers *Methods to expand ideas or events to support reader comprehension *Use of a familiar editing checklist *Direct instruction in the editing process *Practice using the writing process
- 14. Next Steps: Adjustment to Instruction Based on Assessment Data Performance Goal Instructional Support Increase motivation to write, edit and revise *Design assignments that allow content choice *Use technology to compose digital text *Allow purposeful use of media/graphics (w/ guidelines) (Coskie & Hornof, 2013) *Allow for authentic opportunities to share text (Tompkins, 2010) Use a variety of graphic organizers *Model use of variety of graphic organizers with multiple genres (Tompkins, 2010) *Provide choice of graphic organizers Expand/elaborate ideas *Confer individually with student during each writing assignment regarding elaboration (focus on 6+1 “Ideas” trait) (Education Northwest, 2013). Use an editing checklist effectively * Design an editing checklist to help student focus on specific types of errors including capitalization, punctuation, and contraction rules (Tompkins, 2010) Use editing process *Model proofreading process, rereading a specific type of error each time (Tompkins, 2010) Use writing process *Interactive writing lessons (Tompkins, 2010) *Partner writing to practice writing process
- 15. The Common Core Standards and Literacy Instruction The Common Core Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012) drive my literacy instruction for Student B. Since the standards for both Reading and Writing are a continuum of skills, I use them to identify the developmental needs specific to him. When designing instruction I reference the standards to ensure alignment of what I teach to what the student is expected to know and be able to do according to them. The use of technology is not explicitly stated within the standards but rather embedded throughout them. In order to also embed the Student B and his classmates to compose text using Chromebooks on a weekly basis as they respond to what they read or complete on demand writing. I also provide real-time, electronic feedback to them via commenting features associated with Google. By using digital technology in this way, I embed it in my instruction much like it is embedded in the standards.
- 16. The Value of the Teachers’ Self-Assessment of Efficacy in Writing for Writing Instruction To be most effective, teachers must continually engage in reflection (Reutzel & Cooter, 2016). Completing the Teachers’ Self-Assessment of Efficacy in Writing and the Teaching of Writing was an experience which has the potential to have a profound impact on my writing instruction. In identifying and reflecting on my own strengths and perceptions in regards to writing, I am better able to use those strengths to enhance literacy instruction for my students. By identifying my weaknesses I am able to locate resources and focus on improving my knowledge and skills in those areas and thus improve my ability as a teacher of literacy. Additionally, the completion of the self- assessment forced me to view myself, and my writing skills in the role of a student. This enables me to better empathize with and understand the needs and perspective of my literacy learner. Through the establishment of personal goals for writing instruction, I have gained direction and motivation to acquire the strategic and instructional knowledge I lack in order to offer my literacy learner the best instruction possible. I have already begun to take steps to improve my knowledge of effective writing instruction with the acquisition of the Writing Units of Study by Lucy Caulkins (2013) .
- 17. The Next Stage of Writing Development for Student B Student B will next enter the Intermediate stage of writing development. This stage is characterized by the development of a unique voice, refined order and organization structures, the ability to revise for clarity and mastery of the conventions of writing after utilizing the editing process. I can help Student B advance toward this next stage of writing development by modeling the processes necessary to create quality writing. These processes will become self-regulating behaviors which have the ability to increase his confidence and independence as a writer. Likewise, I will allow for ample time to write for authentic reasons and for authentic audiences and will confer with Student B on a regular basis to address writing needs that are unique to him.
- 18. Part 3: Comprehension Strategies vs. Instructional Strategies: What’s the difference? Comprehension Strategies *Used by students *Allow for understanding of texts *Include metacognitive strategies: monitoring, checking and repairing comprehension (Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas & Doyle, 2013). Examples: Identify purpose for reading Adjust speed based on text difficulty Use context clues to infer meaning Visualize Reread text Instructional Strategies *Used by teachers *Create the conditions in which comprehension learning occurs (Laureate Education, 2014b) *Allow for explicit instruction of cognitive comprehension strategies (Laurate Education, 2014b) Examples: Think-Pair-Share Read Aloud Direct instruction Conferring with individuals Modeling
- 19. Two Comprehension Strategies Demonstrated by Student B For this conference, I worked with Student B on a familiar text – one that he had read previously as a formative assessment. In the prior reading he demonstrated a lack of comprehension and so this session provided the perfect opportunity for me to take a closer look at the comprehension strategies he was using effectively and instruct in those he needed to develop. In the second sentence of the nonfiction text about Earthquakes, Student B encountered the word “sway”. He sounded out the first two letters, stopped and said, “I’ve never seen this word before. I don’t know what it means.” In identifying the problem to his comprehension, he demonstrated metacognition and monitoring. He then used the Fix up strategy, reread, in order to notice context clues to help him understand the unknown word. He was then able to decode and understand the word correctly. If students are reading and realize they are learning nothing, they need then to understand what steps to take to fix up their understanding (Laureate Education, 2014b)
- 20. Instructional Strategies Modeling – The teacher provides an exemplar model of a process or product. Example: Think Aloud Explicit Instruction – The teacher shares a specific strategy with a student. Telling him how, when and why to implement it. Questioning – The teacher presents questions in oral or written format which guide the student to attend to specific elements of comprehension. Example: Teacher Questioning Checklist for Student Metacognition (Afflerbach, Cho, Kim, Crassas & Doyle, 2013).
- 21. Part 4: Selecting Texts When selecting texts for close reading activities it is important to consider text complexity. Because close reading requires deep interaction with and critical analysis of a text it is imperative that the text be challenging yet accessible to students. If a text is too easy students will not have the opportunity to learn and develop new strategies and skills related to reading. Literacy development will not advance. If a text is too difficult students will not be able to access the text in a way that produces meaning. In either case, the student will not learn new strategies and skills.
- 22. Informational Texts for Student B Curiosity on Mars Tsunamis Characteristics: *Level S Guided Reading Level is a general placement appropriate for Student B *Includes a text feature on each page *Text features support comprehension *Approximately one vocabulary word per page *Approximately 75 words per page *Student B has some prior knowledge related to topic *Student B has some prior knowledge of structure *Topic is of interest to Student B Characteristics: *Level S Guided Reading Level *Begins with narrative about the topic to activate/provide background knowledge *Student B has some prior knowledge related to topic *Approximately 60 words per page *Approximately one vocabulary word every 1.5 pages
- 23. Student Assessment Data and Implications for Text Selection: Student B Based on data derived from the noncognitive assessment administered to Student B, it was determined that he had a negative self-perception of himself as a reader when compared to his peers. For this reason, it is important to select a text which challenges him yet allows him to be successful in order to grow his self-efficacy as a reader. The cognitive comprehension assessment indicated Student B’s approximate reading level. This must be considered when choosing a text of a general level so that the meaning of the text is accessible to him. On the same assessment Student B showed strong understanding of literal messages but needed more practice to accurately understand implied messages. When selecting texts for him, the teacher must look for a text that includes literal and implied messages. The administered vocabulary assessment showed that Student B used context clues and prior knowledge to accurately determine the meaning of vocabulary words. In selecting texts it would be wise for the teacher to consider topics in which Student B has some prior knowledge.
- 24. Analyzing Text Selection Processes Current Practice Recommended Practice *Relies heavily on Guided Reading leveling system *Level primarily identified by professional other than the classroom teacher *Primarily quantitative in nature *Evaluates text on a “macro” level *Considers student strengths and needs *May be based on strategy use with text *Combines multiple criteria to determine best fit for student *Text selection determined by classroom teacher *Includes both quantitative and qualitative measures *Evaluates text on a “micro” level *Considers student strengths and needs *Based on curricular content
- 25. Text Selection Insights Text selection is an in-depth process best engaged in by the classroom teacher. When the teacher evaluates a text he or she acquires a better understanding of how students will interact with it and can assure the text fits the needs of the specific learners. Text selection should include both quantitative and qualitative measures assessed by teachers (Hiebert, 2013). The identification of benchmark texts through use of a rubric should be delineated into two groups – narrative and informational- and help to determine what texts can be used to support various features (Hiebert, 2013). Detailed and in depth knowledge about a text can only be acquired when teachers evaluate the text themselves and is the best method to select texts.
- 26. Promoting Literacy Learning In order for optimal learning to occur a teacher must “get to know” his or her student. Information acquired through the administration of both noncognitive and cognitive assessments help teachers create the conditions most conducive to learning and design instruction to further develop literacy skills. Text selection is a vital part of quality literacy instruction. Teacher selection of texts through the considerations of both quantitative and qualitative measures will yield texts and lessons which will be most effective. To best understand a student as a writer, writing samples must be evaluated and a general developmental level determined. The indentification of a writing level informs next steps for instruction. Teachers can and should self-assess their own strengths and weaknesses in the area of writing and then seek training and improvement focused on areas of weakness.
- 27. References Afflerbach, P., Cho, B. – Y., Kim, J. – Y., Crassas, M. E.,, & Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: What else matters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 440 – 448. Calkins, L. (2013). Units of Study for Teaching Writing. Retrieved from www.heinemann.com/shared/onlineresources/E04717/WritingInstructionEssentials.pdf Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012). English language arts standards. Retrieved from www.corestandards.com/ELALiteracy Coskie, T. L. & Hornof, M. M. (2013). E-best principles: Infusing technology into the writing workshop. The Reading Teacher, 67(1), 54-58. Education Northwest. (2013). 6+1 Trait writing. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/traits Hiebert, E. H., (2013). Supporting students’ movement up the staircase of text complexity, 66(6), 459-468. Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470-482. Laureate Education (Producer). (2014). Cognitive and noncognitive assessments [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author. Laureate Education (Producer). (2014b). Conversations with Ray Reutzel: Supporting comprehension [Interactive Media]. Baltimore, MD: Author. NCTE. (2016). Professional knowledge for the teaching of writing. Retrieved from www. ncte.org/positions/statements/teaching-writing Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B., Jr. (2016). Strategies for reading assessment and instruction in an era of Common Core Standards: Helping every child succeed. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.