Reference no: EM133493380
Assignment: Informal Reading Inventory Case Study
Part A: Case Study: Background Data & Reading Interest Inventory
1. Candidates can obtain background information about the student by looking at past work samples, interviewing a teacher who has worked closely with the student and reviewing any school records available. Address the student's interests and experiences outside of school, health, and family information.
2. Design a reading inventory for the student. You should focus on the student as a reader, including reading interests, habits, attitudes, understandings, and student's educational history. Clear connections must be made between the student's language development, reading development as well as the affective factors related to the student's motivation to read.
3. Write a profile of the student including the background of the student and the student as a reader using the data collected during interview with the student concerning reading attitudes and experiences.
Part B: Administering of Informal reading Inventory (IRI)
Candidates would establish rapport with the student and administer the inventory instruments starting with the Graded Word Lists. It is recommended you tape-record the IRI administration to assist you in the analysis process to determine the reader's error rate, self-correction rate, and kinds of miscues, number of repetitions, and any other behaviors. Results of an appropriate informal reading assessments you have developed, administered, scored and interpreted. A description of the test or any other tests used is required and a synthesis of the student's performance on each sub-test of the IRI. Include a copy of the assessments and the reading material used in your appendices.
Part C: Analysis of Miscues
For this part of the case study you would analyze thoroughly all informal and formal data and explains the student's reading in terms of the big five components scopes of reading and the background information, including student diversity, interest, and motivation. A written analysis of 2-3 pages of the child's strengths and weaknesses with appropriate documentation from data gathered during each part of the case study should be well documented.
Part D: Intervention, Recommendation & Self- Reflection & Evaluation
You will demonstrate understanding of the process of assessment and skill in using assessment data by planning an intervention plan.
1. Candidates may design or implement two strategies for each area of need, making sure to explain the clear connection between your analysis of assessment results and your instructional recommendations. Pay attention to strategies that are corrective or remedial in nature, depending upon the assessment of the student. List and share recommendations you would make to parents or teachers regarding futureactivities for the student
2. Recommendations will include reading materials, both print and non -print and resources or strategies for meeting individual needs.
3. Candidates will then share their cases with classroom teacher and colleagues and other professionals.
4. A one-page letter to parents based on findings and recommendation.
5. At the end of the instructional period, candidate will reflect upon the teaching and learning processes and how they might be improved to increase the reading performance of the student.
Part E: Candidate Self-Evaluation
Finally, you would present a self-evaluation and reflection, which must represent solicitous reflection upon the standards in connection with the case study required by the course. Your reflection should discuss what you learned during the process, what you would like to have done differently, and how you might apply what you learned in the future as a reading teacher.
Some questions to ponder while writing a detail analysis of the process of administering the IRI to the student are:
1. What positive or negative experiences did you encounter?
2. How were your feelings towards this child?
3. What were the student, reactions and responses?
4. What do you think went well? Or went wrong with administration of the Test?
5. What miscues were prominent?