Feiffer, J. (1999). Bark, George. HarperCollins.
I chose this text as a perfect reading for elementary special education students, grades one to five, as it summarizes the common misunderstanding and interaction issues. To assess the learners’ oral language, I will implement the strategy of oral sentence framing, presenting them with sentences and questions to be filled in (Babinski et al., 2018). The children will be asked to complete phrases based on the text given, pronouncing the words to be placed into the gaps.
To ascertain the readers’ phonological awareness, I will use the strategy of segmenting. This approach was exceptionally efficient for students with special literacy needs (Olszewski et al., 2017). I will offer the students an exercise containing the words they encountered in the story, for example, meow and bark, asking them to separate these words into specific syllables. Each of the words will be identified based on the number of syllables.
The phonics assessment will include the “Say It and Move It” activity, a lucrative option for investigating the students’ phonics knowledge. During this process, the learners will identify each phoneme, say it together with the teacher, and locate the sound within the word (Babinski et al., 2018). A similar exercise will be used to establish the students’ levels of fluency, where each individual is to re-read a specific sentence from the story out loud (Spear-Swerling, 2019). Based on the presented reading speed and accuracy, the general assumptions on fluency will be gained.
As for the vocabulary evaluation, I intend to use the Frayer model. In this activity, the students will be prompted to use the graphic organizer to define the words presented in the text and utilize them by inventing example sentences (Babinski et al., 2018). For the comprehension strategy, I have chosen the modified directed reading (DRA) procedure. I will include directions to evaluate the story before reading and post-reading questions for the children to compare their predictions to the text.
Text 2 – Dodd, E. (2003). Dog’s colorful day: A messy story about colors and counting. Puffin Books.
I chose this book as the second text as it is written perfectly for elementary students, informing them of various colors and numbers. I will implement the oral language strategy aimed at constructing syntactic structures (Spear-Swerling, 2019). I will provide the learners with kernel sentences, which the children will be asked to enlarge, saying a longer sentence. However, the sentence has to stay grammatically correct, avoiding common mistakes.
A phonological awareness assessment suitable for this text is the blending strategy, which allows the students to learn the correct pronunciation of the target words. Names of colors and numbers will be used, and the children will pronounce each sound independently, afterward blending the sounds and saying the whole word (Olszewski et al., 2017). As for the phonics evaluation, I will use the decoding strategy, presenting the learners with specific words to be pronounced in the same pattern (Spear-Swerling, 2019). After that, I will also examine the students’ understanding by using a sorting task.
Ascertaining fluency is possible through morphology instruction, namely the first-part identification strategy. The children will be offered to find the first parts of specific words, for example, breakfast and chocolate, thus acquiring the techniques necessary for fluent reading (Claravall, 2016). The vocabulary will be assessed through the text talk, which is based on requesting the students to analyze the main point of the story and propose their ideas using the intended vocabulary (Babinski et al., 2018). Finally, comprehension will be explored by implementing cognates, and words in other languages, similar to the English variants in meaning, spelling, and pronunciation.
The research conducted allowed me to acquire a more precise understanding of techniques applied in literacy assessments. The strategies used must corroborate the learners’ capabilities and address the relevant skills taught during the activity. Given that learning is a complicated process, it is necessary to evaluate various sides of this phenomenon, from learning abilities to the children’s situational environment. I plan to include these features in my future literacy-related teachings, ensuring that my students understand the meaning behind the tasks presented to them.
References
Babinski, L. M., Amendum, S. J., Knotek, S. E., Sánchez, M., & Malone, P. (2018). Improving young English learners’ language and literacy skills through teacher professional development: A randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 55(1), 117–143. Web.
Claravall, E. B. (2016). Integrating morphological knowledge in literacy instruction: Framework and principles to guide special education teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48(4), 195–203. Web.
Olszewski, A., Soto, X., & Goldstein, H. (2017). Modeling alphabet skills as instructive feedback within a phonological awareness intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(3), 769–790. Web.
Spear-Swerling, L. (2019). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51(3), 201–211. Web.