Assessment and Evaluation

International Literacy International Dyslexia Association Course/Artifact

Association

ILA Standard 3: IDA Standard D: Interpretation and SPED 639 Advanced

Assessment and Administration of Assessments for
Evaluation Planning Instruction Fundamentals of Language
and Literacy
Artifact 4: Reading
Intervention Plan

Synthesis of Standards
ILA Standard 3: Assessment and Evaluation requires that literacy specialists understand

how to use and administer an assortment of assessments and evaluations for reading and

instructional planning purposes. ILA Standard 3 is grouped with IDA Standard D: Interpretation

and Administration of Assessments for Planning Instruction because both require literacy

specialists to identify and be able to select useful assessments for specific student needs. Both

must have knowledge of the wide variety of assessments and the meaningful purpose behind

each. The interpretation of the data from the assessments is also a requirement of both. The

difference between them is that ILA Standard 3 requires the interpretation of data to be used for

instructional planning while IDA Standard D requires the use of data to make recommendations

for next steps.

These standards are both very important for literacy specialists to be able to know and

utilize. This relates directly to the classroom because the information from the interpretation and

administration of assessments for planning instruction designates which assessments need to be

used in the future. Assessment and evaluation is a very important concept for teachers and

literacy coaches to embrace. This requires researching appropriate assessments given the child’s
needs, and administering them. After you administer an assessment, it is crucial to look back on

it and reflect how it went for planning instruction purposes. For example, if you give an

assessment as a classroom teaching, and over half of the students get one of the concepts wrong,

then it is probably within the best interest for the students if the teachers goes back and teaches

that concept. This can also determine what to teach in the future and different types of

assessment that can be used in order for students to show their abilities.

Summary of Artifacts

Artifact # 4 Reading Intervention Plan.

For this particular artifact, literacy candidates were required to administer several

different assessments to a student we would be working with for a few weeks. We needed to

determine their current reading levels, and what concepts and skills they would need to work on.

From that data, we needed to create an intervention for that student to increase their chosen skill.

One of the first assessments administered were word lists. The student was assessed on a variety

of grade level words to see if the level was independent, instructional or frustration. This

determined the appropriate word list that best fit the needs of the student. From the word list, a

grade level passage was administered. This allowed the instructor to see what information the

student is able to retain from the story by listing key details and retelling using words and

images. From there, a writing probe was administered given a prompt encouraging student

choice, and a spelling assessment. The final assessment was a student interest survey in order to

try to bring student interest in with the texts they would be reading. After gathering the evidence

and data, we were required to create an intervention for the student, specifically working on the

targeted instructional level that was determined from the assessments. Two instructional
interventions were used in this project—RAP Strategy and Word Attack Strategy. The RAP

Strategy focuses on comprehension of a passage in order to identify main idea and key details

pertaining to the story. The Word Attack Strategy focuses on strategies to identify an unknown

word and the meaning behind it using context clues and visual aids.

Evidence of Application

Assessment and Evaluation (ILA 3).

Assessment and Evaluation were used consistently in this project by incorporating the use

of multiple assessments. This was valuable because it required the ability for a literacy specialist

to practice multiple types of assessments and evaluate whether or not they were beneficial for the

collection of data. The student was administered using DIBELS DAZE to identify

comprehension and the selection of appropriate words. At first, the student would rush through

the passage and randomly choose a box, because he was focused on “beating the time.” After

removing the time as a factor, the student carefully read the passages and was able to more

accurately select the appropriate word. This made the evaluation of the assessment more valuable

because it was an accurate depiction of what the student understood and concepts/words he was

actually struggling with. A miscue analysis, primer passages, word lists, writing probes and an

oral reading profile were also assessed and evaluated.

Interpretation and Administration of Assessments for Planning Instruction (IDA:

D).
The assessments that were administered in Artifact 4 were used to interpret student needs

and for planning instruction. By carefully analyzing what the student chose for the answers, it
guided the instruction he would receive. After interpreting the data, it was clear that the level for

the student was mainly instructional. This allowed for me to accurately plan instruction to help

the student’s level to work towards independent, meaning he can read and understand a text

individually. Interpreting his assessments showed that the student needed to work on decoding

skills. If it is a word in isolation, such as a word list, he is able to often times able to identify it if

it is a basic CVC word or sight word. However, if it is in a text and a higher level word, he either

guesses at the word or skips it. The student scored higher on texts he was familiar with. He was

able to make more connections and apply his critical thinking to answer questions. The student

still struggled with the content, even with the ability to look back. He relied mostly on the

pictures and during the retell, often made up parts of the story based on what the picture looked

like to him. I think that the passages can sometimes be an overwhelming language barrier for

him. The student scored around the same for retell vs. comprehension. The only time when there

were more details in the comprehension was when he was adding additional background

information that was not in the story. The student often times guesses or skips a word that he

does not know. He does not sound out unknown words, which is something we will continue to

work on together. Interpreting the assessment allowed me to provide both interventions, RAP

and Word Attack, as next steps in order to help the student succeed.