RAN Vs CTOPP

I learned a lot by doing this textbook evaluation. I learned a great strategy from Dr. Hakes to help my future students be able to identify syllables by using their chin and hands .I learned that the textbook evaluation tool is a great way for teachers to plan ahead whether that be assignments or experiments. I know there are more strengths than there are limitations. There are countless resources for teachers to help students understand the information in a textbook even if a chapter in a textbook might be too difficult to

TESTS ADMINISTERED Language Sample MLU development chart by Brown (1973) Speech and Language Milestone Chart by PRO-ED Inc. (1999) Phonological processes by Puccini (2001) Articulation development chart. Sanders, J. (1972).

Hannah was a very sweet and cooperative young lady and I enjoyed my time with her during this assessment period. She is very compliant and willing to do what is necessary to develop compensatory skills that will help her in her academics.

For the age of the child, Ayden has phonologically developed very well. The child has not shown any type of systematic errors in his speech. His mother has mentioned that he actually is very intelligible when talking to him on an everyday basis. From my point of view, the child is highly intelligible. One can simply see it from the sample how the child only had on or two places where his speech was not clear. I believe that was probably because he was speaking on a lower tone than he usually would speak in the classroom. Other than that the child has mastered all of his consonant sounds, along with even being able to know the letters that make up his name.

I have choose two focus students who reflect different learning needs and will have modified assessments. Focus student number one is a five year old child with a bilateral hearing loss, pulled out for individualized services. The child spends the majority of his time in a general education environment. He will benefit from being asked leading questions before he picks his category. This modification is being made for focus student one. Focus student two is a five year old child with a unilateral hearing loss and Down syndrome. The child is in an inclusive environment with a full time paraprofessional for a small part of the day and spends the remainder of time in a special education classroom. The child’s preferred method of communication

The unit was specific pertaining to the initial program field experiences by year and/or semester. During sophomore year, the P-4 candidates have a two-semester placement during the sophomore year. The placements are often with the same cooperating teacher, but the cooperating teacher will complete two different evaluations to in an effort to gain data that show professional consistency or the growth of the candidate (Exhibits 3.3.f#3 and 3.3.f#4). Middle Level candidates also have a field experience component at this level. The cooperating teachers complete the Middle Level Early Practicum Evaluation rubric (Exhibits 3.3.f #6-7). There are more "not observed" responses for these candidates typically do more observation and less "hands-on" working with students. Secondary candidates have a one-semester field experience during their sophomore year. The cooperating teachers complete the Secondary Early Field Assessment rubric (Exhibits 3.3.f#9-10). These candidates also do have a higher number of "not observed” responses. Two items dealing with "helping individual students" or "tutoring a small group of students" had a "poor" rating of 6% and 9%

Alvin’s ability to distinguish and identify the words, based on sight, was really tested in this section. He made two errors, almost right off the bat. He mispronounced the words ‘chief’, instead saying “chef”, and ‘bound’, instead saying “bond”. The word chief can be a tough one if you have never seen it before. For bound, I think he just saw the familiar letter ‘b-o-n-d’, and knew those letters made up the word “bond”. Alvin was also unable to read the words ‘engage’, and ‘passenger’. He paused for a while, stumbling on the words, and I again had to tell him to skip those words in order to keep the flow intact. The other errors that Alvin made in this section, included leaving the ending off of ‘decided’, pronouncing the ‘gy’ in ‘energy’ as “guy”, and mistaking the word ‘polite’ for ‘police’. Alvin scored a 65% in this section. This meant that it was time to stop this portion of the assessment and move on to the paragraph

3. Do you think that the home situation of the child has much influence on the child 's speech abilities and if so, how has this child 's family influenced her speech abilities, based on what you know about them?

The assessment procedure I will be reflecting on was the teacher’s modified version of the assessment from Appendix C of Letters and Sounds (SEE APPENDIX A). There are two main approaches to phonics assessment: assessing a child’s literacy and phonological processing skills separately, and analysing their reading and written work for ‘phonologically-based confusions’ p80 Lewis and Ellis. The

ANOVA of change scores indicated that there was no significant difference between the first-grade and the second-grade students across the groups (F [2, 66] = 2.69, not significant; h2 = .08). All first-grade students obtained a higher legibility score at posttest than at pretest, including control group participants.

Fall 2016 PALS (Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening) Kai received 40 out of 102. Strengths were noted in rhyming and beginning sounds. Weaknesses were noted

The students who exceed the test moved on to the next unit. The students who met simply corrected their mistakes and they had the opportunity to chat with me about their corrections. The one student who scored and AP will get intervention during specials or in morning meeting. The students will record their score in their leadership binder and present them in the student lead conferences in December.

Jace shows that he is below average in communication. The first piece of evidence for this are his test scores. Jace was given the Vineland II test. On the communication section of the Vineland Jace received a standard score of 60. In terms of percentile Jace scored in less than the first percentile. This means that Jace did as well as or better than 1 percent of the other individuals who took this test. In the Vineland communication is split into different sections which are written, receptive, and expressive. For receptive and expressive Jace scored below average. Jace does not have a written score. On the PLS-4 (Preschool Language Test) test0 Jace scored in the first percentile again for both parts of the test which include auditory comprehension and expressive

The child that participated for the curriculum-based assessment (CBA) was a 9 years old boy named John. The readings that were used for this assessment were third grade level readings titled: Miss Mitchell’s Comet, The Sun and the Stars, and The Life Cycle. For Miss Mitchell’s Comet, John’s fluency score was 94.8% and his accuracy score was 96%. For The Sun and the Stars, his fluency score was 96.2% and his accuracy was 98%. Lastly for The Life Cycle, his fluency score was 99.2% and his accuracy score was 99%. The mean for fluency was 96.7% and the mean for accuracy was 97.6%. John had very few incorrect words while reading. The most incorrect words that he had rec for one reading was five words. In Miss Mitchell’s Comet, he omitted a few words

The majority of the students in the class fall into the category of “average.” Most of these students received a score between 13 and 16 out of 18 points, though there were two students in this group that were not as successful with the assignment as I anticipated. Student B’s work sample reflects the achievement of students in the “average” category. The most successful component for the average students was the personal interpretation of the recording (question 3b). Student B, who was not particularly confident in her drawing skills, still was able to provide a logical and personal response to the music. She was the only student who chose to draw a deer, and she also used labels to help me understand her intentions as I evaluated her work. Like the other students in the average category, Student B was able to identify areas for improvement (students in this category were generally able to receive a 3 on “Identifying Areas for Improvement” or “Identifying Success” and received a 2 on the other. Student B demonstrated attention to detail when she specifically identified the need for “clear tone” for question 1c, and the importance of needing to “practice articulations” for question 2B. Like Student B, most of the students in the average category received a 2 for the Listening Concepts and Vocabulary. The identification of at least 3 of the listening concepts was particularly common among these students, though some struggled a bit more with the