Victoria Bielomaz

10/10/15
L1 and L2 Oral Language and Literacy Levels
Marias English Proficiency and Literacy
Assessments used for Maria were: Student Oral Language Observation Matrix
(SOLOM), the district wide test AIMSweb assessments, and the school-wide iStations
assessment. Marias overall oral language skills, according to SOLOM, are that she is doing
exceedingly well. This makes sense because she was using social language and it generally
takes students 2 years to master [social language] in the L2(Collier, 1987, p. 619). AIMSweb
reports that Maria is scoring average in relation to her peers (who are also majority English
Language Learners). Finally, iStations results show Maria is performing moderately below grade
level and in need of intervention. With AIMSweb and iStations, the language being assessed is
academic and it generally takes 5-7 years to reach the level of native speakers in [academic
language] in the L2, (Collier, 1987, p. 619).
SOLOM
I have specifically observed Maria twice in the last week for her oral skills. For two 40minute blocks I pulled Maria and four of her peers for a small group comprehension lesson.
Maria mostly understood everything I was saying. Only once did I have to repeat a question. She
answered the questions effortlessly and fluently. She did not stumble over words or lapse into
silence. In fact, she clearly answered questions and displayed excitement when her hands shot up
as I asked questions, and she covered her mouth because she wanted so badly to blurt out the
answers. For vocabulary, she used correct words and could converse with little to no difficulty.
As far as idioms, it was not clear if she understands them as a native speaker would. In a

previous interview she did not understand the question What do you get out of school? She
was thinking literally, not figuratively, so I had to rephrase the question. Her accent and
intonation are on par with that of a native English speaker. She makes some errors in grammar
but they do not obscure her meaning.
Comprehension
To assess text reading for understanding, a maze task is used in which words are left
blank from the text. The student is given three choices for each blank from which to choose the
word that works in the sentence. It is the students job to read the text and select the correct maze
response within three minutes.
Using AIMSweb MAZE to determine comprehension, Maria scored 6 Responses Correct
(RC) from Grade 4 Probes at the Fall MAZE Benchmark (AIMSweb, 2015). Currently, this
indicates that Marias score is Average compared to her peers (AIMSweb, 2015). In fact, she is
in 33rd percentile compared to other students in the schools Fall Percentiles (AIMSweb, 2015).
According to iStations, for Marias results for the October assessment in Text Fluency, in
which a MAZE is used she is scoring seriously below grade level and in need of intensive
intervention (iStations, 2015). According to iStations, Marias results for the October
assessment for comprehension are that she is scoring better than or equal to 35% of students
who took this test (iStations, 2015). This is an assessment in which the students read both
fiction and non-fiction texts, students answer a series of four multiple choice questions, on skills
such as main idea, cause/effect or problem/outcome, inference, and critical judgment of the text.
Fluency/Vocabulary
Using AIMSweb to determine level of fluency, Maria scored 97 Words Read Correct
(WRC) from Grade 4 Passages at the Fall Benchmark (AIMSweb, 2015). Currently, this

indicates that Marias score is Average compared to her peers (AIMSweb, 2015). This was a
score at the 50th percentile compared to other students in the schools Fall Percentiles
(AIMSweb, 2015). According to iStations results of the October assessment for Word Analysis,
in which the student is asked to spell a word to determine phonological awareness, Maria scored
better than or equal to 13% of students who took this test in October (iStations, 2015). For
vocabulary, in which she has to identify the meaning of a word, either in a sentence or on its
own, Maria scored better than or equal to 48% of students who took this test (iStations, 2015).
A Plan for Improvement
The number one priority that I would like to work with for Maria is improving her
academic vocabulary and, in turn, improving her reading comprehension. I plan to help her
develop in this area by pulling her for face-to-face small group instruction two times a week at
45 minutes each session. During these face-to-face times I will work on phonics and vocabulary,
as well as literacy skills that improve comprehension. I also plan on letting her work on iStation
to further these skills, which include: main idea, cause/effect or problem/outcome, inference, and
critical judgment of the text).
Face-to-face instruction is important because it is interactive and is highly contextual,
which can aid an ELLs understanding (Collier, 1987). By doing these lessons face-to-face, I can
make sure to incorporate comprehensible input to allow multiple opportunities [for Maria] to
understand and use the [academic and social] language which is needed to be successful (Reilly,
2000, p.1). By focusing on the literacy skills, and explicitly teaching, modeling, and practicing
these strategies, I can help [Maria] understand and remember both the content and the
language (Chamot & OMalley, 1996, p.263). I will also use the Sheltered Instruction
Observation Protocol to develop my lesson plans in order to make the lessons as effective as

possible. I will make sure to have both a language objective and content objective, as well as
emphasizing vocabulary, promoting oral interaction and extended academic talk (Short &
Echevarria, 2005).

References
AIMSweb. (2015). R-CBM Report [Graph of words per minute correct]. Retrieved from
https://aimsweb.pearson.com/
AIMSweb. (2015). MAZE Report [Graph of words correct and words incorrect]. Retrieved from
https://aimsweb.pearson.com/
Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1989). The cognitive academic language learning approach.
When they don't all speak English: Integrating the ESL student into the regular
classroom, 108-125.
Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for academic purposes.
TESOL quarterly, 617-641.
iStation. (2015). Student Summary Handouts [Graphs depicting monthly scores in Overall
Reading, Comprehension, Word Analysis and Vocabulary]. Retrieved from
https://secure.istation.com/report/StudentSummaryHandouts
Reilly, T. (1988). ESL through Content Area Instruction. ERIC Digests.
Short, D., & Echevarria, J. (2004). Teacher skills to support English language learners.
Educational Leadership, 62(4), 8-13.
Student Oral Language Observation Matrix. Rubric for Student Oral Language Observation.
[Scores students Comprehension, Fluency, Vocabulary, Pronunciation, and Grammar].
Retrieved from https://webcampus.unlv.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1392279-dt-content-rid-