Assignment #2: Assessment Analysis

Submitted By: LaQuisha Johnson

EDRL 442: Teaching Literacy 1 Nevada State College - Fall 2013 Instructor: Karen Powell

ASSIGNMENT #2: Assessment Analysis

A. Summary of the Assignment

Submitted By: LaQuisha Johnson

This assignment is taking a look into assessments and how to group students based off assessments. Through the use of given data, I will be able to give information about assessments as well as group a class of students through their test scores-with given justification. B. Explanation of Assessments There were 4 assessments administered to Miss Keetows 1 st grade class: Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Letter Sound Fluency (LSF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), and Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF). The Letter Naming Fluency assessment

assesses the childs ability to say the names of letters visually presented in 1 minute. The Letter Sound Fluency assessment assesses the sounds of visually presented letters in a minute time span. Phoneme Segmentation Fluency assessments test students ability to sound out the letters in a word, given a minute time span as well. Lastly, the Nonsense Word fluency assessment test students ability to say the sounds of visually presented non-real words in a 1 minute timing. The AIMSWEB test of early literacy assessments are used to identify students at risk for risk for reading difficulties and monitor progress of all students. Each test measures something different, the four measures are: 1) The Letter Naming Fluency identified frequently as the best single indicator of risk for reading failure. 2) Letter Sound Fluency with equal or better predictive ability to later general reading skills. 3) Phoneme Segmentation Fluency the ability to hear critical sounds in the spoken word. 4) Nonsense Word Fluency the ability to link the written code with the most common sounds

(http://www.aimsweb.com/products/features/assessments/test-of-early-literacy).

EDRL 442 - Fall 2013

Assignment #2

Page 2

ASSIGNMENT #2: Assessment Analysis

Submitted By: LaQuisha Johnson

Each test is administered individually and timed by the teacher. Based on the information I was provided, the target scores for each section is as follows: Letter Naming Fluency (LNF)- 40 Letter Sound Fluency (LSF)-25 Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF)-35 Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF)-27

C. Factual Information: Test Results Miss Keetows class consist of 20 1st graders. For the Letter Naming Fluency assessment, 9 students scored at or below the target score of 40. 6 scored between the ranges of 41-59. 5 students scored above a 59, exceptionally exceeding the target score. On the Letter Sound Fluency assessment, 4 students were at or below the target score of 25. 7 students were in the range of 30-48; 9 students tested way above the target score. The Phoneme Segmentation Fluency scores were better, only 3 students tested at or below the target score. 4 students tested between the 36 and 50, and 13 students exceeded the target by testing 51 or above. The Nonsense Word Fluency test only had three students at or below the target score of 27. Four students tested above 28 but below 45; 13 students tested above 44, with 5 of those scores being 60 or higher. The phoneme segmentation fluency and nonsense word fluency showed to be the sections that brought forth the best scores. There were two students who tested extremely high in all 4 sections, 3 who tested extremely well in 3 sections, 5 who test well in at least 2 sections, and a couple who test well in only one section. There was one student in particular who test at or below the target score in all 4 assessment categories. D. Interpretation of Data

EDRL 442 - Fall 2013

Assignment #2

Page 3

ASSIGNMENT #2: Assessment Analysis

Submitted By: LaQuisha Johnson

Since majority of the students did well on the Phoneme Segmentation Fluency section of the test, I used that as a guide to determine my instructional groups. There are 20 students in Miss Keetows class, I automatically decided to have 5 groups of 4 students. I wanted an even number of kids in each group. I figured that if students are in small groups, more focus can be put on helping certain groups when needed, as well as making learning more effective. I chose to label my groups with shapes. I do not like the color method as much because it is easier to identify which kids are where, with the shapes, I think it takes a little more effort, time, and energy to figure out which shape means what. So, to group this class, I arranged the class scores from highest to lowest-using the Phoneme Segmentation Fluency portion of the test. I grouped the children this way because I feel that students should work with students at or around their level. Also, I think it works better this way for the teacher because doing independent practice, center time, group time the teacher is able to pull the kids who need help the most and spend a little more time with them and just touch bases with the higher level learners. Having similar learning levels in each group allows for students to help build their self-esteem as well as be open to learning and participating because they feel more comfortable in their groups. Groups are as follows: Octagons, these students test high, receiving a 69 or above (HIGH LEVELED KIDS): Scott Free Ella Mentry

Carrie Oakie Justin Tyme Triangles, these students ranged between 63 and 68 (MEDIUM-HIGH LEVELED KIDS): Jack Potts
EDRL 442 - Fall 2013

Pete Moss
Assignment #2 Page 4

ASSIGNMENT #2: Assessment Analysis

Paige Turner Jay Walker

Submitted By: LaQuisha Johnson

Rectangles, these students ranged between 58 and 62 (MEDIUM LEVELED KIDS): Harrison Free Rick OShae Anna Mull Rhoda Booke

Squares, these students scored between 44 and 58 (Average LEVELED KIDS): Barbie Dohl Robin Banks Luke Warm Ann Chovie

Circles, these students tested close to, right at, or below the target score (LOW LEVLED KIDS): Matt Tress Candi Barr Tate Urchips

Chandra Lear E. Additional Information

Additional information that would help me to better group Miss Keetows students are factors off ELL students, as well as students with IEPs. I think having those two factors alone would have made a difference because you have an idea of why certain kids tested a certain wayand could accommodate those children when doing groups. Also, knowing when these test were administered, was it Fall, Winter, or Spring- I think this take into account of if students has progressed. If students came in with this knowledge, then that is great because most of the kids are doing alright, at that time, you know what kids need the most help. I also think knowing which kids work well together as well as the ones who do not would help because although I chose to put all the high level kids or low level kids together, some of them may not get along, so I would make some changes on the groups. F. Reflection The assessment analysis was pretty hard for me. I never thought about grouping kids based on a test, I kind of think it is unfair. I understand pulling children out for one on

EDRL 442 - Fall 2013

Assignment #2

Page 5

ASSIGNMENT #2: Assessment Analysis

Submitted By: LaQuisha Johnson

one lessons with the teacher, then having them go back into their groups, but I feel that grouping kids based on a test score for the entire class day has a lot of disadvantages. I am glad that I got to experience doing this assessment analysis, but I still do not feel confident in it. I am sure that time goes by, I will become comfortable with it, especially because there is a computerized system to help guide me on grouping childrenif I must group them for entire class periods.

EDRL 442 - Fall 2013

Assignment #2

Page 6