Running Head: Assessment Case Study

EDUC 6410
Assessment and Evaluation Case Study of Kaeden
Smith
Date of report: November
23rd 2015

Student name:
Kaeden Smith

Report author:
Kaylie Williams

Grade: 1st

Time period of
assessments:
9/23/15 11/19/15

Age: 7 years old

Case Study

Assessment and Evaluation Case Study of Kaeden Smith

Section 1. Background Information
School Context
Harpeth Valley Elementary School (HVES) is a large elementary
school in the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools district, and is home
to approximately 800 Kindergarten-4th graders. HVES is situated in the
Pasquo/Bellevue area of Nashville. It has historically been one of the
highest performing elementary schools in Davidson County. In fact, in
2014 HVES was among the top 5% of elementary schools in the state
of Tennessee.
The Tennessee State Report Card shows that the school is made
up of students who are 78% white, 12% Black or African American, 8%
Asian and 2% Native American/Alaskan (State Report Card).
Statewide assessment scores from the 2013-2014 school year
show that approximately 70% of all 3rd and 4th grade students scored
proficient or advanced on the Reading Language Arts end of year
assessment (State Report Card).
The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) is a
statistical analysis used to measure the impact of districts, schools and
teachers on the academic progress of groups of students on a yearly
basis. The TVAAS composite for Harpeth Valley shows the school
received a 4, or above average effectiveness in literacy. This rating is
given to schools where students are making more progress than the
standard for academic growth (State Report Card).
Classroom Context
Kaeden participates in a general education, self-contained first
grade classroom. There are approximately 18 students to 1 teacher in
this classroom. Daily, a special education teacher comes in to assist
with another student in this class. One teacher in either a whole group
or small group setting instructs students for the majority of the time.
In my observations in the classroom (Appendix H), I noticed
quickly a number of literacy and language-based structures in place.
These structures included interactive read alouds, guided reading, turn
and talk opportunities, morning meeting, Daily 5, and Lucy Calkins
Writers Workshop.

Case Study

Both Daily 5 and Writers Workshop offer students an opportunity

to choose what they would like to read, write about or work on. Kaeden
enjoys these opportunities for choice because they allow him to
engage with topics he is interested in (he can choose books on football,
or write about his favorite game Minecraft). The classroom and
school-wide library offer children opportunities to explore their
individual passions. Such opportunities increase the childs motivation
to learn, and link reading and writing with real world experiences of
interest to the child.
The classroom is organized to accommodate multiple learning
environments: whole group, small group, independent, and technologyassisted. Whole group instruction may occur on the carpet or while
students are at desks. Small group instruction happens at student
desks, which are arranged into groups of 5, or at a guided reading
table where the teacher is instructing. Students work independently at
desks or while spread out around the room. Finally, technology-assisted
instruction occurs at computers, with the Smart Board or while children
engage with a listening station.
During both whole group instructional settings (on the carpet or
at desks), Kaeden sits closest to the teacher. Because one area of
weakness is attention, the teacher has strategically positioned this
student where distractions will be limited. From the graphic below,
notice that during whole group carpet instruction, Kaeden sits in the
front row - closest to the teachers chair. When whole group instruction
happens at desks, Kaeden sits in the front row in the desk spot closest
to where the teacher would be instructing near the projector. See the
graphic below:

Case Study

Teacher Whole group tables Teacher Whole group carpet

Child
Kaeden is an active and social white 7-year-old boy, who enjoys
playing Minecraft, basketball and football. From the time I met him, it
was clear the childs interest center on high active engagement. He
enjoys hanging out with friends, and I constantly see him joking with
friends in the hallway and in his classroom. He has been at Harpeth
Valley since Kindergarten, and is now a general education first grader
in a self-contained classroom.
When consulting with teachers about a student who needs more
1:1 attention, his classroom teacher provided Kaedens name as a
student who is struggling. His Text Level Assessment showed the
childs instructional level was an A. From the running record completed,
it was clear he was struggling to use visual information on the page to
access word information.
For all assessments and intervention, we met 1:1 in the schools
book room at a student desk away from other distractions. On our first
meeting, I worked to create a safe and comfortable learning
environment by pairing myself with praise. First, I allowed him to
choose a book he was interested in and I read it aloud to him. I asked
him simple questions, and worked in plenty of positive reinforcement. I
also helped him complete a reading interest survey (Appendix B) to

Case Study

gauge his attitude toward reading, and also discover what types of
books he enjoys reading.
After our first meeting, one concern became apparent: oral
language expression. Though I do not have thorough knowledge of
speech and language development, I have worked with first graders for
3 years now. I noticed quickly that Kaeden struggled to express himself
in more than just a couple words. Initially, I waved this off as shyness.
However, after multiple meetings where the child could only answer
my simple questions in one or two words, this concern became more
serious. One goal I had in working with this student involved
discovering more about Kaedens strengths and weaknesses in oral
language expression.
Initial Goals and Questions
After my initial meeting with Kaeden, and speaking openly with
his classroom teacher, I developed a few questions to explore across
the semester:

What oral language expression strengths and weaknesses

does Kaeden possess?
What strengths and weaknesses are present in Kaedens
literacy knowledge?
What phonetic knowledge does Kaeden possess?
What type of sight word knowledge is Kaeden working
with?

These questions would guide me toward more information about

Kaeden as a reader. Ultimately, my goal was to develop a
comprehensive profile of the reading skills Kaeden possesses, which
would also provide evidence for any holes in the childs literacy
knowledge.

Case Study

Section 2. Assessments Administered

In order to develop a comprehensive profile of Kaeden as a reader, I
conducted multiple assessments throughout our time together. Below
is a list of assessments in order of administration.
Appendix

Administration
Number
1 (A.1)

A
2 (A.2)
1 (B.1)
B

2 (B.2)
3 (B.3)

Type of
Assessment
Reading
Interest
Survey
(Affective
Factors)
Reading
Inventory

1 (C.1)

Sight Word

1 (D.1)

Letter
Recognition

1 (E.1)

Spelling
Inventory

1 (F.1)

1 (G.1)
1 (H.1)
2 (H.2)

1 (I.1)

1 (J.1)

1 (K.1)

Phonological
and
Phonemic
Awareness
Narrative
Oral
Language
Skills
Classroom
Observation
Phonological
Awareness
Phonological
Awareness
Phonological
Awareness

Assessment Title

Date
Given

Score

Heres How I Feel About

Reading

9/17/15

Not Scored

Tell Me What You Like!

9/17/15

Not Scored

QRI Narrative Pre-Primer 1

9/23/15

Instructional

QRI Narrative Pre-Primer 2

9/23/15

Instructional

QRI Narrative Pre-Primer 2

Fry Sight-Word Inventory
First 100 Words
Letter Recognition:
Uppercase and Lowercase
Naming

9/24/15

Frustrational

9/30/15

44/100

9/30/15

45/52

Words Their Way Elementary

Spelling Inventory

9/30/15

Mid Letter
Name
Alphabetic

Hearing and Recording

Sounds in Words

9/30/15

34/37

Renfrew Bus Story

10/1/15

Student Observation Form

10/29/15

Info: 26
Length: 65
Subordinate
Clause: 2
Not Scored

Classroom Observation Form

Phonological Awareness:
Blending Words
Phonological Awareness:
Segmenting Words
Phonological Awareness:
Rhyming

10/29/15

Not Scored

10/29/15

10/10

10/29/15

9/10

10/29/15

9/9

Case Study

Appendi
x

Administratio
n Number

Assessment Title

Date
Given

Score

1 (L.1)

Little Chimp Level 3

9/25/15

100%

2 (L.2)

Jack and Billy Level 3

10/1/15

98%

Bedtime Level 4

10/2/15

90%

10/14/15

92%

11/5/16

84%

11/19/15

97%

11/5/15

Not Scored

11/19/15

Not Scored

3 (L.3)
L

4 (L.4)

Type of
Assessment

Running
Record of
Text Read
Aloud

5 (L.5)
6 (L.6)
1 (M.1)
M
2 (M.2)

Writing
Sample

Little Chimp and Big

Chimp Level 4
Monkey on the Roof
Level 5
Kitty Cat and the Fish
Level 5
Writing Sample from
11/5/15
Writing Sample from
11/19/15

Case Study

Section 3. Assessment Reflection and Analysis

Developing a comprehensive profile of my learner involved
multiple assessment tools and procedures. The following is a
description of these assessments, an analysis centered on how my
student performed, and what information this provides about him as a
reader and language speaker. Within this section I will also discuss any
reliability and validity issues related to an assessment, as well as any
biases inherent to the assessment, which may have impacted my
students performance.

Reading Interest Surveys

Appendix A.1 and A.2
During my first meeting with Kaeden, I hoped to get a better
understanding of what motivates the child. To do this, I used an
affective assessment called a reading interest survey. This survey was
taken from McKenna and Stahls Assessment for reading instruction,
2nd edition. This assessment provides information on why the child is or
is not interested in reading, as well as his foundational beliefs about
reading.
This assessment also served as a way to generate dialogue
between the student and me. For example, when I heard he enjoys
reading about football, I was able to talk with him about his favorite
team, the peewee league he is involved with, and who my favorite
teams are. This dialogue served as a way for me to gauge his oral
language expression skills, as well as his receptive comprehension
skills.
From this assessment, I saw that Kaeden enjoys reading
nonfiction books about sports, animals, music, computers and games
such as basketball, football, and Minecraft (Appendix A.1 and A.2). In
regards to reading attitudes, he believes reading is really fun and helps
you [get] your mind smart. When Kaeden gets older, he told me he
hopes to read books from the Harry Potter series.
Through conversations sparked by the reading interest surveys, I
noticed a lack of elaboration in expression. This was the first instance
of oral language expression issues I saw through my work with this
student. When I would ask Kaeden a question, he could only respond
with one or two words. For example, I would ask what he thought about

Case Study

reading and he would respond with one word: fun. If I asked him
what made it fun, he would elaborate with one word, or oftentimes
simply shrug his shoulders as if he didnt know what made reading fun,
or as if he no longer wanted to talk about this topic.
Based on his answers to the questions on the interest survey, it
was clear that receptive comprehension was not an issue (he would
respond to questioning with logical answers), but rather his ability to
conjure up the information seemed more difficult. This assessment
drove me to seek out more language-based assessments.

Qualitative Reading Inventory

Appendix B.1, B.2, and B.3
The Qualitative Reading Inventory is used to assess a readers
performance by grade level. Each level includes a narrative and
expository passage, word list with words from the passage,
comprehension questions and a retell assessment. Readers are asked
to read aloud or in their heads, then assessors score their reading
based on accuracy, rate and words per minute. One difference
between this assessment and other record-based assessments is the
fact that in this assessment, meaning-changing miscues are accounted
for in the accuracy score.
Kaedens performance on this assessment shows his instructional
reading level is Pre-Primer 1. I administered both Pre-Primer 1 Narrative
passages, as well as the Pre-Primer 2 Narrative. The pre-primer 2
proved to be frustrational in the word list task and accuracy of reading.
Therefore, I moved back to the Pre-Primer 2 assessment, which is the
most emergent assessment provided in the QRI. He read 13/17 (77%)
words on the word list correctly, which placed him in the lower
instructional range for the word reading task. For the first narrative
passage, his conceptual knowledge of the passage (background
knowledge) was only 50%, however this was clearly limited by his
ability to express his thoughts and elaborate. During the reading, he
made one meaning changing miscue, which put his accuracy at 97%
(independent). His rate of reading was 46 words per minute, and 45
correct words per minute, showing little discrepancy. However, his
retelling score was low and comprehension was at the instructional
level. This placed him in the Pre-Primer instructional level based on
oral reading and comprehension.

Case Study

10

Some issues and flaws I see with the QRI are the fact that the
Pre-Primer 1 assessment is more like an end of year Kindergarten
assessment. For students who are below this level, we have no way of
assessing their reading level. I also believe this assessment does not
accurately assess retelling. Students who are retelling these repetitive
texts are expected to say the same things over and over (I can jump.
See me jump). When teachers teach retelling, however, we do not
expect children to repeat these same simple phrases. Also, in order for
students to be scored for retelling, they are expected to produce
exactly what was in the story. For a narrative such as this I Can story,
a child would be expected to retell as follows: I can jump. See me
jump. I can hop. See me hop. Etc. This, however, in a retell is
nonsensical. We should not be asking students to retell in first person
when the story is in first person. Instead students should be saying
something like, The girl can jump. The girl wanted you to look at her
jump.

Sight Word Assessment

Appendix C.1
The Pre-Primer 2 level of the QRI showed me that Kaedens word
recognition in reading was an area of concern. Though he scored
instructional on the Pre-Primer 1 word list assessment, he fell in the
lower part of instructional, and this assessment is for Kindergartners.
Because of his performance in this area, I administered a sight word
inventory assessment. I chose to use Frys list rather than Dolchs list
because it is more inclusive, and is not grade-level specific. I was
hoping to see a comprehensive picture of the sight words Kaeden
knows.
Out of the first 100 words from Frys list, Kaeden knew 44. These
words, which are not capable of being blended sound by sound, appear
frequently in the texts he is reading. Because he knew less than half of
the 100 words, it is clear that accurate word reading would be an issue.
One interesting fact I noticed while giving this assessment had to
do with the stamina Kaeden possessed. The assessment took
approximately 5 minutes. At the beginning of the assessment, Kaeden
automatically recognized numerous words. For words he did not know
at the beginning, he would make an attempt using the first few letters.
As time went on, however, he encountered unknown words and would

Case Study

11

make attempts that were not visually similar at all. These were real
word attempts, however they lacked any first letter similarities. For
example, he miscued hid/said, white/how, into/out, here/about,
went/other, and will/oil. Interestingly, after analyzing this assessment I
could see Kaeden was likely looking at the end or middle of words to
make these attempts (hid/said have the ending id, white/how both
have an h and w, into/out both have a t and o, will/oil both
have il).
This assessment piqued my interest in the way Kaeden looks at
words, and the amount of stamina he has in reading. Because it was
such a straightforward and short task, I feel the results were largely
valid and reliable.

Letter Recognition Assessment

Appendix D.1
The letter recognition assessment is used to assess a childs
knowledge of letter names and their corresponding sounds. This
assessment is helpful for teachers because it can show which letters
are unknown to the child, and the substitutions/confusions being made.
Because of simplicity of administration, it can be administered multiple
times with high reliability and validity, to show the progress a student
is making in letter sound knowledge.
Results of Kaedens letter recognition assessment show that he
knows 45/52 upper and lowercase letters and their corresponding
sounds. Unknown letters were: G, g, E, e, A, and q. He was currently
substituting: P/q, \e\/A, \j\/G and \j\/g.
I used this knowledge to make a judgment that letter names and
sounds could be one small reason Kaeden is progressing slower than
his peers. Most letter sounds he was confused about were also ones he
did not know, and they were typically visually similar or phonetically
similar in sound.

Spelling Inventory
Appendix E.1

Case Study

12

The Words Their Way spelling inventory proved to be one of the

most informative assessments I administered to Kaeden. This
assessment is given like a spelling test, where a teacher reads a list of
words, and the child scribes the spelling of these words to his/her best
ability. Then, the teacher analyzes the features of a childs spelling, to
determine where the child is on the progression of phonetic knowledge.
This assessment is helpful in recognizing any holes in a childs
spelling knowledge, and determining where to begin instruction based
on these findings. One flaw in this assessment is that not all
spelling/phonics patterns are administered through this assessment.
For example, perhaps the child knows all short vowel sounds except
/a/. The assessment does not ask students to spell a word with the
short /a/ sound, so a teacher may not recognize this as an issue.
Results from Kaedens spelling inventory showed he had a strong
awareness of beginning and final consonants. He also had a strong
understanding of short vowel sounds. He had excellent consonant
blend awareness as well. Surprisingly, however, he lacked all
consonant digraph knowledge. This is interesting because typically
beginning and final blends develop after a student masters consonant
digraphs.
Findings from this assessment show me that one area Kaeden
needs explicit instruction in is consonant digraphs. Certainly this is
holding his word recognition skills back.

Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words

Appendix F.1
The purpose of the Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words
assessments is to analyze a childs phonological awareness. This
assessment, however, shows much more than just phonological
awareness. Procedures require teachers to read a simple sentence to
students, and students to scribe the sentence on paper.
This assessment is natural for students, and can be given
multiple times to see a students phonological progression. As a
students awareness of sounds increases, he/she will begin to
incorporate more and more letters into his/her writing.

Case Study

13

Results of Kaedens assessment show he recognized and

properly applied 34/37 sounds in his writing. I read The boy is riding
his bike. He can go very fast on it. Kaedens writing shows he has
great control over directionality in writing, spacing, return sweep, and
understands the beginning of a sentence requires a capital letter. He
struggles in directionality of letters (he wrote c and s backwards) and
uses mixed capitals in writing. Specifically, he used capital D and B
in the middle of words, which is a strategy children use to compensate
for a b-d reversal. Additionally, he did not include a period at the end
of his sentence.
Phonologically, I was impressed with Kaedens performance on
the task. He has a strong foundation of phonological skills, and can
apply them quickly and easily for writing.

Oral Language Skills Test

Appendix G.1
It was my first time administering any type of oral language
assessment that was not based on vocabulary. The Renfrew Bust Test
requires teachers to tell a story using pictures. Then, students are
asked to retell the story from beginning to end, using the pictures
provided. The teacher records the students retell in writing and scores
it for information, complexity, and number of subordinate clauses.
I chose to administer this assessment because I knew expression
was a challenge for Kaeden. Earlier, the QRI showed that retell was an
area of weakness for the child. I administered this assessment in hopes
of seeing more information on skills Kaeden possesses in this area.
Results of this norm-referenced assessment showed Kaedens
ability to retell in complete sentences was high, however his use of
subordinate clauses was extremely low. This means the child is not
linking information in the story together, but rather using simple
sentences to retell. I was still surprised to see a high score for using
complete sentences, because this did not pair with what I see in his
social interactions with me. Perhaps the teacher-provided story with
visual anchors strengthened his ability to remember what was said.
Because this was my first time administering this assessment, I
am not sure what types of validity and reliability are associated with
the test.

Case Study

14

Phonological Awareness Assessments

Appendix H.1, J.1, and K.1
I administered the Phonological Awareness Assessment from
Fountas and Pinnells Benchmark Assessment System. Because of
Kaedens high performance on the Hearing and Recording Sounds in
Words assessment, I chose to exclude the initial sounds portion of this
assessment. Instead, I administered the blending, segmenting and
rhyming assessments.
These assessments show a childs ability to put sounds together
(a necessary skill for decoding), and a childs ability to segment words
into individual sounds (a skill for encoding sounds to print when
writing). The rhyming assessment shows a childs ability to match
words that rhyme an essential foundational skill to all phonological
development.
Results, unsurprisingly showed that phonological awareness is a
strength for Kaeden. He scored 10/10 for the blending assessment,
9/10 for the segmenting assessment, and 9/9 for the rhyming portion
of the assessment.
Reliability and validity are strong for this assessment because of
the explicit directions provided as well as the scoring guides.

Running Records
Appendix L.1, L.2, L.3, L.4, L.5, and L.6
Running Records of text read aloud are used to analyze a
students use of reading strategies (blending, self-correcting, repeating
to confirm, etc.) and analyze what cueing systems are being utilized.
Miscue analysis can help teachers choose what to instruct students in,
whether that be to pay more attention to visual information, syntax, or
meaning.
Procedures for a running record are simple: the child reads a
book, and the teacher codes the reading on a running record sheet.
The child should not be interrupted, because the record should be a
natural observation of how the reading sounds. Running records are
wonderful assessment tools because they involve natural reading, and

Case Study

15

children can be learning to read while they are being assessed in

reading.
One flaw in running records has to do with reliability. It can be
difficult to norm on running record procedures because there are many
steps and procedures to follow while completing a record. Often times,
people can disagree on how to code something, or a child can be
unintelligible, and the record would be compromised. It is important to
follow standard procedures developed by Marie Clay when completing
a running record.
Results of Kaedens running records show he is typically relying
on meaning and syntax to drive his reading. When he makes a mistake
it often involves neglecting visual information. Self-corrections often
involve the child cross-checking on visual information.
Kaeden is employing multiple strategies when reading: selfcorrecting, repeating to confirm, re-reading to make sense, checking
pictures, and blending sounds slowly for unknown words.

Writing Samples
Appendix M.1 and M.2
Towards the end of my time with Kaeden, we worked on
combining all the skills he had through writing. Writing samples were
an excellent way for me to gauge what skills and knowledge Kaeden
has good control over, and which areas required more attention.
Procedures for the writing samples require Kaeden to generate
an idea, come up with a sentence, remember the sentence, and scribe
the sentence with minimal teacher support.
From Kaedens writing, you can tell that he has a limited known
repertoire of high frequency word. I would step in to help him practice
these unknown words, and ask him to apply them to his writing.
Appendix M.1 shows Kaedens practice of went and get.
Appendices M.1 and M.2 also show his continual use of mixed
capital letters within words.
One powerful strength in Kaedens writing is hearing sounds in
words. We used Elkonin boxes to discriminate individual sound parts,
and the child could organize these swiftly and accurately. Another

Case Study

16

strength was Kaedens ability to remember his sentence once he came

up with an idea. Additionally, Kaeden has shown improvement in his
use of punctuation. He also demonstrated his knowledge of print
concepts such as left to right directionality, spacing, word units, and
capitalization of beginning letters in a sentence.

Classroom Observations
Appendix H.1 and H.2
It was important for me to observe Kaeden in his classroom
setting. I wanted to see the type of literacy instruction he was
receiving, and how he responded in class to his peers and teachers.
Therefore, I came to observe a portion of the literacy block in his
homeroom teachers class.
While I was observing, I saw Kaedens teacher conducting a
morning meeting. Students were highly involved (one student even
led), and she required participation from everyone. Kaeden interacted
kindly with his peers, greeting his neighbors with a handshake or high
five.
The next portion of the lesson was an interactive read aloud. All
students were arranged on the carpet, and Kaeden sat in the front row
facing the teachers chair. He fidgeted slightly, but did not demonstrate
extreme hyperactivity.
The teacher asked factual and inferential questions based on the
book. Students were required to answer using textual evidence. Most
students responded with excellent answers to the comprehension
questions. Kaeden, however, when called on, repeated the same
answer the person before had stated. When probed again by the
teacher, he answered the question correctly, but with a limited
response. He used one or two words, and did not provide a complete
sentence.

Case Study

17

Section 4. Summary and Recommendations

After administering a battery of assessments, I have a clearer

picture of Kaeden as a reader. Results from affective reading surveys
show Kaeden believes reading is fun. He could recognize a limited
number of sight words, but knew 45 of 52 letter names and sounds. In
spelling, he falls within the middle letter name alphabetic spelling
stage. Phonological awareness is a strength for Kaeden, shown by
nearly perfect scores on a blending, segmenting, and rhyming
assessment. When asked to combine spelling and phonological
awareness skills, Kaeden produced 34/37 correct sounds in order while
dictating. When pulling all skills together, the childs instructional
reading level on the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) was Pre-Primer
1. Because the reading inventory does not have a lower level
assessment, Kaeden does not have an independent reading level on
the Qualitative Reading Inventory. Daily running records show the child
is currently independently reading a Reading Recovery level 5 text
(Fountas and Pinnell level D) independently. Kaeden is showing signs of
monitoring and cross checking: self-correcting, re-reading, repeating to
confirm, and blending unknown words slowly by their sounds
(sounding out words).
From these results, my recommendations involve increased
instruction in high frequency/sight words, a systematic phonics focus
on digraphs, fluency practice, and deeper assessments into
comprehension and oral language expression.
Kaedens strengths are in phonological awareness and letter
sound knowledge, therefore any instruction in sight words and phonics
will have a profound impact in his learning. Because he has a strong
foundation of letter sound correspondence and hearing and
manipulating sounds, I believe he will respond quickly to intervention.

Case Study

18

Two areas that require more thorough and in depth attention are
oral expression and comprehension. In future work with Kaeden, I
suggest using sentence stems to provide a language anchor for his
thoughts. I also suggest using visuals when teaching, or even
practicing expression by generating conversation with pictures. The
bus test showed that Kaedens oral language is strengthened with
visual support. Comprehension should be something to focus on once
expression is strengthened. 5. Implications for the Use of Literacy
Assessments
After utilizing multiple assessment tools for screening, diagnosis,
progress monitoring and benchmarking, my knowledge of literacy
assessments has broadened significantly.
To begin with, I am able to recognize differences in screening
tools and diagnostic assessments. Whereas a screener is administered
to all students as a way to detect beginning signs or symptoms of a
reading issue, diagnostic assessments establish the presence or
absence of a weakness in reading. Screeners can quickly be
administered to all students, and diagnostic assessments dig deeper
into underlying issues a student may have. Diagnostic assessments
help teachers see more clearly what type of issue a child may be
having, and why the issue exists.
Some useful assessment tools that I will continue to employ in
my teaching are the Fry sight word test, Words their Way spelling
inventories (Primary Spelling Inventory and/or Elementary Spelling
Inventory), hearing and recording sounds in words assessment,
running records and writing samples. I believe using these
assessments will create a strong profile of a child as a reader. Use of
these 5 assessments will show a teacher information about the childs
sight word knowledge, spelling strengths and weaknesses,
phonological awareness, letter-sound knowledge, strategic knowledge
in reading, and writing skills. My two favorite assessments are running
records and writing samples because they provide a wide range of
information, but are conducted in an informal and natural way. Both
assessments also provide an opportunity for the child to not only show
what they know, but learn more in the process of reading and writing.
One assessment I do not plan on using in the future is the
Qualitative Reading Inventory. I do not believe the gradient used for
each different level is small enough to be informative enough for
emergent readers. I also do not agree with the scoring of accuracy for

Case Study

19

the passage portion. I believe strongly in the value of self-corrections

and therefore will not use an assessment that diminishes the value of a
child monitoring their reading with a self-correction. As stated earlier, I
also do not support the way retelling is assessed in this assessment.
Overall, I am pleased with the knowledge I have gained in using
assessments to create a profile of children as a reader. I look forward to
applying this knowledge to teaching students next semester.

Appendix
Appendix

Administration
Number
1 (A.1)

A
2 (A.2)

1 (B.1)
2 (B.2)
3 (B.3)

Type of
Assessment
Reading
Interest
Survey
(Affective
Factors)
Reading
Inventory

1 (C.1)

Sight Word

1 (D.1)

Letter
Recognition

1 (E.1)

Spelling
Inventory

H
I

1 (F.1)

1 (G.1)
1 (H.1)
2 (H.2)
1 (I.1)

Phonological
and
Phonemic
Awareness
Narrative
Oral
Language
Skills
Classroom
Observation
Phonological
Awareness

Assessment Title

Date
Given

Score

Heres How I Feel About

Reading

9/17/15

Not Scored

Tell Me What You Like!

9/17/15

Not Scored

QRI Narrative Pre-Primer 1

QRI Narrative Pre-Primer 2

9/23/15
9/23/15

Instructional
Instructional

QRI Narrative Pre-Primer 2

Fry Sight-Word Inventory
First 100 Words
Letter Recognition:
Uppercase and Lowercase
Naming

9/24/15

Frustrational

9/30/15

44/100

9/30/15

45/52

Words Their Way Elementary

Spelling Inventory

9/30/15

Mid Letter
Name
Alphabetic

Hearing and Recording

Sounds in Words

9/30/15

34/37

Renfrew Bus Story

10/1/15

Student Observation Form

10/29/15

Info: 26
Length: 65
Subordinate
Clause: 2
Not Scored

Classroom Observation Form

Phonological Awareness:
Blending Words

10/29/15

Not Scored

10/29/15

10/10

Case Study
J

1 (J.1)

1 (K.1)

Appendi
x

Administratio
n Number

Phonological
Awareness
Phonological
Awareness

9/10

10/29/15

9/9

Score

1 (L.1)

Little Chimp Level 3

9/25/15

100%

2 (L.2)

Jack and Billy Level 3

10/1/15

98%

Bedtime Level 4

10/2/15

90%

10/14/15

92%

11/5/16

84%

11/19/15

97%

11/5/15

Not Scored

11/19/15

Not Scored

Running
Record of
Text Read
Aloud

5 (L.5)
6 (L.6)
M

10/29/15

Date
Given

4 (L.4)

Type of
Assessment

Phonological Awareness:
Segmenting Words
Phonological Awareness:
Rhyming

Assessment Title

3 (L.3)
L

20

1 (M.1)
2 (M.2)

Writing
Sample

Little Chimp and Big

Chimp Level 4
Monkey on the Roof
Level 5
Kitty Cat and the Fish
Level 5
Writing Sample from
11/5/15
Writing Sample from
11/19/15