Week 9 DIBELS Assignment #3

Assignment #3

Compare and Contrast QRI5 and DIBELS

The Qualitative Reading Inventory- 5 (QRI-5) is an informal reading inventory that is individually administered.  It is constructed to supply data about the conditions under which students are successful or unsuccessful at recognizing words and comprehending text.  It’s purpose is to determine a person’s reading level- whether it be independent , instructional, or frustration level.  Diagnostic information is obtained. Oral and silent reading and listening ability of students are assessed using various passages and graded word lists.  The inventory spans from as early as pre-primer through the high school levels.

           

Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) assess the achievement of early literacy skills from kindergarten through sixth grade.  Early literacy and reading skills are regularly monitored. DIBELS focuses on four out of five of the Big Ideas of Reading: phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, fluency, and comprehension.  Benchmark measures determine which students are at risk for reading difficulties.  This is a norm-referenced assessment.

            Both the Q.R.I-5 and DIBELS have similarities.  They both assess fluency, word accuracy and comprehension.  Although, fluency is sub-categorized in DIBELS. They both can be used as data-driven instruction.  Literacy is the focus of DIBELS and QRI-5.

Let’s take a look at some of the comparisons of each assessment.  DIBELS administers to students in the kindergarten through sixth grades.  However, the Q.R.I assesses students from Pre-Primer all the way through the high school level, which targets a much larger population.  The Q.R.I is an informal inventory, unlike DIBELS which is a standardized, norm-referenced assessment.  DIBELS provides comparative data as a result of this, so comparative data is presented in various ways.  On the other hand, the QRI-5 uses no comparative data.  Scores are individualized and aren’t interpreted in regards to any norm group.  Since DIBELS is a norm-referenced test, administering the tasks would look the same for all subjects. For QRI-5, since it is not norm-referenced, the examiner can decide on the quantity and type of passages to administer to the subjects.  As a result of the shorter increments of tasks and time limitations on the DIBELS, this assessment is much shorter in duration than that of its counterpart. For example, the Oral Fluency section of DIBELS has a time limit of one minute. QRI-5 does not have time limitations on the tasks.  DIBELS has a certain frequency of administering the test- about every three months, but QRI-5 doesn’t provide a frequency of testing schedule.  Although both assessments test oral fluency, there are specific details that are different.  During the recording of miscues, the examiner records omissions and substitutions in both tests.  However, in DIBELS, hesitations of 3 seconds are considered errors.  Words self-corrected within 3 seconds are considered accurate.  In the QRI-5, during the word lists administering, words that are identified within 1 second are considered automatic, and words correctly identified beyond that duration are considered as “identified”.  In the DIBELS, the retell fluency section is only administered to those reading at least 40 words per minute.  On the other hand, the QRI has no requirement for oral reading.  It is very interesting that although both assessments measure comprehension skills, only the QRI-5 includes comprehension questions (implicit and explicit).

Both assessments can be used to provide data to drive instruction.  Results of both can be used to determine students’ reading levels, choose appropriate books for book clubs, reading workshops, grouping students for guided reading, and independent reading.  Data can also be used to construct and implement intervention instruction.  Although both assessments can be used to document student growth, I believe that DIBELS demonstrates a higher and more productive progress monitoring  technique.  Between the color- coding comparative data and benchmark goals, as well as the short duration of administering the test, I think that it would be more practical and beneficial for a busy teacher to implement the DIBELS. Analyzing and comparing these two assessments made me reflect on my teaching approaches. I hope to one day successfully implement at least one of them in my classroom.

Week 8- Assignment #3

Candidate’s Name: Renee Bacchus

Grade Level: K-5

Title of the lesson:  Paired Reading to Increase Fluency

Length of the lesson: 45 minutes

Central focus: Increasing Reading Fluency

Depending on the grade, students have basic knowledge of the alphabetic principle. First graders and higher should be able to read independently.  Students in second grade are learning how to read silently, while older grades are reading at a faster reading pace. Classes are heterogeneous and are multicultural.

Common Core State Standards: CCSS RF.3 (Grades K-5)- Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words. CCSS RF.4 (Grades 1-5)- Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.

Vocabulary  Paired Reading, peers, cooperation, fluency, reading rate   Discourse         ● After assessing students' reading abilities, list the students in order from highest to lowest according to reading ability.        -Divide the list in half.        - Place the student in the top slot of the first list with the student in the top slot of the second list; continue until all students have been assigned a partner.        - Adjust partners as necessary, being sensitive of students with special needs.        - Allow some time for students to chat with their new partners; considering presenting them with some "getting to know you" questions to ask and answer with each other.        - Choose any book or text (fiction or nonfiction), where students will take turns reading by sentence, paragraph, page or chapter.        -If the students will be reading individually (rather than at the same time), the reader from the first list should read first while the reader from the second list listens and follows along.        -The second reader should pick up where the first reader stops. If additional practice is needed, the second reader can reread what the first reader read.        -While reading, the partners can help each other with words or understanding, as needed.         - The readers can then change roles and follow the same procedure.        - Encourage pairs to ask each other about what was read and use illustrations (if applicable) as talking points, as well: "What was your page about? What was your favorite part?"        - Students may record their notes and feedback on a recording sheet.

Learning objective - Use paired reading to increase fluency and peer cooperation

Formal and informal assessment and (DRA) ●Assessments include running records, peer assessment checklists, conference notes, and fluency rubric

 

Instructional strategies and learning tasks  Read- aloud, re-reading, Choral and echo reading Accommodations and modifications: ELLs/struggling readers: Visual and technology

Instructional resources and materials  .Peer Checklist, various levels and genres of books, timer Use starfall.com (technology) website to reinforce the skills.

Reflection ●Did your instruction support learning for the whole class and the students who need  great support or challenge? ●What changes would you make to support better student learning of the central  focus?

« Close preview

 

 

 Print

Working

 

Week 7- Assignment #5

Assignment#5 Find a child to practice the above 4 types of assessment, report the child's assessment results, and suggest learning activities to reinforce the development in these 4 areas, and suggest at least 3 online websites that could help the child with these 4 areasof development.


 

The child I worked with is a five year old kindergarten student in public school.  Her phonemic awareness results were better than her print awareness results.  I conducted the sample print awareness assessment and noticed that she was able to successfully show me the front and back of the book, where to begin reading, a word, the first and last word in the sentence, capital and lowercase letter.  However, when asked to show me the title of the book, she pointed to the author’s name instead.  Instead of identifying the letter, she pointed to a whole word.  And instead of identifying punctuation marks, she pointed to pictures.  In phonemic awareness, the student was able to successfully blend 3 sounds together such as /c/a/t/, /b/u/n/, /r/i/p/, and /p/e/n/.  However, when asked to segment the sounds she had some difficulty and reached frustration.  When assessing the sounds of speech, the student was told a 2, 3, or 4 phoneme word.  The student then had to segment that word in phonemes.  As she said each phoneme, she had to push the chip into an individual box that represented each phoneme.  She successfully identified the sounds in words with 2 and 3-phoneme words, but had difficulty identifying the 4-phoneme words.  Her overall phonics skills were on level. 

                To strengthen phonemic awareness, different word play activities will be implemented.  To improve her print awareness, big books will be used during read-aloud time and as I model to read, we will always review the components of the book and move my finger across the words while reading. We will continue to practice the activity with moving chips according to phonemes. 

                Some great websites to facilitate these skills are: starfall.com, readwritethink.org, and turtlediary.com.

Week #6

Based on Mary's results, her instructional focus would include:

• using context clues to anticipate a familiar word
• investigating various word-identification strategies
• activating prior knowledge before reading
• recalling main idea, important facts or details from a passage

Keeping in mind that Mary's intervention would take place during class time while still instructing the rest of my students, I would definitely reflect more on my differentiation strategies while teaching the whole group. More accommodations would be made. I would also plan her intervention for 3 days per week for about 20 minutes each day. For weekly lessons I will try to spend half the sessions doing word study and the other half monitoring comprehension.

Sample of a mini-lesson

Objective: Mary will understand the main idea of a reading selection, using expository text.

Materials: Graphic Organizer, markers, expository text, highlighter

Modeling: Present a list of words (without headings) on chart paper. Ask Mary to think of a word or phrase that could be used to describe what the lists are mostly about. Each of my four lists will describe the following: animals, clothes, Disney princesses and places to stay.

Guided Instruction: Discuss the words or phrases offered by Mary. Emphasize that the words or phrases describe the heading and tells what the words are mostly about. make a connection to reading;" in your favorite book or story, the main idea is the most important idea given about a topic. Other parts of information that support the main idea are called details.

Modeling:Draw a wheel with spokes on the chart paper and tell Mary that the center of the wheel represents the main idea and the spokes represent the supporting details.

Guided Practice: Present a short expository text and help Mary model how to go about finding the main idea. Tell her to remember to think about the following:

• what is the paragraph mostly about?
• what is the most important idea give about the topic?
• look for details that tell about the main idea. If you can't find any details, you probably don't have the main idea.
• the main idea is usually in the text. Other times you have to use the details to figure out the main idea.

Independent Practice: Mary will add supporting details to the spokes and highlight.