Hai Au Tran

ED 123
December 05, 2012
READING ASSESSMENT
Name of assessment Date of
assessment
Score Grade
level
Observations
1-Concept of print 10/08/2012 14/22 Pre-K She knows the book concept of
print well. She is confused that
words mean letters. She does not
recognize punctuations.
2-Alphabetic Fluency 10/15/2012 38/40 Pre-K She could recognize uppercase
letters faster than lowercase
ones. She is confused with
capital I with lowercase l
3-Phonemic Awareness 10/22/2012 14 pm Pre-K She recognizes some familiar
sounds like /d/, /o/, /m/, /n/, /e/,
/i/, /k/, /r/ and /p/. She adds
schwa sounds.
4-Sight Vocabulary (San Diego) 10/29/2012 5/10 Pre-K She knows 5 words: at, run,
look, can, jump.
5-Oral Reading Fluency 11/05/2012 85 pm Adult
ELL
He got 85 words correctly out of
total 91 words per minute. He
did not make a meaningful pause
in the sentence.
6-Running Record (Accuracy) 11/19/2012 89% Frustration
level
Adult
ELL
He did not try to self-correct any
error.

7-Comprehension-Retelling 11/26/2012 13 scores Adult
ELL
He worked with a picture book
for grade 1.
8-Information Reading Inventory 12/03/2012 Word
Recognition:
Frustration level
Comprehension:
Instruction level
Pre-K She can not recognize words
well but she can comprehend
with oral reading.

1. CONCEPT OF PRINT
Information about student: She is Vietnamese. She was born here in America. She has
started preschool this Fall since she was almost five years old. She is an English learner. She
likes reading very much. She is energetic, quite independent, interested in exploring objects
around and especially fond of doing puzzles.
She has begun with English alphabet since she was 3 years old and got familiar with Your
Baby Can Read. For speaking, she can do basic daily conversation rather well. For reading,
as Dr. Louisa Moats description on stages of reading by Dr. Jeanne Chall, she is on Pre-
Reading Level, stage of oral language development.
Observations during assessments: COP assessment is very challenging to the child.
Initially, she did not understand the language I used because there were many new words in
assessment questions to her. I tried to explain in Vietnamese. At the time, the toddler used to
disturb her. So I did not complete the assessment. Later on, I figured out why I did assess her
while she had no knowledge of concepts of prints. Accordingly, I let her participate into the
COP activity and taught her about COP. One day later, I did assessment again and learned
that she could get through the questions.
Summary of assessments and scores: As a result, the child scored well at the book
concepts. I am so surprised that she recognizes some words in the book I, you, and, dog,
cat even although she can not read the title. However, she got confused between concepts
of words and letters. Furthermore, she got no scores for punctuation marks. She is too young
to learn this content.
Final scores: 14/22
Conclusions after assessments: I picked this child for COP assessment because its
convenient to do assessment over again and for some other assessments in future.
Furthermore, COP assessment is required for early beginning stage of reading so the child is
very appropriate for it.
I have learned that doing assessment should be in a quiet place without any interrupt or
distraction. Furthermore, I should keep the assessment like a game and give her further
practice before assessment. I also need to deliver the activity before doing assessment.
2. ALPHABETICAL FLUENCY
Information about student or students: She is Vietnamese. She was born here in America.
She has started preschool this Fall since she was almost five years old. She is an English
learner. She likes reading very much. She is energetic, quite independent, interested in
exploring objects around and especially fond of doing puzzles.
Observations during assessments: She is so excited in this assessment like playing a game.
She wanted to do it over and over again. Then she desired even to do assessment for the first
grade. She could recognize uppercase letters faster than lowercase ones. She is confused with capital
I with lowercase l because their typeface looks similar. Thats why I decided to give her credit
for that.
Summary of assessments and scores:
Final score: 38/40 per minute
Conclusions after assessments: I have realized that it is simple to handle this assessment
compared to other assessments because it is a visual assessment. In my opinion, children
usually get used to concepts of letters even earlier than schooling. So explanation for
assessment occurs easily.

3. PHONEMIC AWARENESS
Information about student or students: As the same above.
Observations during assessments: I was struggling to explain the assessment. As the result,
she could not tell any sound because she did not know how to say a sound. Instead of saying
sounds, she said letter names. Then I did research and I found that using blocks represented
phoneme segmentation is a good way that helps the child to separate each sound by each
object. For example, each sound heard will be counted for one block. I demonstrated some
examples and then she can move on other sounds in the test.
Summary of assessments and scores: She recognized some sounds like /d/, /o/, /m/, /n/, /e/, /i/,
/k/, /r/ and /p/. She added schwa sound. As described by DIEBLES on phonemic awareness
assessment that it is not easy for a preschooler to say a single sound so students are accepted to add
schwa sound to tell sound segmentation. I should give her credits for that.
Final scores: 14 phonemes per minute
Conclusions after assessments: This is the most difficult assessment that I have handled
because it is an audio assessment. I conclude that this child is not appropriate to this
assessment because she is too young for the type of assessment. As stated in Data System by
University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
(PSF) assessment is not administered during the first three months of kindergarten grade. So
I should select an older child.
4. SIGHT WORD (San Diego)
Information about student or students: as the same introduction above.
Observations during assessments: She could spell the premier sight word list but she could
not tell all the words. She just said some words: at, run, look, can, jump.
Summary of assessments and scores:
Final scores: 5/10 words in Premier Level List
Conclusions after assessments: After the assessment, I conclude that she needs to work
more on sight word. So her mom bought a collection of kindergarten sight word books by
Scholastic Inc. I used Neurological Impress Method (N.I.M reading) to read with her first
and then asked her to find stickers of sight words to match with words in the text. She was
inspired when doing with stickers. Furthermore, as she likes doing puzzles very much, I will
create sight words puzzles activity to reinforce the sight word recognition so she can
remember longer.

5. ORAL READING FLUENCY
Information about student or students: He had worked as construction engineer in
Vietnam for 10 years. He has immigrated to the US for one and a half year. He has started
learning English for one year. He completed ESOL reading level 3 at PCC. He is enrolling
Reading level 4 this winter term. However, his speaking is quite bit behind his other skills.
He likes cooking and working with computer such as surfing net, watching online movies,
reading e-news, and playing computer games.
Observations during assessments: He has difficulty in pronouncing some final sounds like
/z/, confused between/p/ and /b/ and couple final sounds like /ft/ in lift, sell instead of
shell. He has not any interruption during reading but he makes no right pause meaningfully
among words.
Summary of assessments and scores:
Final scores: 85 words per minute
Conclusions after assessments: To guide this adult English learner to get inspiration in
learning should be based on his hobbies. I recommended some activities for reading learning
related to his interest like watching some cartoon movies and interesting computer games
with words at PBS for Kids, which provides a huge resources.
6. RUNNING RECORD
Information about student: He had worked as construction engineer in Vietnam for 10
years. He has immigrated to the US for one and a half year. He has started learning English
for one year. He completed ESOL reading level 3 at PCC. He is enrolling Reading level 4
this winter term. However, his speaking is quite bit behind his other skills. He likes cooking
and working with computer such as surfing net, watching online movies, reading e-news, and
playing computer games.
Observations during assessments: He read a passage of 200 words in the picture book for grade
3 Raj, the bookstore tiger by Kathleen T. Pelley. He got 21 errors. He did not try to self-correct any
error. There is a lot of vocabulary to him. He did not recognize incorrect pronunciation.
Summary of assessments and scores:
Final scores: 89% with Frustration Level.
Conclusions after assessments: I am assumed that picture book for grade 3 can be used for
ELL at reading level 3 too. It may work out differently. So I tried to pick another tiger story
for grade 1: Tiger cant sleep by S.J.Fore. He was successfully reading that book.
7. COMPREHENSION-RETELLING
Information about student or students: As the introduction above
Observations during assessments: He was struggling in vocabulary with Raj, the
bookstore tiger. He did not get story elements. So he scored only 4. I decided to lower
reading level with Tiger cant sleep.
Summary of assessments and scores:
Final scores: 13 with capable level
Conclusions after assessments: I have learned that the accuracy assessment on this student
can predict possible outcome for comprehension retelling. For the challenging texts, I
provide more promotion activities like paired reading, guided participant while reading and
brainstorming questions before he reads the texts.
8. INFORMATION READING INVENTORY
Information about student or students: She is Vietnamese. She was born here in America. She
has started preschool this Fall since she was almost five years old. She is an English learner.
She likes reading very much. She is energetic, quite independent, interested in exploring
objects around and especially fond of doing puzzles.
Observations during assessments: She becomes less motivated because she does not know many
words. However, she is so interested in the story about special friend. She was concentrated in
listening to the story. for the first time, she could not know the characters because of proper names:
Jill and Sue. Then I recognized and changed into her name and her friend. She could understand the
story better.
Summary of assessments and scores:
- Sight word: scored 4 out of 25 words placed in frustration level
- Comprehension: scored 5 out of 6 questions placed in instructional level
Conclusions after assessments: for IRI sight word recognition, she scored 4/25 less than San Diego
sight word list that she scored 5/10. I am quite concerning which list of words work right with her
grade level. Why are the outcomes so different? Why does not the IRI sight word list include San
Diego word list?

Reference
Michigan Literacy Progress Profile. Assessments. Retrieved from
http://misd.net/mlpp/assessments/
University of Oregon DIBELS Data System. Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/