Week 5 Assignment #s
1-4
As Mary did the First Level Word Lists, her total score was
90%- Independent Level. She identified
80% automatically which placed her at instructional level. She didn’t know the word “brain” and skipped
it. She also said “aired” instead of “heard”.
Since her total score is at independent level, the proctor then moves along
to the Level Two Word List. Her Total
score is at instructional level- 85%, even though her identified automatic was
at frustration level- 65%. Since her total score was just at the verge of
independent level, the proctor then administers the Level Three List.
Mary reached frustration level quickly and gave up trying after the word
“wear”. Only the words- lunch and lion
were identified correctly.
Based
on the results of the word recognition, the teacher decided to start Mary off
with an expository text from Level 2: “Whales and Fish”. I tried my best to record any miscues. She scored total accuracy of 96% (8 miscues)
and total acceptability of 97%. There
were about 5 miscues that would be considered “meaning changing”. Both of these scores are at instructional
level. Mary had teacher direction on the
word- “tails”. Her reading rate was
about 46 WPM- which is within range of oral reading rates of students reading
on a first level- instructional level.
I
believe that some of Mary’s strengths is the fact that during her expository
text, she resulted in no miscues of insertions or omissions. Her weaknesses might include her low reading
rate for her age group. During the word
recognition, she sometimes omitted the final consonant. While reading aloud, Mary sometimes loses her
position on the page. Her fluency
definitely needs improvement. When the
teacher asked Mary what the story was about, she had a hard time adding details
in order to retell.
Good job on the preliminary assessment! The oral reading miscue assessment (accuracy rate= 96) somehow doesn't seem to be coherent with the interpretation of Mary's fluency. Do it one more time and recalculate scores to see if there's a different result. It's good that you made notation on Mary's omission on endings. :)
ReplyDelete