This is a power point presentation discussing literacy in grades 4-6.

1. Getting to Know the Literacy
Learner
By Wendi Ankrim

2. Meet Student B: The Reader
Student B is an eleven year old, male, fifth grade student. He is an intermediate
literacy student as evidenced by the way he interacts with texts. I chose to work
with student B because despite a lack Developmental Reading and Writing Stages Continuum
of focus and motivation, he demonstrates
an interest in learning from reading when
working one-on-one with the teacher and
shares that he would like to improve his reading
ability.

3. Part 1: Using Assessment to Inform Instruction
Both cognitive and noncognitive assessments provide valuable information about
literacy learners (Henk & Melnick, 1995).
Noncognitive Assessment : The Reader Self-Perception Scale
* Measures intermediate-level readers’ attitudes toward reading
*Can be administered to whole class or individuals
Rational for using this assessment:
*Was designed specifically for intermediate-level readers
*Provides valuable information which allows the teacher to tailor
reading instruction and environment to the needs of the student
*Is quick to administer – 15 minutes

4. Cognitive reading assessments focus on reading behaviors such as
comprehension, fluency and vocabulary (Laureate Education, 2014).
Cognitive Assessment : Running record with miscue analysis
* Student reads a text orally to teacher
*Allows teacher to assess decoding ability by examining errors
Rationale for using this assessment:
*Shows what a student can do so teacher can determine
what instruction should come next (Reutzel & Cooter, 2016)
*Miscue analysis informs teacher about strategies student uses
*Is easily adapted to include comprehension assessment
*Is easily adapted to include a vocabulary assessment

5. Summary of Assessment Data
Assessment informs and maximizes instruction (Reutzel & Cooter, 2016).
Assessment Type Assessment What it Tells About Student B
Noncognitive Reader Self-Perception
Scale (RSPS)
*Overall self-efficacy as a reader is
low
*Perceived progress is low
*Perceived comparison to other
readers is low
*Perceived social feedback about
student’s reading is
low
*Physiological state in relation to
reading is low
Cognitive Running Record *97% accuracy on grade level texts
*Errors occur when relying solely
on visual cues
*Self-corrects with meaning cues
and background knowledge
*Extensive sight word vocabulary
Cognitive Comprehension *Earned 4/10 comprehension
points
*Strength – literal comprehension
*Challenge –understanding
implied messages
Cognitive Vocabulary *Effectively uses context clues to
determine meaning of unknown
and content specific vocabulary

6. What do the assessments tell us ?
The noncognitive reading assessment indicates that Student B perceives himself as making progress is reading skills but
still lagging behind his classmates. He feels that others in his life do not think he is a good reader. Results also indicate that
he is neutral about how he feels about reading in general but has poor self-efficacy in regards to reading out loud. In
general, Student B is ready and willing to receive information via reading but in a one-on-one setting as opposed to a
whole class or small group setting.
The running record indicates that Student B reads with reasonable accuracy (97%). Most errors occur when he relies solely
on visual cues (phonics). He is able to use meaning cues in conjunction with existing background knowledge to decode
unknown words with success. His receptive reading vocabulary is extensive as he does not have to stop often to figure out
unfamiliar words.
The comprehension assessment tells us that Student B has satisfactory understanding of literal meaning in grade level
texts. He struggles to understand implicit messages and think “beyond” the text.
Information gained from the vocabulary assessment supports that Student B effectively uses context clues and schema
theory (Reutzel & Cooter, 2016) in determining the meaning of unfamiliar and content specific vocabulary words and is a
relative strength.
Assessments tell us what children know and can do (Reutzel & Cooter, 2016).

7. How Do These Assessments Inform Instruction for Student B?
The noncognitive assessment - Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS) - provides
information about ways Student B needs to be supported affectively. The RSPS
informs how I structure the reading environment for Student B – the number of
times I confer with him, if I see him individually or in a group, what data I share
with him about his reading progress. This assessment helps me ensure reading
success and confidence.
Cognitive assessments inform the content of instruction – what strategies Student
B learns and practices. The running record tells me what accuracy strategies
Student B does and does not use effectively. The comprehension assessment
provides evidence of literal and inferential comprehension strategy use and
dictates which type of comprehension is most needed for Student B. The
vocabulary assessment affords knowledge regarding Student B’s use of context
clues to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words as well as which words are in
his receptive vocabulary. Through this assessment I can decide if Student B needs
to practice using context clues or exposure to a wider range of vocabulary.

8. Next Steps: Adjustment to Instruction Based on Assessment Data
Performance Goal Instructional Adjustment
To increase positive affect in regards to
reading:
*Develop a system to motivate to read each night at
home
* Confer individually and daily with student for
reading strategy work
*Share data with student about his reading progress
and in relation to the class
To increase reading accuracy: *Reinforce cross-checking strategies for accuracy:
Does it look right? Does it sound right? Does it make
sense in the sentence?
To increase comprehension: *Explicit instruction in context clues to understand
implied messages
*Direct strategy instruction to self-monitor for
comprehension
To continue vocabulary growth: Explicit instruction context clues to understand implied
messages
*Direct instruction to self-monitor for comprehension

9. Insights
I have always been aware of the immense importance of
cognitive assessments in informing reading instruction.
However, through the data collected here I have also come to
realize the impact affective elements have on literacy learning
and ways I can support positive self-efficacy in my students. By
structuring the reading environment in a way that provides each
student with the appropriate support, I am encouraging reading
engagement and motivation which in turn lead to increased literacy development (Henk & Melnick,,
1995).
By analyzing how this data informs instruction I have become aware of the advantages of making
changes to both the reading environment and instructional content for student learning. I now
understand the ease with which such assessments can be administered and how valuable the
information gleaned from them can be for teaching and learning.

10. Part 2: Identifying Developmental Stages of
Writing
Developing writers require support that comes from thoughtfully
constructed writing instruction focused on the acquisition of new
strategies and skills (NCTE, 2016).
The number of everyday experiences which require writing
have increased substantially in the last decade.
In order to ensure students’ are prepared for these
experiences teachers must be experts in instructing
multiple genres of writing as well as each child’s
developmental stage of writing in order to facilitate
optimal learning.

11. Meet Student B: The Writer
Stage of Writing Development: Early Transitional
Identifying Characteristics of Student B’s Writing:
*Writes for various purposes
*Writes in logical order
*Develops paragraphs
*Uses developmentally appropriate spelling
patterns
*Lacks consistently accurate writing
conventions
*Does not edit and revise

12. Student B’s Writing Sample
(composed in digital format)
Muffin And Wonder
In Muffin and Wonder they both have similarities and differences. Like they both have bullies in the
story like “Julian” made a game of the plug if you touch Auggie you Auggie that game him seemed
sad . summer did not want to do the game also she told muffin alice hearts Daisy and the old lady
helped daisy from getting in trouble from Alice. Daisy had a old lady wo had her back and auggie
had summer and Via on his back . They both have people on there side. Both stories have a
character with the same name which is daisy the dog and daisy the main character. They both have
dogs in the stories like when Auggie said”mom pushed daisy over”auggie came to sit by him and
when Daisy said” Muffin came rushing”. Muffin ran to help daisy .Those are the similarities of the
story.
Wonder and Muffin has differents too. Like they have different storyline. In Wonder Auggie sees his
dad but in Muffin, Daisies dad is at war so she can't see him that much. The main characters are
different in the books also and they don’t have the same problem

13. Student B’s Writing Needs
*Increased motivation to write, edit and revise
*Introduction to a variety of graphic organizers
*Methods to expand ideas or events to support reader comprehension
*Use of a familiar editing checklist
*Direct instruction in the editing process
*Practice using the writing process

14. Next Steps: Adjustment to Instruction Based on Assessment Data
Performance Goal Instructional Support
Increase motivation to write, edit and
revise
*Design assignments that allow content choice
*Use technology to compose digital text
*Allow purposeful use of media/graphics (w/ guidelines) (Coskie
& Hornof, 2013)
*Allow for authentic opportunities to share text (Tompkins,
2010)
Use a variety of graphic organizers *Model use of variety of graphic organizers with multiple genres
(Tompkins, 2010)
*Provide choice of graphic organizers
Expand/elaborate ideas *Confer individually with student during each writing
assignment regarding elaboration (focus on 6+1 “Ideas”
trait) (Education Northwest, 2013).
Use an editing checklist effectively * Design an editing checklist to help student focus on
specific types of errors including capitalization,
punctuation, and contraction rules (Tompkins, 2010)
Use editing process *Model proofreading process, rereading a specific type
of error each time (Tompkins, 2010)
Use writing process *Interactive writing lessons (Tompkins, 2010)
*Partner writing to practice writing process

15. The Common Core Standards and Literacy Instruction
The Common Core Standards (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2012) drive
my literacy instruction for Student B. Since the standards for both Reading and
Writing are a continuum of skills, I use them to identify the developmental needs
specific to him. When designing instruction I reference the standards to ensure
alignment of what I teach to what the student is expected to know and be able to
do according to them. The use of technology is not explicitly stated within the
standards but rather embedded throughout them. In order to also embed the
Student B and his classmates to compose text using Chromebooks on a weekly
basis as they respond to what they read or complete on demand writing. I also
provide real-time, electronic feedback to them via commenting features associated
with Google. By using digital technology in this way, I embed it in my instruction
much like it is embedded in the standards.

16. The Value of the Teachers’ Self-Assessment of Efficacy in Writing for
Writing Instruction
To be most effective, teachers must continually engage in reflection (Reutzel &
Cooter, 2016).
Completing the Teachers’ Self-Assessment of Efficacy in Writing and the Teaching of Writing was an
experience which has the potential to have a profound impact on my writing instruction. In
identifying and reflecting on my own strengths and perceptions in regards to writing, I am better
able to use those strengths to enhance literacy instruction for my students. By identifying my
weaknesses I am able to locate resources and focus on improving my knowledge and skills in those
areas and thus improve my ability as a teacher of literacy. Additionally, the completion of the self-
assessment forced me to view myself, and my writing skills in the role of a student. This enables me
to better empathize with and understand the needs and perspective of my literacy learner.
Through the establishment of personal goals for writing instruction, I have gained direction and
motivation to acquire the strategic and instructional knowledge I lack in order to offer my literacy
learner the best instruction possible. I have already begun to take steps to improve my knowledge
of effective writing instruction with the acquisition of the Writing Units of Study by Lucy Caulkins
(2013) .

17. The Next Stage of Writing Development for Student B
Student B will next enter the Intermediate stage of writing development. This stage is characterized
by the development of a unique voice, refined order and organization structures, the ability to revise
for clarity and mastery of the conventions of writing after utilizing the editing process.
I can help Student B advance toward this next stage of writing development by modeling the
processes necessary to create quality writing. These processes will become self-regulating behaviors
which have the ability to increase his confidence and independence as a writer. Likewise, I will allow
for ample time to write for authentic reasons and for authentic audiences and will confer with
Student B on a regular basis to address writing needs that are unique to him.

18. Part 3: Comprehension Strategies vs.
Instructional Strategies: What’s the difference?
Comprehension Strategies
*Used by students
*Allow for understanding of texts
*Include metacognitive strategies: monitoring,
checking and repairing comprehension (Afflerbach,
Cho, Crassas & Doyle, 2013).
Examples: Identify purpose for reading
Adjust speed based on text difficulty
Use context clues to infer meaning
Visualize
Reread text
Instructional Strategies
*Used by teachers
*Create the conditions in which comprehension
learning occurs (Laureate Education, 2014b)
*Allow for explicit instruction of cognitive
comprehension strategies (Laurate Education,
2014b)
Examples: Think-Pair-Share
Read Aloud
Direct instruction
Conferring with individuals
Modeling

19. Two Comprehension Strategies Demonstrated by Student B
For this conference, I worked with Student B on a familiar text – one
that he had read previously as a formative assessment. In the prior
reading he demonstrated a lack of comprehension and so this session
provided the perfect opportunity for me to take a closer look at the
comprehension strategies he was using effectively and instruct in those
he needed to develop.
In the second sentence of the nonfiction text about Earthquakes,
Student B encountered the word “sway”. He sounded out the first two
letters, stopped and said, “I’ve never seen this word before. I don’t
know what it means.” In identifying the problem to his comprehension,
he demonstrated metacognition and monitoring. He then used the Fix
up strategy, reread, in order to notice context clues to help him
understand the unknown word. He was then able to decode and
understand the word correctly.
If students are reading and realize they are learning nothing, they need then to understand
what steps to take to fix up their understanding (Laureate Education, 2014b)

20. Instructional Strategies
Modeling – The teacher provides an exemplar model of a process or product.
Example: Think Aloud
Explicit Instruction – The teacher shares a specific strategy with a student. Telling him how,
when and why to implement it.
Questioning – The teacher presents questions in oral or
written format which guide the student to
attend to specific elements of
comprehension.
Example: Teacher Questioning Checklist
for Student Metacognition
(Afflerbach, Cho, Kim, Crassas &
Doyle, 2013).

21. Part 4: Selecting Texts
When selecting texts for close reading activities it is important to
consider text complexity. Because close reading requires deep
interaction with and critical analysis of a text it is imperative that the
text be challenging yet accessible to students. If a text is too easy
students will not have the opportunity to learn and develop new
strategies and skills related to reading. Literacy development will not
advance. If a text is too difficult students will not be able to access the
text in a way that produces meaning. In either case, the student will
not learn new strategies and skills.

22. Informational Texts for Student B
Curiosity on Mars Tsunamis
Characteristics:
*Level S Guided Reading Level is a general placement
appropriate for Student B
*Includes a text feature on each page
*Text features support comprehension
*Approximately one vocabulary word per page
*Approximately 75 words per page
*Student B has some prior knowledge related to topic
*Student B has some prior knowledge of structure
*Topic is of interest to Student B
Characteristics:
*Level S Guided Reading Level
*Begins with narrative about the topic to
activate/provide background knowledge
*Student B has some prior knowledge related to topic
*Approximately 60 words per page
*Approximately one vocabulary word every 1.5 pages

23. Student Assessment Data and Implications for Text Selection:
Student B
Based on data derived from the noncognitive assessment administered to Student B, it was
determined that he had a negative self-perception of himself as a reader when compared to his
peers. For this reason, it is important to select a text which challenges him yet allows him to be
successful in order to grow his self-efficacy as a reader. The cognitive comprehension assessment
indicated Student B’s approximate reading level. This must be considered when choosing a text of a
general level so that the meaning of the text is accessible to him. On the same assessment Student
B showed strong understanding of literal messages but needed more practice to accurately
understand implied messages. When selecting texts for him, the teacher must look for a text that
includes literal and implied messages. The administered vocabulary assessment showed that
Student B used context clues and prior knowledge to accurately determine the meaning of
vocabulary words. In selecting texts it would be wise for the teacher to consider topics in which
Student B has some prior knowledge.

24. Analyzing Text Selection Processes
Current Practice Recommended Practice
*Relies heavily on Guided Reading leveling system
*Level primarily identified by professional other than
the classroom teacher
*Primarily quantitative in nature
*Evaluates text on a “macro” level
*Considers student strengths and needs
*May be based on strategy use with text
*Combines multiple criteria to determine best fit for
student
*Text selection determined by classroom teacher
*Includes both quantitative and qualitative measures
*Evaluates text on a “micro” level
*Considers student strengths and needs
*Based on curricular content

25. Text Selection Insights
Text selection is an in-depth process best engaged in by the classroom teacher.
When the teacher evaluates a text he or she acquires a better understanding of
how students will interact with it and can assure the text fits the needs of the
specific learners. Text selection should include both quantitative and qualitative
measures assessed by teachers (Hiebert, 2013). The identification of benchmark
texts through use of a rubric should be delineated into two groups – narrative and
informational- and help to determine what texts can be used to support various
features (Hiebert, 2013). Detailed and in depth knowledge about a text can only be
acquired when teachers evaluate the text themselves and is the best method to
select texts.

26. Promoting Literacy Learning
In order for optimal learning to occur a teacher must “get to know” his or her
student. Information acquired through the administration of both noncognitive and
cognitive assessments help teachers create the conditions most conducive to
learning and design instruction to further develop literacy skills. Text selection is a
vital part of quality literacy instruction. Teacher selection of texts through the
considerations of both quantitative and qualitative measures will yield texts and
lessons which will be most effective. To best understand a student as a writer,
writing samples must be evaluated and a general developmental level determined.
The indentification of a writing level informs next steps for instruction. Teachers
can and should self-assess their own strengths and weaknesses in the area of
writing and then seek training and improvement focused on areas of weakness.

27. References
Afflerbach, P., Cho, B. – Y., Kim, J. – Y., Crassas, M. E.,, & Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: What else matters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 440 – 448.
Calkins, L. (2013). Units of Study for Teaching Writing. Retrieved from www.heinemann.com/shared/onlineresources/E04717/WritingInstructionEssentials.pdf
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012). English language arts standards. Retrieved from www.corestandards.com/ELALiteracy
Coskie, T. L. & Hornof, M. M. (2013). E-best principles: Infusing technology into the writing workshop. The Reading Teacher, 67(1), 54-58.
Education Northwest. (2013). 6+1 Trait writing. Retrieved from http://educationnorthwest.org/traits
Hiebert, E. H., (2013). Supporting students’ movement up the staircase of text complexity, 66(6), 459-468.
Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as
readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470-482.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2014). Cognitive and noncognitive assessments [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Laureate Education (Producer). (2014b). Conversations with Ray Reutzel: Supporting comprehension [Interactive Media]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
NCTE. (2016). Professional knowledge for the teaching of writing. Retrieved from www. ncte.org/positions/statements/teaching-writing
Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B., Jr. (2016). Strategies for reading assessment and instruction in an era of Common Core Standards: Helping every
child succeed. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Tompkins, G. E. (2010). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.