Rationale 1D: Assessment

 Link to Artifact 1D

Louis Stevens III

C&T 898: Masters Project

Dr. Steven White

11 July 2022

 

Artifact Description

            This artifact is lifted from my most recently completed course, C&T 842: Supporting Striving Readers with Dr. Karen Jorgensen. This project was the culmination of my practice and analysis of the Qualitative Reading Inventory as an assessment tool. The report also contains observations and instructional recommendations based on assessment data gathered with both quantitative and qualitative data in a case study scenario. Appendices relevant to the artifact are formatted behind the reference page. Sections II, III, VII, and VIII are the most concerned with assessment data and how I interpret the results to create an effective follow-up curriculum. My student, Jeremiah, acted as a case study volunteer for the Qualitative Reading Inventory. I was his regular 5^th grade English language arts instructor during the 2021-22 school year. The QRI is an assessment designed by Lauren Leslie and JoAnn Caldwell that has become a standard in supporting striving readers and is utilized by my current school district.

 

Artifact Rationale

The purpose of Learning Outcome 1D is to “Analyze a variety of assessments (or other types of data and evidence) to inform instruction, monitor progress, and/or support and improve learning. This could include the planning and use of a variety of assessments (2020). Below is a demonstration of each component of the outcome and how I addressed each within the chosen artifact.

                                            I.            Assessment Analysis

While the focus of this artifact is the Qualitative Reading Inventory, detailed inside are the assessment results of a personality card game, book-tasting activity, and observations in independent reading. This demonstrates my ability to create a linear curriculum based on a varied assessment approach – pulling pertinent information from each in an ongoing process of learning. In the QRI final draft report, Jeremiah’s reading was assessed quantitatively through vocabulary lists deemed appropriate for his initial trials (3^rd and 4^th grade) and through the reading of a QRI passage that was quantified by metrics such as correct words per minute (CWPM), recall/lookbacks, and miscue total. This comprehensive and numerical organization allowed me to put into perspective the logical next steps for Jeremiah, outlined in section VIII of the report.

                                         II.            Planning and Tracking

As noted in the report, Jeremiah and I met for three sessions of approximately 50 minutes. Our initial meeting consisted of collecting the data that would inform later sessions. While generally we think of assessment strictly in an academic context, I also collected information on Jeremiah’s interests, personality, and demeanor. This helped me to plan which activities Jeremiah may find more engaging and the strategies that would put Jeremiah in the best position to succeed – think of items such as how to communicate fatigue, how to encourage perseverance, and how to reward effort.

Jeremiah’s reading progress was measured through these sessions as well as his disposition. For example: while Jeremiah remarked feeling “dumb” during our initial two meetings, he became more optimistic by our third. Forms and files were used to track these observations, many of which originated from the text Intervention Strategies to Follow Informal Reading Inventory Assessment (2013). These were additionally submitted as a requirement of C&T 842.

                                      III.            Support and Benefits for Learning

The QRI draft report demonstrates my ability to support and benefit learning because it serves as the foundational blue print for instruction. Using the assessment as an initial diagnostic, I tailored a balanced lesson plan for Jeremiah in the following two sessions. These consisted of an independent reading segment with my intervention as needed (this allowed for additional informal observation), a focus on phonics flashcard games online (given his affinity for technology), and focused partner passage reading. In addition to focusing on his strengths and areas for practice detailed in section VIII of the artifact, this arrangement allowed him to grow in confidence and engage in a way that the general classroom did not afford him. Because Jeremiah was able to see the results of his progress more linearly and immediately, he was motivated.

 Conclusion

I have also selected this artifact partially because Dr. Karen Jorgensen is a mentor of mine and her guidance informed my outlook on reading assessment and tutoring. This class and artifact taught me how to construct and moderate a proper spelling inventory, word recognition inventory and passage reading inventory. If my practice takes me in a reading specialist direction, I will be prepared because of the knowledge gained from this course. This project also changed my perspective in how I assess reading in a general classroom setting. By creating an initial diagnostic for reading, I can better specialize and tailor their instruction.

 

  

 References

Caldwell, J. S., & Leslie, L. (2013). Intervention strategies to follow informal reading inventory                                               assessment (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

 

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2016). Qualitative reading inventory (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

 

Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (2013). Assessment of reading and writing difficulties: An                                                      interactive approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

 

University of Kansas Department of Curriculum & Teaching. (2020, July). C&T 898 Course                                                  Syllabus. KU Connect . Retrieved June 30, 2022, from                                                                                       https://kuconnect.ku.edu/courses/2837/assignments/syllabus.