Hannah Valentin

UIN: 823004607
Screening Assessment Reading
RDNG 361

Name: Owen

Evaluator: Hannah Valentin

Age:

Date of Evaluation: November 25, 2015

9 years old

Grade: 3rd

Parent permission was/was not obtained for this assessment

Parent permission was obtained prior to this assessment. The parent was also present at the time
of the evaluation.

Student Information: Owen is a 3rd grader who is 9 years old. He has one older brother who is
in 8th grade, and lives with both of his parents. Owen attends a private elementary school where
there are only 10 students in each class. His mother had revealed that his private school
placement was due to his previous struggles in reading while in public schooling.

Assessments Administered:
Neuhaus Reading Comprehension Screening for 3rd Grade
Words Their Way Developmental Spelling Inventory

Student Observations:
Owen was quite hyper during the observation. More often than not Owen was having trouble
staying still in his seat, as he was constantly tapping his foot and bouncing up and down. These

Hannah Valentin
UIN: 823004607
observations made it apparent that Owen was anxious for the assessment to end. While he was
quite fidgety and hyper, Owen did work cooperatively during the assessment. Owen did not
complain about taking the assessment, nor did he attempt to leave the assessment before it had
concluded.

Assessment Results:

Neuhaus Reading Comprehension Screening for 3rd Grade:

Using the Neuhaus Reading Comprehension Screening for 3rd Grade, Owens reading
comprehension was assessed. Within this assessment, a total of five components were given,
which specifically addressed his decoding skills, reading fluency, oral language/world
knowledge, listening comprehension, and reading comprehension/metacognitive strategies.
During the decoding skills component, Owen scored 2 total decoding errors while reading
Messes by Sweetie aloud. When reading, Owen mispronounced the word implies, stating the
letter name P versus pronouncing the letter sound /p/. He also mispronounced the word
greyhound, as he stuttered over the word several times before skipping it entirely. Since Owen
scored 2 or fewer errors for decoding, he is deemed benchmark for this skill. Simultaneously,
while reading Messes by Sweetie aloud Owen was also timed. It took a total of 62 seconds for
Owen to reach the 100th word in the passage. Thus, Owen is benchmark in reading fluency, as it
took him 69 seconds or less to reach the 100th word. Then, when administered the listening
comprehension component of the assessment, Owen scored 7 correct for listening, meeting the
benchmark level of 5 correct. After listening to the passage, The Donkey, Owen only failed to

Hannah Valentin
UIN: 823004607
correctly answer, How is a donkey stubborn? by stating, it isnt. Furthermore, when
assessed on reading comprehension/metacognitive strategies, Owen scored 7 correct for silent
reading, meeting the benchmark level of 6 correct. When this assessment was given, Owen
asked for the meaning of a word, reread a sentence, and looked back at the passage as he
answered the questions, using a total of 3 metacognitive strategies. When answering the
comprehension questions, Owen correctly answered all questions except, What is a baby frog
called? by incorrectly answering a toad. Therefore, it is determinable that Owens strengths
include decoding skills, reading fluency, listening comprehension, and reading
comprehension/metacognitive strategies, since he is benchmark in all of those areas.
Contrary to this, certain weaknesses were also noted due to Owens assessment results.
Owen was insufficient in oral language/world knowledge, naming 11.5 items per minute, which
was below the benchmark level of 15 items per minute. During this assessment component,
when given 30 seconds to name things that you find in a classroom Owen responded by naming
the following seven items: desk, chair, door, lights, teachers desk, carpet, and pencil. When
asked to name fruits and vegetables Owen named an apple, lettuce, pineapple, cantaloupe, and
spinach. Then, when asked to name animals, Owen responded by listing the following 8
animals: zebra, buffalo, lion, tiger, rhinoceros, elephant, dog, and cat. Lastly, when asked to
name states in the United States, Owen was only able to name Texas, New Mexico, and Florida.
After dividing his four-category total of 23 items by 2, it was determinable that Owen was able
to list 11.5 items/minute. Since this score is insufficient, below the benchmark level of 15 items,
it is clear that Owen is weak in oral language/world knowledge.

Hannah Valentin
UIN: 823004607
Words Their Way Developmental Spelling Inventory:
Owen was then administered the Words Their Way Developmental Spelling Inventory.
During this assessment, Owen was only given 11 words to spell since at that point he had
accumulated a total of 6 misspellings. Through an analysis of his misspellings, it was possible to
isolate Owens strengths and weaknesses in spelling. Owen earned 7 out of 7 points for
consonants features, correctly spelling the initial consonants and/or final consonants in the words
bed, ship, lump, float, train, and drive. Owen also earned 5 out of 5 feature points for short
vowels, correctly spelling the short vowels in the words bed, ship, when, lump, and shopping.
When spelling words containing digraphs, Owen scored 3 out of 3 digraph feature points,
accurately spelling the digraphs in the words ship, when, and shopping. Similarly, Owen earned
7 out of 7 feature points for blends, correctly spelling the given blends in the following words:
mp in lump, fl in float, tr in train, pl in place, dr in drive, br in bright, and sp in spoil. From
these components of the assessment, it is clear that Owens strengths lie in features of
consonants, short vowels, digraphs, and blends.
In addition to strengths, certain weaknesses in spelling were also noted. First, Owen only
earned 1 out of 5 long vowel feature points, incorrectly identifying oa in float, ai in train, a-e in
place, and igh in bright. During this time, Owen was only able to correctly identify the long
vowel i-e in the word drive, earning 1 point. Owen also incorrectly spelled the other vowel, oi in
spoil, and the inflected ending pping in shopping, earning 0 points for both of these measures.
From these results, it is clear that Owen is weak in his spelling/understanding of long vowels,
other vowels, and inflected endings. Thus, since he is at the early stages of spelling within word
patterns and syllables/affixes, it is determinable that he lacks a concrete understanding of
morphology, or the structure of language.

Hannah Valentin
UIN: 823004607
Ultimately, despite the fact that Owen earned full feature points for consonants, short
vowels, digraphs, and blends, he was only able to spell a total of 5 words correctly out of the 11
given. These 5 correct spellings were for the words bed, ship, when, lump, and drive. Contrary
to this, Owen misspelled the words float, train, place, bright, shopping, and spoil. In the end,
Owen scored a total of 5 out of 11 words spelled correctly, 23 out of 29 feature points, and 28 out
of 40 total points.

Summary:
Ultimately, when analyzing Owens reading assessment scores, his overall strengths and
weaknesses are identifiable. From the Neuhaus Reading Comprehension Screening for 3rd
Grade, it is determinable that Owens strengths include his decoding skills, reading fluency,
listening comprehension, and reading comprehension/metacognitive strategies, since he is
benchmark in those assessment components. Similarly, Owens spelling strengths were also
noted during the Words Their Way Developmental Spelling Inventory. Thus, when spelling, it
has been found that Owen is strong in features of consonants, short vowels, digraphs, and blends,
since he scored full feature points for each of these measures.
Despite his strengths, Owen also has many weaknesses that could be aided through
instructional supports. From his insufficient score on the oral language/world knowledge
component of the Neuhaus Reading Comprehension Screening for 3rd Grade, it is determinable
that he is weak in this area. Also, due to his scores on the Words Their Way Developmental
Spelling Inventory, it is found that Owens weaknesses include the spelling of long vowels, other
vowels, and inflected endings. Therefore, in order to improve upon Owens weaknesses his
teacher may decide to implicate certain instructional supports. Since Owen struggled with oral

Hannah Valentin
UIN: 823004607
language/world knowledge his teacher could use Frayer Models to guide his understandings.
Frayer models, or a four square model, prompts visual and verbal word associations, (Hougen
& Smartt, page 163). This explicit form of instruction could help broaden Owens oral language
and world knowledge since it involves the activation of background knowledge and verbal word
associations. In relation to Owens spelling errors, instruction should begin at the point where he
has made two or more errors. In order to strengthen Owens weaknesses in spelling within word
patterns and syllables/affixes, particularly long vowels, other vowels, and inflected endings, he
could benefit from morphologic instruction. Guided discovery is a method that could be used to
strengthen each of these spelling abilities. Guided discovery would help Owen understand the
spelling patterns within the English language as it involves the hearing of the pattern, the visual
identification of the pattern, and lastly the vocalization of the pattern. This instructional support
should be able to help Owen improve in his understanding/spelling of long vowels, other vowels,
and inflected endings.

Hannah Valentin

Hannah Valentin
UIN: 823004607
Reflection: Screening Assessment Reading

Following my administration of the Grades 2-5 Screening and Assessment, I found that
my perspectives and overall breath of knowledge have grown. In order to prepare for my
administration of the assessment, I used my past experiences with the Emergent Reading
Assessment to guide my practices. First, I once again chose to file the test documents in a binder.
This organizational approach came in handy, as I had each document ready to use or hand to the
student. I also highlighted my assessment dialogue so Owen consistently received explicit
instructions during each component of the assessment. I made sure that I was more than enough
prepared for the actual test administration so it would run smoothly and efficiently. Although, it
was during the actual assessment when I noticed several changes that could have been made.
Overall, during a future assessment there were many things, including the assessment
atmosphere of the restaurant, which I would do differently. After receiving parent permission to
test Owen, his mother asked if the assessment could be done so over lunch. While apprehensive
about the setting, I happily agreed since I was extremely grateful for the opportunity in the first
place. After Owen had finished eating I gave the assessment. It would have been beneficial if
the assessment were given in a much quieter and isolated location. This would likely decrease
the range of errors within Owens scores. Surprisingly, while not ideal, the environment did not
seem to distract too much from the assessment as his mothers presence guided his focus. In
addition, I also wish I could have given Owen breaks during the examination. This would have
been helpful so Owen would not have become so anxious for the assessment to end.
Despite the elements I would change, there were also aspects of the assessment that I felt
proud of. First, as mentioned previously, I was proud of my organizational strategies that I used

Hannah Valentin
UIN: 823004607
prior to the assessment. These strategies made things go much smoother, decreasing the amount
of wasted time during the test administration. I also felt more confident during this test
administration, compared to the Emergent Reading Assessment. Compared to my previous
assessment, I was more confident in my abilities and less nervous overall. I think it also helped
that I knew the student who I was testing, not having to worry about their behavior or how
willing they would be. I believe this settled my nerves a bit, helping me jump right into the
testing. In addition, I felt that my teacher voice helped Owen understand the sincerity of the
assessment. While I informed him that the assessment was only for my personal practice and
that his results would not affect him educationally, my tone ensured that he took the test
seriously.
In conclusion, I once again appreciate my experience completing this assignment. While
it may have seemed difficult at times, it is a real word experience that I would not fully
understand without my firsthand involvement. As a teacher, I will be giving assessments to my
students throughout the year. Without this foundational practice, I would surly be confused or
unsure of how to properly administer a reading assessment when it counts the most. My students
should be able to depend on my administrative efficiency, directing their full focus on doing their
best when assessed. I am now confident that my students will be able to count on me, and that I
will be able to use their assessment results to inform reading instruction.

Works Cited:
Hougen, Martha C., and Susan M. Smartt. Fundamentals of Literacy Instruction and Assessment,
Pre-K-6. Baltimore, Md.: Paul H. Brookes Pub., 2012. Print.