Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3


International Literacy International Dyslexia Course / Artifact

Association Association

Standard 3: Assessment and Standard D: Interpretation SPED 638 IRIS Module

Evaluation and Administration of
/assessments for Planning EDCS 647 Literacy Learner
Instruction Case Study

Synthesis of Standards

ILA Standard 3 and IDA Standard D are perfectly aligned as they both discuss the need

for and use of valid and reliable assessments. The literacy specialist is required to have a firm

basic knowledge of what assessments are available for screening, diagnosing, and tracking

student achievement through the use of progress monitoring. The competent literacy specialist

is able to administer these assessments, interpret the results, then communicate effectively any

pertinent information to stakeholders. These assessments are then expected to be used in

informing curricular decisions. The literacy specialist is to take the results and plan effective

instruction that is specifically tailored to the student based on individual results.

When examining differences, IDA Standard D focuses more on the diagnostic in that

they specifically identify the range of skills that are typically assessed in a diagnostic survey

(including phonological skills, decoding skills, oral reading skills, spelling, and writing). This is

expected as assessments under IDA Standards will help literacy specialists and teachers

engage in the crucial process of referring students to be evaluated for qualification for special

education services. Progress monitoring also is a piece of IDA standards as the referral process

of students for special education services requires data points based on evidence-based

interventions over time. ILA Standard 3 specifically includes a component that has the literacy

specialist collaborating with colleagues in the assessment process. I appreciate that ILA
Standard 3 has literacy specialists recognize limitations associated with certain assessments –

not all assessments are good for everything. Also ILA Standard 3 contains a component where

the literacy specialist is involved in leading professional development surrounding assessment

and using results for instructional decision making at the classroom and school level.

When considering what this means to me as a literacy specialist, I think about all of the

available assessments for literacy skills. Regardless of the publisher, it is my duty as a literacy

specialist to be familiar with the skills that are being tested. I must be able to sit down with

colleagues and discuss the data that has been brought together to give us a snapshot of the

student’s performance. Moreover, I firmly believe it is important that when (as ILA Standard 3.1

states) we understand the purpose of the assessment, we ensure that snap judgements of the

student are not made. A deficit model should never be employed as students are discussed. We

know what is being tested, how it is being tested, interpret the results, and move forward to plan

effective instruction for the student.

Summary of Artifacts

Artifact #1 SPED 638 IRIS Module (CBM Assessment)

In SPED 638 we completed an IRIS module that included two scenarios as well as some

general questions surrounding the CBM. We responded to how CBMs would be used in the

specific scenarios and possible next steps moving forward in planning and implementing


Artifact #2 EDCS 647 Literacy Learner Case Study

In EDCS 647, the Literacy Learner Case Study required the choosing of a student,

administering diagnostic tests to determine the student’s level, planning intervention lessons,

then ultimately reflecting upon the success or lack of progress of the student. Assessments
were administered and analyzed. Lesson plans were created based on the data collected.

Progress was monitored.

Evidence of Application
With these two artifacts, it proves my abilities surrounding assessment. This includes ILA

Standard 3 and IDA Standard 2. In the IRIS module, I reviewed the data that was given in the

situations and was able to plan next steps based on the data (ILA 3.2). I carefully considered

the standard guidelines when reviewing and interpreting the data presented after an intervention

was implemented (IDA D3). As a CBM Is one method of monitoring progress, I demonstrated

my familiarity with the process of progress monitoring (IDA D1). In the Literacy Learner Case

Study, I continued to show an understanding of the use assessment, interpretation of results,

and planning for future instruction based on the interpretation of results. Because Juan is a

struggling reader, I needed to be more familiar with the diagnostic surveys and skills that are

assessed for struggling readers (IDA D4). I needed to choose an assessment that was both

valid and reliable (ILA 3.1 and IDA D2). The CORE phonics was administered. Juan’s oral

reading fluency (ORF) was tracked using a graph on the DIBELS progress monitoring booklet

(IDA D3). Two specific lessons were designed and implemented based on the data collected

from the diagnostic assessments (ILA 3.2). Most importantly, I was able to reflect at the end of

the process about the effectiveness of the intervention lessons. I considered Juan, his

background, his family life, and piece together a whole picture of the student. Assessment must

consider all aspects of the student, not just how the student performed on a test. Through the

process of identifying Juan as a struggling reader, administering reliable and valid assessments,

interpreting the results, and implementing instruction (interventions) I was able to successfully

and strategically use assessment to accelerate student learning.