Quantitative summary
During final assessments on November 22, 2013, the assessor administered two full assessments. The first assessment was a level 20, which was the text level that was mainly used for instruction during tutoring, in which the reader scored 96% accuracy—an independent level. When reading the text there was a total of 6 errors and no self-corrections with a self-correction rate of 1:0 and 36 WCPM.
The second assessment was at a level 22 text, which was the reader’s lowest frustrational level obtained in initial assessments in September, in which the reader scored 94% accuracy— an instructional level text. With this text there were a total of 12 errors and 4 self-corrections made at a self-correction rate 1:4 and 20.7 WCPM.
The second assessment was at a level 22 text, which was the reader’s lowest frustrational level obtained in initial assessments in September, in which the reader scored 94% accuracy— an instructional level text. With this text there were a total of 12 errors and 4 self-corrections made at a self-correction rate 1:4 and 20.7 WCPM.
Qualitative Summary
As A. read, she made a few substitutions. These substitutions did not always maintain the meaning of the text but were similar visually to what was on the page. The syntactic structure of the passage was usually maintained with the substitutions. During the reading A. read at a good rate, and increased from 19.4 WCPM in September at a level 22 to 20.7 WCPM in November at the same text level. She only omitted two words in the instructional level text in comparison to the initial assessment when she frequently omitted words and some entire phrases or sentences. When she went several words without an error, her rate increased. Her self-corrections showed reflection on the meaning of the text, and after making an error she frequently re-read the sentence to check for meaning.
Overall, A. demonstrated a greater ability to read text fluently than during assessments given in September. Her fluency score on a level 22, which was an instructional level, was a 3 since she usually demonstrated fluency while reading. A. demonstrated the use of intonation infrequently, and this was her lowest scoring section on the fluency scale at a 2. All other areas of fluency including rate, phrasing, pausing, and stress were somewhat evident in the text and were scored as a 3. All areas of fluency increased between the initial assessment in September and the final assessment in November.
A. was able to retell some of the text, especially information from the beginning of the text. She is able to identify the main points and characters of the passage with mostly correct sequencing. This is an improvement from her initial assessment when she only identified some main points with little attention to sequencing. She was also often able to answer higher thinking questions about the main points in the text. A. scored a 7, which is instructional, for retell quality on a level 22 text which was frustrational for her at the time of the initial assessment when she scored a 3.
Overall, A. demonstrated a greater ability to read text fluently than during assessments given in September. Her fluency score on a level 22, which was an instructional level, was a 3 since she usually demonstrated fluency while reading. A. demonstrated the use of intonation infrequently, and this was her lowest scoring section on the fluency scale at a 2. All other areas of fluency including rate, phrasing, pausing, and stress were somewhat evident in the text and were scored as a 3. All areas of fluency increased between the initial assessment in September and the final assessment in November.
A. was able to retell some of the text, especially information from the beginning of the text. She is able to identify the main points and characters of the passage with mostly correct sequencing. This is an improvement from her initial assessment when she only identified some main points with little attention to sequencing. She was also often able to answer higher thinking questions about the main points in the text. A. scored a 7, which is instructional, for retell quality on a level 22 text which was frustrational for her at the time of the initial assessment when she scored a 3.
Reader Summary
A. read both texts during assessment with much less evidence of anxiety than during the initial assessment. When asked to read the second text for assessment, she was resistant to read the text because it was not a topic that she was interested in, but with assessor prompting she successfully completed reading of the text. She also enjoys talking both about what she thinks may be in the text and about what she recalls from the text, especially when she is given some choice in the subject that is being read about and when reading does not occur in an assessment format.
When reading a text, A. now more frequently attempts words in the text that she does not automatically recognize than she did at the beginning of the semester. She also goes back and re-reads sentences where her errors do not fit the meaning of the text and in many instances self-corrects until she begins reading at more rapid pace, which was seen when she read the level 20 text during assessment. Therefore, I think that her main area of difficulty now is maintaining a pace that allows her to adequately attend to the meaning of the text.
When reading a text, A. now more frequently attempts words in the text that she does not automatically recognize than she did at the beginning of the semester. She also goes back and re-reads sentences where her errors do not fit the meaning of the text and in many instances self-corrects until she begins reading at more rapid pace, which was seen when she read the level 20 text during assessment. Therefore, I think that her main area of difficulty now is maintaining a pace that allows her to adequately attend to the meaning of the text.