Examining Complexity of Text

Part I: Assessment to Inform Instructions grade 4

Intermediate Literacy Learners and Developmental Stage

In addition, the background information about the literacy learner and the impact in the learning processes. In this report, the student chosen is a fourth grade, 10-year old male. He is an intermediate literacy learner as can be seen in the way he interacts with the reading texts. The reader learner B (not real name) has been selected for this report mainly because the learner reveals eager and interest in learning from the educational materials alongside his tutor. Furthermore, these are positive attributes for a learner who has no developmental reading and writing stages continuum focus and self-drive. Nevertheless, he does not hide from his tutor that his main interest is to enhance his reading ability and comprehension skills (Dalton, 2012).

The next, assessment of the developmental stage of reading for the reader learner B. In a close examination of the age and interactions of the leader, the learner developmental stage for reading is in stage 3 for instance, (reading to learn). Of course, these stages are achieved between the ages of 9-13-years old. Nevertheless, the learners mainly read to gain knowledge and new insights as well as experiences. Furthermore, reading to learn receives a lot of emphasis in this developmental stage for reading. Also, some skills relating to fluency, spelling, and grammar are acquired at this stage. Therefore, the reader learner B shows the characteristics unique to this developmental stage (Afflerbach., 2012).

Assessment Tools

In addition, the descriptions of the assessment tools and receptive language used in dealing with the reader learner B. In fact, receptive language play critical role in enabling successful communication between the tutor and the learner. Furthermore, some group of learners finds it extremely difficult to follow instructions in the absence of receptive communication type. Indeed, receptive language is critical in allowing the learner to comprehend instructions and learning activities (Malloy, Marinak, Gambrell, & Mazzoni, 2013).

Furthermore, the analysis of the assessment tools considering cognitive and non-cognitive assessments. On the other hand, the tutor can use assessment tools to inform on the instruction while providing critical information about the literacy of the learner. For example, the non-cognitive assessment tools include the Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS) which can be used in measuring the intermediate-level reader learner’s aptitudes and attitudes as far as reading is concerned. As matter of fact, this tool is appropriate since it can be administered to individual learners as well as a group of learners concurrently. Also, the tool is simpler to administer and takes relatively shorter time for the full administration in aiding the learning processes.

Conversely, the cognitive reading assessments mainly concentrate on some critical skills from the literacy learner. In fact, these skills include comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency. On the contrary, the best tool can be the use of the running record containing miscue analysis. Furthermore, the administration of this assessment tool in cognitive assessment entails the learner reading learning texts orally to his tutor. As a result, the tutor can identify some errors in the reading and decoding abilities of the learner. In fact, this can, in turn, inform on the next set of instructions to be used by the tutor of the learner. Furthermore, the analysis of this assessment tool allows the tutor to closely examines and evaluate the strategies used by the learner in reading the assigned texts (Schiefele, Schaffner, Möller, & Wigfield, 2012).

Summary of Data Collected

In addition, critical analysis and summary of the assessment data from the reader learner B. The assessment tools for both the non-cognitive and cognitive assessment reveal a great deal of information about the learner. For instance, the data collected using the RSPS shows that the reader learner B has relatively low self-efficacy when it comes to reading and comprehension of the texts. In fact, both the perceived comparison and social feedback on the learner’s reading are relatively low. To put it another way, regarding cognitive assessment, the running record containing miscue analysis scores the learner at 87% accuracy on the grade level assigned texts. Besides, the learner also managed to accumulate 6/10 points on comprehension (Afflerbach., 2012). Next, these information data about the learner are a pointer to need for adjustments in the instructions as discussed below;

Instructional Adjustments

Although, the assessment and the analysis of the information data on the progress of the literacy learner gives some clue on how to implement some adjustments in the set of instructions for the learner. Besides, there are several ways in which the assessment can inform instructions for the reader learner B. The RSPS associated with the non-cognitive assessment gives some critical information about the learner B and how he can assisted in improving his reading and comprehension skills. For example, using the RSPS, the tutor will know how to structure the settings where reading activities take place as well as some critical data to share with the learner B regarding his reading process. Furthermore, the tutor will also be able to retain some information, which is not worth sharing with the learner but is important in helping the learner to become efficient (Henk & Melnick, 1995).

Moreover, the assessments are also critical in helping the tutor to instil confidence and ensuring success in improving the reading abilities of the learner B. For instance, the use of running record will inform the tutor on the progress made by the learner in relation to perfecting certain accuracy strategies by the learner. Furthermore, through such analysis, the tutor will be able to tell which accuracy strategies have not been exploited by the learner. In contrast, the tutor will be able to tell whether the learner is able to derive context clues in determining the meaning of different words in the texts using the vocabulary assessment. In fact, the tutor can device different approaches to helping the learner in using context clue in knowing the meaning of vocabularies used in the reading texts (Gillis, Luthin, Parette, & Blum, 2012). In addition, the tutor can improve the learner’s comprehension skills using context clues in the set of instructions for the learner. By informing the instructions, the tutor will be able to determine different approached that can be used in improving the comprehension skills of the learner (Gillis, Luthin, Parette, & Blum, 2012).

Part II: Writing

In this section of the report examines the writing and instructions for the learner B, by the tutor in relation to literacy learning as discussed below;

Results and Analysis

Next, the assessment of the data and implications of text selection by the learner B. Furthermore, depending on the data discussed in part 1 of this report on non-cognitive assessment, learner B has low self-efficacy as a literacy learner in relation to reading. In fact, the cognitive assessment data show that the learner average abilities in different set skills associated with the stage 3 of the development stage of reading. As a result, these skills include comprehension, spelling, and grammar as well as important aspects of competencies. Thus, the tutor should select text for learner B, to derive contextual meaning and comprehension of such learning texts (Dalton, 2012).

Literacy Development and Support

Also, there are different approaches which can be taken by the tutor in promoting literacy development related supports for the learner B. Of course, the findings from both cognitive and non-cognitive assessments can be used by the tutor in making critical adjustments in the learning environment as well as the set of instructions previous designed by the tutor. Also, apart from changing the selection of texts that emphasizes on contextual meaning to the vocabularies, the learner B, should be afforded with the conducive reading environment to achieve desired literacy learning outcomes (Bottomley, Henk, & Melnick, 1997).

CCSS and Instruction

In addition, the relation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the instructions used in the literacy learning. Also, it is central to note that the standards used for both writing and reading are collectively referred as continuum skills. Indeed, these skills can greatly help the tutor in modifying the learning instructions and in identifying the specific learning needs of the learner. Also, the use of technology can also be a force multiplier in helping the learner in leveraging the benefits of the online books as suggested by the tutor (Coskie & Hornof, 2013).

Intermediate Learner Transition

In fact, the roles of the tutors in helping the learners to transition from one writing stage to another. Surely, the most useful approach in aiding such transition is using instructional modelling strategies. The tutor is expected to share with the learner specific strategies which can allow the learner to transition with ease to the next writing stage. Therefore, the tutor can leverage on questioning to help the learner in brainstorming (Coskie & Hornof, 2013).

In conclusion, it is imperative to note that the ability of learners to learn and read is a basic skill, which can be, nurtured through different learning activities with the help of the tutor. As a result, the tutors play pivotal roles in the acquisition of important learning skills related to writing and reading. Additionally, technological advancement also present empowering opportunities for students to improve the skills as well as easing the work of tutors.

References

Afflerbach., P. (2012). Understanding and using reading assessment K–12 (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Bottomley, M. D., Henk, A. W., & Melnick, A. S. (1997). Assessing children’s views about themselves as writers using the Writer Self-Perception Scale. The Reading Teacher, 51(4), 28.

Coskie, L. T., & Hornof, M. M. (2013). E-best Principles: Infusing Technology Into the Writing Workshop. The Reading Teacher, 67(1), 54–58.

Dalton, B. (2012). Multimodal composition and the Common Core State Standards. The Reading Teacher, 66(4), 333–339.

Gillis, A., Luthin, K., Parette, P. H., & Blum, C. (2012). Using VoiceThread to create meaningful receptive and expressive learning activities for young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(4), 203–211.

Henk, A. W., & Melnick, A. S. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470–482.

Malloy, A. J., Marinak, A. B., Gambrell, B. L., & Mazzoni, A. S. (2013). Assessing motivation to read: The motivation to read profile—revised. The Reading Teacher, 67((4), 273–282.

Schiefele, U., Schaffner, E., Möller, J., & Wigfield, A. (2012). Dimensions of reading motivation and their relation to reading behavior and competence. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 427–463.