Section Three: Teacher Candidate Artifacts

Introduction

This section, Section Three of my portfolio, contains eight artifacts of works I have

created, which demonstrates my ability to plan for instruction, research, assess student literacy

and create literacy events for parents. The purpose of these artifacts is to provide you with

tangible evidence that highlights my skills as a strong candidate for the teaching profession, and

in your board. I have included artifacts from a variety of subjects, to illustrate my ability to teach

all core course subjects within the curriculum. Moreover, I have also included lesson plans which

are demonstrative of my competency in creating activities for a variety of learners, including

ELL students, and struggling learners. The work highlighted in this portfolio is not my complete

list of educational work, but rather a snapshot to illustrate my well roundedness. Should you

require specific examples for a subject, please do not hesitate to ask.

Each artifact is aligned to a specific standard for both Ontario and New York States

curriculum. I have also included Intasc Standards, TEAC/CAEP Claims and NYS Ethics as well

as Ontario Ethics. Teachers must cover the curriculum and by including these standards with my

artifacts, demonstrates my ability to ensure my subject matter aligns with the curriculum. In

addition, where applicable I have also included the ISTE standards for technology, ILA

standards for literacy, and CEC standards for students with special needs.

Children learn and are able to skills baed on their cognitive developments. Someone who

is 6-year-old is most likely not able to complete math work that would be expected of a 10-year-

old. Sure, there are circumstances where students can understand and apply concepts above their

grade level, but children develop their intellectual ability in stages. Piaget posits that children

development cognitive skills at a progressive rate. Their cognitive development is based on

maturity, as well as experiential and environmental experience. When creating my lesson plans

for instruction, I apply Piaget’s theory on cognitive development. I create material that is grade-

level and cannot expect a Grade 3 student to be challenged with Grade 6 Social Studies. Her

cognitive development is not developed for that stage yet.

When planning for instruction, I also use Bloom’s Taxonomy to ensure I move up the

hierarchy so that students are not being lectured to and then regurgitating this knowledge dump. I

want my students to be able to analyze and create, so that they apply their knowledge to

meaningful activities that encourage them to learn. For this reason, Bloom has been a pillar of

my instructional planning.
Artifacts & Rationales

Artifact #1: Annotated Bibliography

Overview

Oftentimes, teachers must conduct research for a variety of purposes. A teacher may want

to justify a change in their pedagogy, a new methodology or to get a pulse check on a current

practice. Research is an important tool for teachers to measure what is working, what instruction

is working, is not working and what can be done to make instruction successful. It’s not just

about instruction however, research is also used to identify gaps in knowledge. For these reasons,

research is an invaluable means of collecting data.

I have included this artifact on research analysis because it highlights my ability to

analyze data and formulate an opinion and make decisions based on the research’s findings. The

article presented in this research discusses an important for me as a teacher: technology in the

classroom. As stated earlier, I believe technology plays an integral role in the way we teach our

students. It is a conduit for creativity that can be a powerful tool. Used inappropriately, it can

also be dangerous. It is therefore imperative that before we put technology in the hands of our

students, we expound upon them how to use technology safely and securely.

Connections to Standards

INTASC Standards

This artifact aligns with Standard #3: Learning Environments of the INTASC Standards. “The

teacher works with others to create environments that support individual and collaborative

learning, and that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-

motivation.” (InTASC, 2013, p. 21). As this artifact is research analysis on the use of technology

in the classroom, I must be aware of how to engage learners and a variety of learners. Used
appropriately for instruction, technology can achieve those goals. The standard also focuses on

how I can guide a student to work independently to, for example, conduct their own research

using technology. Standard #8: Instructional Strategies. “8(a) The teacher uses appropriate

strategies and resources to adapt instruction to the needs of individuals and groups of learners.”

(InTASC, 2013, p. 38). Technology is a great tool for meeting the needs of various learners and

can improve a student’s ability to learn and grasp complex concepts.

NYS Code of Ethics for Educators

Under the Code of Ethics for Educators, this artifact aligns with Principle #3. This

principle states that, “[Teachers] engage in a variety of individual and collaborative learning

experiences essential to develop professionally and to promote student learning. They draw on

and contribute to various forms of educational research to improve their own practice.” (NYS

Code of Ethics for Educators, 2002.)

NYS P-12 Common Core Learning Standards

NYS Language Arts, Grade 5, Narrative Writing

W.5.3. Write narratives to develop real or imagined experiences or events using effective
technique, descriptive details and clear event sequences.
W.5.3. (a) Orient the reader by establishing a situation and introducing a narrator and/or
characters, organize and event sequence that unfolds naturally.
This research article focuses on students using an iPad to create a narrative.

Therefore, this artifact aligns to the Grade 5 NYS standards for narrative writing.

TEAC/CAEP Claims

This artifact illustrates my preparedness for the teaching profession by highlighting my

ability to analyze data and think critically about pedagogical issues. This artifact aligns with

Claim 3 of TEAC/CAEP:
 “The provider demonstrates the impact of its completers on P-12 student learning
and development, classroom instruction, and schools, and the satisfaction of its
completers with the relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.”

ILA (Literacy Standards)

1.1: Understand major theories and empirical research that describe the cognitive,
linguistic, motivational, and sociocultural foundations of reading and writing
development, processes, and components, including word recognition, language
comprehension, strategic knowledge, and reading–writing connections.

ISTE Standards for Educators

Standard #1a: Set professional learning goals to explore and apply pedagogical approaches made
possible by technology and reflect on their effectiveness.

Standard #1b Stay current with research that supports improved student learning outcomes,
including findings from the learning sciences.

CEC Special Education Standards for Professional Practice

This artifact aligns to Section 7 of CEC Standards 7.2, 7.4 and 7.6. These standards relate

to teachers and special education teachers using research to advance and improve their students’

education.

Ontario Curriculum Standards

Grade 5, Language, Writing:

By the end of Grade 5, students will:

Form 5.2.1 write longer and more complex texts using a variety of forms

Ontario Teacher Ethical Standards

Care best aligns as the ethical standard for this artifact. In conducting research for

education, teachers are expressing their commitment to providing their students with the best

possible advantages for success. Through research, teachers are seeking betters way to improve

their students’ education.

“The ethical standard of Care includes compassion, acceptance, interest and insight for
developing students' potential. Members express their commitment to students' well-
being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in
practice.”

Annotated Bibliography Assignment

Jonathan Itzkovitch

Medaille College

ECI-510–S12 – SU 16-17 Research in Education

Dr. Ahuna

June 30th, 2017

 Annotated Bibliography Assignment

Article Reference:
Sessions, L., Kang, M. O., & Womack, S. (2016). The Neglected “R”: Improving writing

instruction through iPad apps. Techtrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve

Learning, 60(3), 218-225. doi: 10.1007/s11528-016-0041-8

Objective/Purpose:

The author’s objective for conducting the study was to seek out improved

methods to enrich students’ writing, in accordance with the Common Core standards

requirement of using technology in learning how to write.

Target Population/Participant Numbers:

A class of 5th graders in the Western United States, was naturally split into two

groups due to class size. The researchers used the pre-divided class for their research

purposes. Track A students were the early arrivers to school and left early for home.

Track B students arrived later and left school later. The full class consisted of 30

students: 13 girls and 17 boys, with a good mix of academic competencies in each group.

Research Method:

The research method that was used for this study was Mixed Research.

Qualitative data was used through student observations, journals and students’ writing
pieces. Correlation Research was used to compare and contrast students in Track B who

received iPads and students in Track A who used pen and paper only.

Over a nine-week period, students were examined in their natural split of Track A and

Track B groupings. Track B students were each given an iPad along with three teacher-led unit

lessons on writing. Track A students were given pen and paper as well as the same three teacher-

led unit lessons as Track B students. Unit 1 of the lesson plan showed students examples of

excellent writing from books. Unit 2 showed students how to use sensory details and sequencing

techniques using storyboards to organize their ideas. Lastly, Unit 3 taught students how to use

their learnings from the first two previous units and how to apply their newfound knowledge to a

context. They were to write a story about their journey with an explorer on their own ship.

In week 1, all students were given the Developmental Reading Assessment to determine a

baseline and identify each students’ academics level within each Track (low, medium, high

academics). Once determined, the researchers chose one student from each academic level in

each track, giving them six case studies to research. The six students did not know that were

chosen as case studies.

For their research, the authors gathered and analyzed qualitative data, coupled with

students’ daily journals, which they were asked to log their story writing progress. After each

unit, the teacher conducted interviews with each student. Case study students received more

questions, than their non-case study classmates. The core of the data analysis was taken from six

case study students’ interviews and writing materials.

Article Summary:

The article explores the effects of technology in education, with specific emphasis on

iPads, and how technology aided students’ ability to plan and write stories. The researchers used
two groups – Track A and Track B - in a grade 5 classroom, which had been divided by the

school (for another purpose) into two groups to measure, study and review the effects of iPad use

in one group over a nine-week period. Each student in Track B was given an iPad with five apps

to use for their brainstorming, storyboarding, drafting and writing. Track A did not receive iPads

and were tasked to use pen and paper for their full writing process.

Both groups received teacher-led instruction over a nine-week period, which included

sequencing, visualization and mind mapping. Students in Track B received additional instruction

on how to use their iPad as a tool for the creative writing process. Between week 4 and week 8

inclusive, students in Track B were introduced to a new iPad app each week and were asked to

use that app for that week. In week 9, Track B students were asked to select which apps they

would like to use to sequence and mind map their stories. This part was Unit 3, the final unit of

the teacher-led instruction.

Results/Outcomes:

The results from the study were interesting in that both groups showed

improvement in their writings. The improvement observed in both groups most likely

attributed to the teacher’s instruction and guidance through the lesson plans. However, in

terms of students though organization, their story’s structure and sequencing, the Track B

iPad student, outshined those of Track A group.

Track B students exhibited a stronger ability to use sequencing to create their

stories. Using the apps on their iPad, Track B students could create moving pictures of

their stories to bring their ideas to life. Moreover, Track B students illustrated a stronger

ability to use visualization in their stories through exemplary articulation. The key

differentiator between the two groups, was that the Track B students could see their ideas
come alive on screen. This allowed them to keep the story flowing, see where they need

to course-correct and make plot, character and scenery decisions on the fly. This was a

distinct advantage over the pen and paper Track A group.

Conversely, the pictures of their ideas hand-drawn by Track A students did not

allow these students to be as fluid or visual in their writing as Track B students. Track

B’s ability to storyboard better helped them create more fluid and descriptive pieces of

literature.

Without the ability to have their stories brough to life, students in Track A

struggled to achieve the same level of sequencing as the students in Track B. The iPad

students das a distinct advantage in their ability create their stories with moving pictures,

detailed characters and descriptive scenes through their iPad apps. Though certainly

possible, this is difficult to duplicate with pen and paper, especially for 5th graders.

A result of the study that the authors could not predict, was that some of the

students who tested low on the writing assessment test in week 1, had a hidden

technological aptitude. They were comfortable with technology, more so than some of the

highest achieving students, and could easily navigate their way through the iPad and the

apps. Their talents were noticed by their peers and these techno-savvy students quickly

became coaches to other Track B students, including the high-achieving students, who

were not as technically inclined. The techno-savvy students were highly regarded by their

peers for their technical abilities, which had a positive result on their self-esteem.

Motivation also played a key role for the students with iPads. As the Track B

students could make their stories flow more fluidly, they were less susceptible to hitting

writer’s roadblock. Through the app, Track B students could manipulate the storyboard
and make immediate changes. Track A students had a more difficult time when they

became stuck and this was demotivating for them.

Lastly, students in Track B were more willing to share their ideas with their peers,

invite criticism from their cohorts and were willing to incorporate these peer ideas into

their story. The lower academic technology-savvy students also became trusted advisors

to their peers, and their opinions were valued.

The findings of the study are fascinating, and I thoroughly enjoyed this research

article. However, there are a few weaknesses that make the results less global in nature.

First, although 30 students were used for this study, it’s still is a small subset of the

greater population. It would be interesting to see results from to include other schools, in

different parts of the U.S. Would the results differ?

Second, we do not know if the baseline set through the initial writing test is a

global baseline for all grade 5 in the U.S. These students may be gifted or have a lower

literacy ability than other 5th graders in the country. Based on sample student passages in

the article, the former is unlikely. A larger sample from various schools across the U.S.

could help answer this.

Lastly, there are other technologies that use apps that are more commonplace in

public schools because of their economic feasibility. Ipads are premium products with

premium price tags. Many schools use Android (Google) and/or Windows-based

products. Would schools who use these devices have the same results? I understand that

this study used iPads in their research, but in order to state that technology improves

students’ writing ability and quality, other tablet and PC-based technologies should be

used to test for similar results.

Classroom Application:

This article is important in the field of education because educators should

embrace technology as complimentary tool to classroom learning. Teachers who are

hesitant to embrace technology in the classroom, should read research articles like this

that illustrate the importance of iPads and other technologies in the classroom. The

opportunities for use of technology in schools are endless, bounded only by the

imagination of our teachers.

For me, this is article is more evidence for what I strongly believe: that

technology in the classroom is an important tool with so much upside on students’

learning and to unlocking their full potential, as we’ve seen in this research study.
[Back to Table of Contents]

Artifact #2: ELED Assessment and Instruction Plan.

Overview

This artifact is perhaps one of the most important artifacts in my portfolio. Literacy is

vital skill that primary grade students need to hone early in their education. So much time is

devoted to literacy instruction in the classroom because of it is a foundation skill. I chose this

artifact because it demonstrates my ability to assess a student’s literacy using a variety of

methods, including Donald Bear’s Word Study. This artifact also illustrates my ability to analyze

a student’s reading ability, including comprehension, and formulate a follow up lesson plan that

will hone a student’s deficit skills.

In this artifact, I assess Elliot, an eight-year-old boy in Grade 3. Elliot is an avid reader

and a good reader but is very shy when called upon to read in front of his class. I worked with

Elliot on some site words that will boost his confidence as a skillful reader. After working with

Elliot over a few one-hour sessions, Elliot is more confident in his reading ability and is no

longer shy to read in front of his peers. Working with Elliot on high frequency words helped him

become a more efficient reader, without sacrificing comprehension. Following his assessment, I

created an instruction plan that helped Elliot with Phoneme Segmentation, automaticity and long

vowels.

Connections to Standards

INTASC Standards
 This artifact aligns with Standard #1: Learner Development as it illustrates my

understanding of how learners grow and gain new skills through instruction that is appropriate

and designed with each student in mind. This artifact also aligns with Standard #2 Learning

Differences as each student learns differently and I need to develop instruction that allows each

student to develop to their full potential.

NYS Code of Ethics for Educators

Teachers must uphold the standards of the teaching profession by ensuring that each

student is given the opportunity to reach their full potential. This artifact aligns with Principle #1,

which states that:

“Educators nurture the intellectual, physical, emotional, social, and civic potential
of each student. Educators promote growth in all students through the integration
of intellectual, physical, emotional, social and civic learning.”

As Elliot lacked confidence in his reading to read in front of his peers, I worked with him to

develop to important skills: reading/literacy skill and self-confidence.

This artifact also aligns with Principle #2, because through my knowledge of literacy

instruction, I was able to assess Elliot and create a follow up plan to help Elliot grow and gain

new skills.

ILA (Literacy)

3.2: Select, develop, administer, and interpret assessments, both traditional print
and electronic, for specific purposes.

3.3: Use assessment information to plan and evaluate instruction.

NYS P-12 Common Core Learning Standards

NYS Language Arts, Grade 3, Foundational Skills

RF.3.4 Reading with Fluency

 The ELED Reading Assessment is a tool for teachers to use to determine a student’s

reading skills and create an instruction that works on the student’s deficit skills.

Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.

a. Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding.
b. Read grade-level prose and poetry orally with accuracy, appropriate rate, and
expression on successive readings.
c. Use context to confirm or self-correct word recognition and understanding rereading
as necessary.

TEAC/CEAC Claims

This artifact aligns with Claim 4 of the TEAC/CEAC Claims, as this artifact

demonstrates that Medaille College has prepared for the professional certification to be an

educator who is prepared to deliver instruction to elementary grade students.

‘The provider demonstrates the impact of its completers on P-12 student learning and
development, classroom instruction, and schools, and the satisfaction of its completers with the
relevance and effectiveness of their preparation.”

Ontario Curriculum Standards

Grade 3 Language, Reading.

“Reading Familiar Words - 3.1 automatically read and understand most

high-frequency words, many regularly used words, and words of personal
interest or significance, in a variety of reading contexts (e.g., words from
grade level texts; terminology used regularly in discussions and posted on
anchor charts; words from shared-, guided-, and independent-reading
texts, and some regularly used resource materials in the curriculum subject
areas).”

Ontario Teacher Ethical Standards

This artifact aligns with the Ontario College of Teachers Ethical Standard of

‘Care’. “The ethical standard of Care includes compassion, acceptance, interest and

insight for developing students' potential. Members express their commitment to students'
well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy

in practice.”

ELED Assessment and Instruction Plan

Jonathan Itzkovitch

Medaille College

EDL 650 U36

Mrs. Mary Beth Scumaci

November 20, 2016

 Department of Education
ELED Assessment & Instruction Plan Descriptor (2017-2018)

I. Basic Data
a. Student name: Elliot
b. Student grade/ stage of development: Grade 3 / Reading: Transitional (Early)
Writing: (Within Word Pattern (Donald Bear)
c. Type of assessment analyzed:
i. Interest Inventory
ii. High Frequency Word Assessment (Teacher’s College Reading and
Writing Project)
iii. Reading Rockets Reading Inventory Assessment (Reading Rockets)
iv. Elementary Spelling Inventory (Words Their Way, Donald Bear)
v. Running Record Level N (Reading A-Z)

Using a positive and professional tone, include the following in your assessment and
instruction plan:

II. Summary of assessment document:

a. Interest Inventory (Appendix A)
Elliot is an enthusiastic eight-year-old. He enjoys reading and this showed
during our time together. He was smiling the whole time, perhaps as a shyness
mechanism, but he never asked to get up, take a break or end our session. I was
prepared to conduct our session in two parts, but thankfully I came prepared,
because Elliot was happy to sit with me. Elliot told me he enjoys reading about
dinosaurs, superheroes and hockey. Though Elliot would rather play sports then
read a book, he does enjoy reading in his free time. He also enjoys going to the
library or bookstore to choose new books and is excited to start a new book. He
likes reading on his tablet but admits that he will get distracted and play a video
game on his tablet instead. I informed Elliot’s mother about an app (Our Pact) that
can lock down an iPad and only allows apps that the parent chooses for the child
to view, at certain times of the day.
Elliot likes to read at school but does not like to read aloud in front of his
peers. Though Elliot prefers fiction, he does like to read non-fiction, providing the
subject interests him. When asked what non-fiction subjects he likes, he was
quick to tell me, “anything hockey”. I pressed him for a second favorite subject
and he said he likes reading about dinosaurs and superheroes equally the same.
Elliot likes getting new books as presents and likes going to Indigo (Canadian
bookstore) to browse new books and comics. Elliot has recently started to read
age-appropriate graphic novels, which his mother is not keen on, but she admits
 that she rather him read graphic novels than spend time on a screen. Through
Elliot’s Interest Inventory survey and through dialogue, I was able to gain a good
understanding of what Elliot likes to read and his reading enjoyment level.

b. High Frequency Word Assessment (Appendix B)

High frequency word assessments measure a student’s fluency. A fluent
reader becomes an automatic reader, and an automatic reader has increased
comprehension skills. McKenna and Stahl state that, “because it is important for
children to recognize the high-frequency words automatically, these words are
taught until they become sight words” (McKenna and Stahl, 2015, p. 180). I
wanted to know Elliot’s proficiency in reading high-frequency words. Using the
Teacher’s College Reading & Writing Projects high-frequency word lists, I began
from Word List A to test Elliot’s proficiency. Elliot read through Word List A,
which contains the English Language’s frequently most used words, with speed
and accuracy. I gave him Word List B and Elliot achieved the same result; he
blew through both lists with aplomb. I then moved Elliot to Word List F, which I
felt would be more challenging for him. Though he read through the entire list
perfectly, he read the word ‘great’ as if it was question. I gave Elliot Word List G
and he read through most of the list accurately. He self-corrected himself on
‘friend’ (read it as ‘friends’), but erred on the word ‘enough’. He also read the
word ‘through’ as a question, as if asking for reassurance. Elliot read the word
‘special’ as surprise’, read the word ‘either’ as a question, and erred on the word
‘while’ (read it as ‘will’) He did not attempt the word ‘themselves.’ Interestingly,
when we tried half of Word List H, Elliot got all but one word incorrect, the word
‘question’.

c. Reading Rockets Reading Inventory (Appendix C)

The importance of phonological awareness in emergent readers cannot be
understated. Good phonological awareness means that a child is able to
manipulate sounds, break down words into segments, recognize when words
rhyme, understand syllables and blending sounds. McKenna & Stahl state that,
“phonological awareness stems from the insight that words can be thought of as
an ordered set of sounds.” (McKenna and Stahl, 2015, p. 93) Using Reading
Rockets Reading Inventory Assessments, I assessed Elliot’s phonological and
phonemic awareness. Starting with the Rhyming Assessment, which tests a
child’s ability to discern if two words rhyme, Elliot answered each word pair
perfectly. I moved on to the next assessment, Identifying Initial Sounds, which
assesses a child’s ability to identify if two words begin with the same sound, and
Elliot answered each word pair correctly as well. He also answered each sound
pair correctly in the Blending Words Assessment, which test a child’s ability to
guess a word said slowly. Elliot did however, make two errors in the Phoneme
Segmentation Assessment. This assessment assesses a student’s ability to stretch a
word out into each of it’s sounds (i.e. pig is /p/ /i/ /g/). Elliot erred on the words
‘bag’ (said /b/ /ag/) and ‘sun’ (said /s/ /un/). Elliot did answer correctly each word
in the Phoneme Manipulation Assessment, an assessment that tests a student’s
ability to replace a letter in a word and identify the new word. He also answered
 each word correctly in the Phoneme Deletion Assessment, which assesses a
student’s ability to omit a letter and sound out the new word.

d. Elementary Spelling Inventory (Appendix D)

Having assessed Elliot’s reading ability, I wanted to test his spelling.
When I informed him that we are going to try spelling, he became less excited.
Elliot said that ‘he’s not the best speller’, but he’ll do his best. To ease his stress, I
let him know that it’s just for fun, not for school and I wasn’t grading him.
To assess Elliot’s spelling, I used the Elementary Spelling Inventory from
Donald Bear’s Words Their Way. The words are arranged by difficulty and are
used to determine a students’ Words Their Way’s spelling stage. On this test,
Elliot spelled three words out of twenty-five, correct. On the features portion of
the test, Elliot scored a 27 out of 65, with a blended score of 30 out of 87. This
score placed Elliot in the Early Within Word Pattern stage of spelling, where he
was able to get all blends correct, except for one (mp). Elliot did not correctly
spell any of the long vowels, and will benefit from further long vowel instruction.
Elliot did attempt to self-correct four words, by erasing his initial response, an
indication that he was self-aware of his errors. I cannot recall what his initial
response was to each of the four words he self-corrected.

e. Running Record Level N (Reading a-z) (Appendix E)

A running record is a method used to assess a student’s reading. It is done
individually and cannot be done in a group setting. The teacher or evaluator
makes notations of a student’s oral reading, which allows them to identify
common patterns of errors. From the reading record, the educator can implement
an instruction plan to correct the student’s errors.
For Elliot’s Running Record, I used Reading a-z Level N. The passage
used for his running record is ‘Crocodile: The Cousins of Dinosaurs’, which he
enjoyed because of his love of dinosaurs. I was not aware of his love of dinosaurs
prior to choosing this passage.
Elliot achieved a 92% Accuracy Rate on the passage, which is at
instructional level. Out of 129 words in the passage, Elliot made 10 errors, but
self-corrected twice. He read the passage smoothly, using proper expressions on
punctuations (paused for commas). He erred on the word ‘scientists’ (read
‘skintists’), but was able to read the word correctly the second time in the passage,
after informing him of the correct word pronunciation. Elliot also self-corrected
the word ‘creatures’, initially reading the word ‘countries’.
After reading the passage, I asked Elliot to complete the comprehension
quiz accompanied with the passage. Elliot achieved a two out five on the
comprehension quiz, or 40% comprehension accuracy. Elliot would benefit from
instruction that will hone his comprehension skill.
 Strengths and Weaknesses

Elliot’s strength lies in his reading. His reading is approaching accuracy

and fluency. He reads better when presented with words on their own (i.e. in a
list) than he reads a passage. Elliot’s enjoyment of reading will make him an even
more adept reader. Elliot has a good understanding of spelling digraphs and
blends, as evidenced through the spelling inventory assessment.
Though a skillful reader, Elliot has trouble with comprehension. He reads
in the moment and has difficulty recalling facts from a passage (i.e. how old were
the crocodile fossils that the scientists found?). I gave him the opportunity to look
up the answers in the passage, but he was unable to find the answers. Perhaps this
was nerves or shyness. Moreover, Elliot had difficulty answering a contextual
inference question from the passage (The word ancient means____). In terms of
his spelling, when presented with words with long vowels in the spelling
inventory assessment, he was not able to spell any of these words.

III. Instruction Plan:

From Elliot’s assessments, there are a few instructional items I would like
Elliot to focus on. For Phoneme Segmentation, Elliot should practice Stretch
Sounding. For example, ‘bat’ can be stretched out to b-b-b-b-a-t-t-t-t. I will model
this for Elliot, showing how to clap out each sound so he can hear each phoneme
(sound) independently.
With fluency and accuracy comes automaticity. With automaticity
comprehension becomes automatic as well. Though Elliot is a good reader, he is
focusing on reading and not as much on comprehending the text. To practice
comprehension, Elliot should practice with a reading partner (parent) who will
stop and ask Elliot questions about the passage, every few pages. Elliot can also
use a wordless picture book and practice story retelling, along with pauses for
comprehension. He can also make use of predicting what will happen in the text
or picture book to aid hone his comprehension. Predicting encourages the reader
to reflect and recall what has already happened in the story, to predict what will
happen in the story.
Elliot should practice long vowels (i.e. oa, ai, ie), as well as other vowels
(i.e. oi, er, ew). A good activity to help practice learning this, is Word Sorts. On a
piece of small paper (ideally laminated), I will write down words that contain the
same long vowels and other vowels. I will model for Elliot how to pronounce
these words, then how to place these words into groupings. For example, ‘boat’
‘goat’ and ‘moat’ will be in the ‘oa’ group. ‘Train’, ‘plain’ and ‘Spain’ will be in
the ‘ai’ group. Elliot can use this method for many different word types, like
consonants, suffixes and prefixes.
Elliot should continue to read daily and is in encouraged to read different
types of age-appropriate books. He will benefit from exposure to fiction and non-
fiction books alike. It is important for Elliot to continue to read texts that interest
him, to preserve his enjoyment of reading.
IV. Reflection:
When I started preparing for this assignment, I wasn’t sure what to expect
and was a nervous to teach to a child that is not my own. Would Elliot be
receptive to me? If he wasn’t, how would I find another child to assess? Would
Elliot be a good study? I questioned my ability to assess, each time I thought
about this assignment in the weeks leading up to assessment day. The first time
you go through an exercise is always the most difficult. But Elliot was a
wonderful student and I could not have asked for a better pupil to help me with
this assessment. In fact, I think he was more nervous than I was.
I am happy and thankful that I was given the opportunity to go through
this assessment. Reading about methods and theories in a text is completely
different than putting the methods into practice. Like most people, I learn better
through practice and this assignment has made a lasting impact on me as a
teacher. I feel like I am equipped with the tools necessary to be a confident,
qualified and well-informed literacy teacher. When the time comes when I need to
assess a student, confer with the parents on issues and plan of action, I will know
how to best approach, correct and instruct the student in literacy. From this I
learned that literacy instruction is not black and white. Each child is different and
as an instructor, I need to understand which assessments will best provide me with
the information I need to tailor future instruction.
 Works Cited

McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, K. A. (2015). Assessment for Reading Instruction (3rd ed.) New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
[Back to Table of Contents]