Project
Toowm92
pro.docxRunning Head: FINAL PROJECT 1
FINAL PROJECT 10
Final Project
Date Submitted:3/22/2018
Teacher:Ali Course/Subject: English Reading Grade: 3
Type of Classroom: Group School: Alamjad
Classroom Location: Middle of School Length of Class: 45 Minutes Number of Students in Class: 13
Interviewer’s Name/Role:Hatm Date:3/22/2018
Section One: Contextual Information
Summary of Student Information
Melissa Hubert is a 9 year old, 3rd grade student served in a self-contained special education classroom with 12 peers with moderate to severe cognitive developmental disabilities.
There are numerous observed behaviors of Melissa while in classroom. She for instance experiences difficulties when reading single words. She also experiences difficulty when learning the connection between letters and sounds. This is also evident when she confuses small words, such as at and to. She cannot distinguish between reversal letters like d and b. Moreover, she makes word reversals, such as tip for pit. There is no denying that this has made her to frequently add or forget letters in a word in class assignments. She is also slow in memorizing alphabets.
When asked to name her peers, she finds it difficult to recall their names more so if the peers do not interact with her frequently in, and outside the classroom. This leads to a conclusion that she is unable to remember simple sequences. Further, it has been observed that she has difficulty in understanding rhyming words or even recognize words that begin with the same sound.
Owing to these observable behaviours, Melissa dreads verbal instructions more so when asked to read in front of her peers. She has been observed to have trouble following oral instructions given by her teacher. Since she struggles to read, she normally avoids reading aloud. She also fidgets a lot, an observable behaviour owing to difficulty in keeping in the same place of seat when reading. She appears restless or easily distracted thus compounding her difficulties in reading comprehensions or texts in the classroom.
Educational and Environmental Analysis
Classroom Environment:
Classroom Management:
The classroom rules are pinned on a chart in the left side of the front wall. Some of the basic rules stipulate that students raise their hands when seeking to answer or get clarification, use appropriate language, ask permission to get out of their desk during the class.
What are the consequences for breaking classroom rules?
How do you handle student conflicts and for discipline issues?
Instructional Delivery:
Instruction in Melissa’s class is done either individually or as a whole group. Individual instructions are for students in the individualized education program (IEP). Students are expected to seat 2 minutes prior to the beginning of the lesson which takes 45 minutes. Raising hand to seek clarification or answer is allowed for the students. at the teachers discretion, students are allowed time to converse about a given topic, or concept for no more than 5 minutes.
Course Requirements:
Students are required to participate in coursework fully to understand concepts, and gain knowledge that is testable in the form of continuous assessment tests. Students are required to attend over 90% of the classes to be legible for assessments. All students must actively participate in class forums, or discussions. They must be equipped with the necessary class materials that the teacher may also provide.
How much class participation do the students require?
What skills do students need to be successful in the classroom?
Class Assignments:
Class assignments include continuous assessment tests (CATs) that can either be oral or written taken on weekly basis, or take home assignments that must be completed by the start of the next lesson.
Instructional Materials:
The teacher supplies all the required instructional materials such as novels and novellas, chapter books, and reading and writing textbooks. There are also supplemental materials and modifications to materials in order to differentiate instruction for the students in IEPs.
Grading System:
The grading scale is 92-100: A, 83-91: B, 74-82: C, 65-73: D, and 0-64: F. Grades are warded based on a student’s ability to express accurately learned concepts or read fluently in case of reading texts.
What kinds of tests are given'? How often?
What is the make-up p bolicy for assignments, homework, and tests?
Teacher Behaviors:
The teacher walks around the class to ensure all students are at par. the teacher uses guided instruction which is demonstrated on the whiteboard. The teacher has the freedom chose for the students the activities they will engage in during the lesson.
Is there anything you would change about the way the class is conducted?
Section Two: Baseline Data
The project on Middle year just 3 class
No in all year just in middle
Assessment Administered
Section Two: Baseline Data
· Administer Assessments.
· Write a summary describing:
(a) the instruments(s) used to assess the student,
(b) why the instrument(s) was chosen,
(c) technical information about the assessment(s) (e.g., reliability, validity),
(d) how cultural bias was minimized by the instrument(s), and possible limitations to the instrument(s).
Raw Data: Baseline data (i.e., data reflecting where the student was performing prior to intervention), progress monitoring data, and final assessment data is to be submitted. Data collection forms, permanent products, and/or observational (anecdotal) data are expected.
Data Analysis: An analysis of your data is to be presented in the form of a summary of findings (you may use a Data Triangulation form and/or a graphical representation (e.g., histogram, pie chart).
https://dibels.org/papers/DIBELSNextBenchmarkGoals.pdf
Middle year just 3 class
https://dibels.org/next/downloads/DIBELSNext_Benchmark_G3_Scoring.pdf
Username:[email protected]
Password: dibels141547
For assnmment student
Open the link and look at pic to test student
Benchmark2.1
Benchmark2.2
Benchmark2.3
The first step in developing an IEP program for a dyslexic student is dyslexia testing. Evaluations are mostly used in schools for diagnosis of dyslexia. It is worth noting that dyslexia evaluation process provides important information to help teachers in planning student's program. For instance, an analysis of the Melissa's responses to test items and her performance on various scales of standardized dyslexia tests can provide important insights into how she learns, and struggles to read. Undeniably, as a student with dyslexia, and more so reading and reading comprehensions difficulties she can benefit from the specific information this type of analysis provides.
Summary
Information about Instrument Used To Assess Melissa
In the case of Melissa, two instruments were used to assess her. These were both the; Diagnostic Assessments of Reading with Trial Teach Strategies (DAR-TTS), and Qualitative Reading Inventory, Fifth Edition (QRI-5). The DAR test measure a students’ strengths and weaknesses in key areas of his or her learning with reading, including print awareness, phonological awareness, letters and sounds, word recognition, word analysis, oral reading accuracy and fluency, silent reading comprehension, spelling, and word meaning (Curtis, 2009). On the other hand, the QRI-5 assessment is a criterion-referenced test that assesses reading ability among students (Schwanenflugel, Westmoreland, & Benjamin, 2015).
Discussion of Why the Instrument Was Chosen
It is good to not that the DAR was chosen because it would help the special education teacher to help Melissa read better. On the other hand, the QRI-5 assessment was chosen because it would provide Melissa with graded word lists and the written passages that are designed to help evaluate her oral reading, silent reading, and reading comprehension skills (Schwanenflugel, Westmoreland, & Benjamin, 2015).
Description of the Technical Soundness of Instrument
It is undeniable that the DAR test is able to measure Melissa’s strengths and weaknesses in numerous key areas of reading such as print and phonological awareness, letters and sounds, and word recognition as well as oral reading accuracy and fluency (Curtis, 2009). This proves its technical soundness in assessing the learning disability in Melissa. Further, the technical soundness of the QRI-5 instrument is that it would provide raw scores that will be used to convert results into grade- level scores. It also allows the gathering of pre- and post-treatment data.
Discussion of How Cultural Bias Was Minimized
In order to minimize cultural bias the assessors of Melissa’s learning disability underwent rigorous training thus ensuring that they were culturally aware. To accurately interpret and discuss assessment results with Melissa, they had to understand not only the cultural differences between themselves and her, but also her cultural beliefs, attitudes, and thought patterns.
Delineation of Possible Limitations
One of the possible limitations of the assessment was cultural bias that could lead to wrong interpretation of the test results thereby realized. Possible accommodations available for Melissa during the assessment period could also influence the results thus being a biased. The use of standardized tests in comparing Melissa with her peers could lead to skewed results that are not a representative of the true value or score of her reading ability.
Raw Data
A scoring sheet showing the total number of words read correctly per minute (WCPM) by Melissa
|
Assessment |
Fall WCPM |
Winter WCPM |
Spring WCPM |
|
1 |
83 |
97 |
91 |
|
2 |
59 |
79 |
63 |
|
3 |
40 |
62 |
160 |
|
4 |
153 |
168 |
184 |
|
5 |
125 |
143 |
160 |
Additional Anecdotal Observations and Permanent Products
Prior to this data, Melissa had difficulties in reading. However, it was noted during the assessment that she could read a sizeable number of words per minute reviving hopes for her success in oral reading skills.
Data Analysis
Summary of Findings
It is evident that during the assessment, Melissa was subjected to a one minute reading implying that she read for 1 minute. The assessing teacher then counted the number of words read correctly in one minute (WCPM). This score was as valid as calculating perfect correct or accuracy on longer readings. Imperatively, the assessment continued during three school learning timeframes. In all the tree periods, Melissa improved her reading skill significantly. Worth noting is that, at the beginning of the assessment in Fall, a slight improvement was seen. The most improvement was seen at the end of the spring. The average number of words Melissa could read correctly per minute (WCPM) at the beginning of each period; Fall, Winter, and Spring was 83, 97, and 112 respectively. On the other hand, the highest average number of words Melissa could read correctly per minute (WCPM) at the end of each period; Fall, Winter, and Spring was 125, 143, and 160 respectively. It is therefore evident that she had improved significantly in each period.
Graphical representations of Melissa’s oral reading progression
References
Curtis, M. B. (2009). Trial Teaching Strategies: Linking Testing to Teaching. Trial, 3, 31-2009.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., Westmoreland, M. R., & Benjamin, R. G. (2015). Reading fluency skill and the prosodic marking of linguistic focus. Reading and Writing, 28(1), 9-30.
Winter WCPM 97 79 62 168 143 Spring WCPM 91 63 160 184 160 Fall WCPM 83 59 40 153 125
