Gordon Pershey, M. (2006) OSLHA1 ASSESSING READING-RELATED BEHAVIORS IN STUDENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE SPECIAL NEEDS Presented at the Ohio Speech-Language-Hearing

Gordon Pershey, M. (2006) OSLHA 1

ASSESSING READING-RELATED BEHAVIORS IN STUDENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE SPECIAL NEEDS

Presented at the Ohio Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual ConventionColumbus, OHMarch 10, 2006

Monica Gordon Pershey, Ed.D., CCC-SLPCleveland State University, Cleveland, [email protected], [email protected]


Learner Outcomes

1. Learners will identify the cognitive and linguistic foundations for the emergence of literacy.

2. Learners will identify how the cognitive and linguistic foundations of literacy are assessed in learners with moderate to severe special needs.


Introduction

Learners with moderate to severe special needs Are emergent literacy learners

Basic principles of emergent literacy

Where special needs learners may differ from typicallearners due to significant cognitive limitations

Developmental assessment strategies

Match each developmental assessment with grade levelindicators from the Ohio Reading/Language ArtsContent Standards


Introduction

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandates thatreading/language arts curriculum be based onScientifically Based Reading Research (SBRR)

SBRR prescribes that reading/language arts curriculuminclude the five essential areas of phonemic awareness,phonics, vocabulary, reading comprehension, andreading fluency

IEPs for students with moderate to severe specialneeds must address how students will access thegeneral curriculum in these five areas

Alternatives to mandated assessments


NRP Meta-analysis

Gains are Seen for Learners who are Taught 5 Essential Areas:

Phonemic Awareness

Phonics

Fluency (rapid, automatic, effortless decoding of text for both oral and silent reading)

Text Comprehension

Vocabulary


Implementation of policy must coincide with theoretical knowledge of language and literacy development in children

SBRR can assist policymakers in improvingaccountability and educational benefit for students

SBRR is compatible with pedagogical theory

But SBRR itself is not pedagogical theory, it is publicpolicy

Implementation of policy must coincide with theoretical knowledge of language and literacy development

Emphasis on testing outcomes must not shortchangelearner’s needs


NCLB

IEP goals and objectives connect to standards-basedcurricula

IEP services help students become capable ofperforming on achievement tests

SLPs prepare students for mandated testing

NCLB doesn’t insure HOW every learner will becomeproficient

Therapy progress is subsumed under schoolprogress


NCLB and IDEA

IEPs aligned with state academic standards andachievement tests

IEPs provide for progress in the general curriculum

IEP provides supports and strategies that promoteaccess to the instructional environment where thegeneral curriculum is being presented

Access the general curriculum through supports,accommodations, and modifications

IEP provides for how elements of the generalcurriculum will be brought to the student by specialists


NCLB- Mandated Testing for Special Needs Learners

Accommodations - Do not change what is to belearned; Do change how content or skills will belearned

Examples:Alternate MethodsAlternate MaterialsAlternate Response Modes

Modifications - Alter specific content or performanceexpectations

Examples:Change level of complexity of content or

skillsChange entire curriculum




4 Options for Participation in Testing

1 State assessment based on state standards

2 State assessment based on state standards withaccommodations and/or modifications

3 Alternate assessment based on state standards –Observations or work samples demonstrate mastery of grade level or content or skills

4 Alternate assessment based on alternateachievement standards –

Observations or work samples demonstrate mastery of out of grade level content or skills



Title I mandates progress toward academic standards

9%-12% of students with disabilities will participate inalternative assessments of reading/language arts andmathematics

IEPs also address behavioral and developmental goals

IDEA, not NCLB, governs progress in development oflife skills

Alternate assessments will not include measuringfunctional life skills



Strategies for Assessing the Emergence of Literacy in Students with Moderate to Severe Special Needs

SLP must document deficits in language and literacyand determine how these deficits prevent a studentfrom successfully attaining curriculum objectives

SLPs can assess the allied cognitive areas of attention,memory, and executive function – in some casesbasic problem-solving using concrete objects –to document emergence of the cognitive and linguisticfoundations for literacy

Compare each alternative assessment to the OhioContent Standards for reading/language arts in gradesK and 1


The Alphabetic Principle

Concepts about phonology and written language

Linguistic abstractions pertinent to phonology,semantics, syntax, and pragmatics

How speech sounds are represented in print, or Englishorthography

The written code is entirely arbitrary and abstract


The Alphabetic Principle: Phonology and Orthography

WHAT IS A SOUND?

WHAT IS A SPEECH SOUND?

WHAT IS A LETTER?

HOW DOES A LETTER "MAKE A SOUND?“

WHY DOES THIS LETTER MAKE ONE SOUND SOMETIMES AND ANOTHER SOUND AT OTHER TIMES?

WHAT LETTERS MAKE THE SOUNDS THAT I AMINTERESTED IN?


The Alphabetic Principle: Phonology and Orthography

HOW CAN I TALK ABOUT WHAT I KNOW ABOUT LETTERS AND SOUNDS?

WHAT IS RHYMING?

WHAT IS MEANT BY BEGINNING SOUND? A MIDDLE SOUND? AN ENDING SOUND?

HOW DO I BLEND SOUNDS TOGETHER TO SAY WORDS?

HOW DO I TAKE WORDS APART TO HEAR THEIR SOUNDS?

WHAT IS A SYLLABLE? HOW DO I FIND THEM IN WORDS?


The Alphabetic Principle: Semantics

WHAT IS A WORD?

WHAT DOES A WORD LOOK LIKE?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR A WORD TO HAVE MEANING?

WHAT OTHER WORDS DO WE USE TO DISCUSS

WHAT A WORD MEANS?


The Alphabetic Principle: Syntax

WHAT IS A SENTENCE?

WHAT ARE THE PARTS OF A SENTENCE?

HOW DO WORDS LOOK WHEN THEY ARE TOGETHER IN SENTENCES?

HOW DO WORDS CHANGE THEIR MEANINGS IN SENTENCES?

HOW DO WORDS CHANGE? (MORPHOLOGY, MORPHOSYNTAX)


The Alphabetic Principle: Pragmatics

WHAT DOES PRINT STAND FOR IN OUR WORLD?

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PRINT I AM SEEING NOW?

WHEN I READ, WHO IS TALKING TO ME?

WHAT IS THE CONTEXT OF WHAT IS BEING SAID TO ME?

WHAT SIGNALS ARE IN THIS PRINT (SUCH AS PUNCTUATION MARKS)?


Acquiring the Alphabetic Principle

Syntax Metalanguage Pragmatics Semantics Phonology Orthography Cognitive

Logographic -Finger point in textline by line duringread aloud

Alphabetic Stage-Pattern detection-Find salient lettersin longer messages

Orthographic Stage-Fluent sentence reading

Logographic -Pattern detection-What does this logomean?-What does this wordsay?

Alphabetic Stage-Phonological awareness-Talk about patterns,word parts, letters asobjects

Orthographic Stage-Talk about rules beingapplied

Logographic-Logo reading hasmeaning-The literacy pragmatic *meaning is conveyed by text *fluency models *text comprehension *text vocabulary

Alphabetic Stage-Letters allow us to convey meaning

Orthographic Stage-Letters, words, and symbols are all meaningful

Logographic-Hear words in text

Alphabetic Stage-Pattern detection-Find salient words in longer messages

Orthographic Stage-Rule application-Word study

Logographic-Pattern detection-Whole words-Rhyme

Alphabetic Stage-Pattern detection-Letter-sound correspondence-Phonological awareness involves word parts-Inventive spelling

Orthographic Stage-Rule application-Word study-Spelling patterns-Phonics

Logographic-See word wholes in logos

Alphabetic Stage-Pattern detection-Letter recognition-Inventive spelling

Orthographic Stage-Rule application-Word study-Spelling patterns

Logographic-Pattern detection-Print is an object, although it is abstract

Alphabetic Stage-Pattern detection-Degraded logos-Categorical thinking-Piagetian tasks

Orthographic Stage-Rule application-Phonics


Order of Emergence of the Language Systems

Oral Language Literacy

Pragmatics Pragmatics +SyntaxPhonology Semantics + SyntaxSemantics PhonologySyntax Syntax


Designing Assessments

Begin with no assistance and move incrementallythrough minimal to maximal assistance; Note allassistance given

Assessments tell us where to begin interventions

Assessments show skills that are in place

Large print in a type face that does not use Greekletters (example: g or a, use g and a) or block printed by hand

Choose the number of items and trials

Audio or video tape assessment interactions


Assessing the Literacy Pragmatic – The Logographic Stage ofPrint Awareness

See “whole print configurations” found inenvironmental print

Recognize stop sign, McDonald’s sign, Coke, Pepsi

Not reading words

Assess by showing logos, labels, signs, book covers

Reproduce logos, etc., in plain type and compare forrecognition

Ohio Content Standards – Kdg:Recognize and understand words, signs and symbolsseen in everyday life.


Assessing the Literacy Pragmatic – The Logoraphic Stage of Print Awareness

Explore two of the five essential areas identifiedby the National Reading Panel: Vocabulary andtext comprehension

Participating by listening to text read aloud

Auditory comprehension of the language of text

Learner’s construction of meaning of story or othermessages conveyed by text

Modeling reading fluency

Ohio Content Standards – Kdg:Demonstrate an understanding that print has meaningby explaining that text provides information or tells astory.


Assessing the Literacy Pragmatic – The Logoraphic Stage ofPrint Awareness

Consider the logographic learner’s current level ofawareness of the nature of literate behavior

Is the learner aware that print conveys meaning?

Is the learner interested in print – points to text duringread aloud; asks “What does this say?”; experimentswith writing

Routinely exposed to authentic, connected texts


The Alphabetic Stage ofPrint Awareness

Awareness that printed text is composed of letters – Interest in single letters and the first letter of words

The language system of phonology becomes operative

Letters are linguistic abstractions and arbitrarysymbols

Recognition of some sight words – Not sounding wordsout – See words as letter groups

Cannot be sure whether the learner is recognizing theletters, the words, or the configuration

The learner sees letters, either singly or grouped, andhas a label for them


The Alphabetic Stage ofPrint Awareness

Assessments:Learners point to letters and say letter names, both inand out of alphabetical order

SLP reads letters, asks learner to point to the lettersthe SLP names

Spontaneously write all known letters – upper case,lower case

Learner might create letter forms but not know theletter name

Write single letters to dictation, both in and out ofalphabetical order


The Alphabetic Stage of Print Awareness

Memorization of small units of decontextualized print:Survival words such as "Men," "Walk," "Exit“

Is the learner is recognizing the letters, the words, orThe configuration?

Say the letters in sight words

Find letters in the words as SLP says the letters

Scanning: Find known words embedded in textpassage

Sound-letter correspondences: Learner may saySounds represented by initial letters in words withbetter skill


The Alphabetic Stage of Print Awareness

Ohio Content Standards that are met during theAlphabetic stage – Kdg:

Read own first and last name.Distinguish and name all upper and lower case letters.Recognize, say, and write the common sounds ofletters.Distinguish letters from words by recognizing thatwords are separated by spaces.Hear and say the separate phonemes in words,such as identifying the initial consonant sound in aword, and blend phonemes to say words.Read one-syllable and often-heard words by sight.Identify and distinguish between letters, words andsentences.


Cognitive Foundation for the Logographic and Alphabetic Stages

Pattern Detection

Attention to print is purposeful on two levels: (1) Seeking the meaning of the printed message (2) Seeking visual regularities in written stimuli

Logos and letters are stored in visual memory; there isperceptual salience and these items can be recognizedagain and again

Pattern detection allows the alphabetic stage toemerge – letters have regularity

The learner is developing a heuristic for reading

Learning is inductive



Assessing Pattern Detection:Degraded stimulus – Show logo/letter in its correctform and in an incorrect form – Ask learner to findwhere logo/letter looks right/wrong

Complex categorical thinking – Foods that are soft andsweet

Parts of wholes – The door of the car

Cognitive Interactionist: Predictive and concurrentvalidity for literacy acquisition in preoperational tasksof pattern detection



Aspects of cognitive development are revealed byperformance on Piagetian tasks of conservation ofnumber and length, seriation (ordering by size),centration (multiplicative classification), andreversibility

Piagetian view – Literacy is predicated uponapplication of cognitive skills that are concurrentsupports for literacy

Learners in the preoperational stage will not achievethese tasks but may be learning to read and write

Learners who master these tasks have attainedconcrete operations



Task 1 – Conservation of number

Given a set of red plastic chips and a set of blue plasticchips, the learner will determine if the sets are equal innumber or not equal when chips from one set arerearranged spatially.Six blue chips are lined up close together and the sixred chips are lined up spread apart. The sets are equalin number. Ask the learner, “Is there the same numberof chips in each group?” The learner may count or not.

The learner with lesser skills in pattern detection willbe deceived by the spatial arrangement and say thered set has more. The learner who has better patterndetection will say both sets are equal in number.




Task 2 – Conservation of number, centration, andreversibility

Given a set of red plastic chips and a larger set of blueplastic chips, the learner will determine if there aremore blue chips or more plastic chips. Ten blue chips are placed in a line. Next to them, sixred chips are lined up. Ask the learner, “Are there moreblue chips or more plastic chips?”

The learner with lesser skills in pattern detection will bedeceived by spatial arrangement – there are more bluechips. Better pattern detection – there are more plasticchips; can think of multiple classifications (color andmaterial) simultaneously; reversibility of properties.




Task 3 – Conservation of length and reversibility

Given 2 pencils exactly alike in size, shape, and color,learner will compare their lengths when they are heldso that their ends are exactly evenly placed and thenwhen they are held with the end of one extending pastthe end of the other. Only the position of the pencils ischanged, not their sizes. When the pencils are heldevenly, ask, “Are these pencils the same size?” Moveone pencil so that is held parallel but not exactly evenwith the other. Ask, “Are these pencils the same size?”

Lesser skills in pattern detection – deceived by spatialarrangement – one pencil is bigger. Better patterndetection – pencils are the same size. Conserves sizealthough position has changed.





Task 4 – Reversibility

Given a necklace made of a shoelace strung with fivelarge wooden beads tied into a circle and the materialsfor reproduc ing the necklace, the learner willreconstruct the pattern of the beads on the lace asthey would appear if they were in a straight line. Thelearner constructs a linear string of beads, not acircular necklace, but preserves the same pattern.

The learner with lesser skills in pattern detection willbe deceived by the spatial arrangement and havedifficulty reproducing the pattern or will say that it isnot possible to make the same necklace in a line as isin a circle. The learner who has better patterndetection perceives this reversibility.




Task 5 – Reversibility

Given a cardboard tube into which three small cars areinserted and which is then rotated 180 degrees in ahorizontal plane, the child will be asked to predictWhich of the cars will emerge from the tube first. Thecars should remain lined up inside the tube. The carthat was put in last should come out first, followed bythe middle car, then the car that was put in first.

The learner with lesser skills in pattern detection willhave difficulty reversing the order of cars. The learnerwho has better pattern detection perceives thisreversibility.




Linguistic Foundation for the Logographic and Alphabetic Stages

Pattern detection is a requisite skill for phonologicalawareness instruction

Phonological awareness is a form of metalinguisticawareness

Learners in alphabetic stage show metalinguistic skill,because talking about letters is talking about language

Conscious insight into their own pattern detection: Describe what they are detecting – rhyme, initial sound

Oral language is an object for exploration

Inventive spelling – Exploring phonological patternsand orthographic patterns


Phonological Awareness Developmental Sequence Chart (Retherford, 2003)

CATEGORY SPECIFIC SKILL EXAMPLE AGESyllable Awareness Playing with words - Taps once for each word in a sentence 3-5 years

Segmenting Syllables Claps once for each part in the word camera

(segmentation of compound words proceeds segmentation of noncompound words). 4 years

Segmenting Syllables Tells the number of syllables in the word apple. 4-5 years

Blending Syllables Tells the word formed when ra-di-o are blended together 4-5 years

Deleting Syllables Tells what remains when bow is removed from rainbow. 5 years

Manipulating Syllables Tells the new word formed if light from lighthouse is put after

back from backpack. 7+ years

Rhyme Awareness Spontaneous Production - Recites nursery rhymes; produces

rhymes (unintentionally). 3-4 years

Identification of Rhyme Responds correctly when asked, “Do cat and bat rhyme?” 4-5 years

Rhyme Generation Produces one or more rhymes) when given a word. 5+ years

Judgment/Categorization

of Rhyme Compares bed, head, leg, read, and peg and identifies which rhymes. 6-7 years

Phoneme Awareness Blending Phonemes - Tells the word that is formed

by blending m-e. 6 years

Segmenting Phonemes Claps out the sounds in the word bug. 6 years

Deleting Phonemes Tells what remains if /t/ is removed from beet. 7 years

Manipulating Phonemes Tells the new word formed if the /n/ in pen is changed to /t/. 7+ years


The Orthographic Stage ofPrint Awareness

Learning to break words into component parts

Learning to assemble parts of words into whole words

Look beyond the first letter of a word and deliberatelyor automatically scan letters, syllables, and word parts

Find letter-sound relationships, syllables, word parts,or small words within large words

Orthographic readers do not rely on known wholeconfigurations

Make use of information about the sound structure oflanguage and the orthographic code



Learners have gone through a heuristic period ofexploration that prepares them for the logorhythms ofliteracy

Exploration, intuition, and inductive learning have ledthe way for deductive learning about reading, writing,spelling

A spelling conscience develops

Ohio Content Standards that are met by during theOrthographic stage – Kdg:Show characteristics of early letter name-alphabeticspelling.



Ohio Content Standards that are met during theOrthographic stage – Grade 1:

Read regularly spelled multi-syllable words by sight.Blend phonemes (sounds) of letters and syllables toread unknown words with one or more syllables.Use knowledge of common word families (e.g., -ite or -ate) to sound out unfamiliar words.Segment letter, letter blends and syllable sounds in words.Distinguish and identify the beginning, middle and ending sounds in words. Demonstrate a growing stock of sight words.Read text using fluid and automatic decoding skills.Read accurately high-frequency sight words.


Reading Automaticity

Reading is a parallel examination of stimulus andmemory – search memory for knowledge about thisstimulus

For readers with the least experience, storedknowledge is about logos

For alphabetic readers, stored knowledge is aboutinitial letters in words and other salient letters presentin familiar examples of print

Sight word readers make use of both logographic andalphabetic skills


The Later Orthographic Stage ofPrint Awareness

Ohio Content Standards that are met during the laterOrthographic stage – Grade 2: Use letter-sound knowledge and structuralanalysis to decode words. Read text using fluid and automatic decoding skills.


Pattern Detection Prepares Readers for Phonics

For orthographic readers, print is a code that is storedin memory as categories of meaning – letter forms,letter names, letter-sound correspondences,syllables, spelling rules

The learner can manipulate aspects of the code at willand with automaticity

Rule application – making sense of and using thepatterns proposed by other readers

The study of the rules of English orthography is knownas phonics

Learners in the orthographic stage are ready for phonics


SLPs Work on the Language Skills that Make Spelling and Decoding Possible

Phonics is integrated into word study and meaningfulword use

Phonics learners are metalinguistically aware, haveinsight into their own pattern detection

Capitalize on learners’ pattern detection abilities andteach phonics rules that make sense and can beapplied to spelling on a daily basis

Consistencies in our language can be learned – workwith “chunks,” such as word families


Marie Clay’s Concepts About Print Test

A test of awareness of the conventions of print

Choose an engaging picture book with more than oneline of print per page

Print and pictures on the same page

Read from top to bottom on each page

Punctuation and upper and lower case letters












Ask learner to show the book cover or front – Say, "Show me the front of the book“ or "Show me the title"

Identify text as distinct from illustrations – Say,"Where do I start reading?" Learners understandreading is interaction with print

Directionality – Left to right, top to bottomSay, "Which way will I read from here?"

Return Sweep – Say, "Show me where I read next?”Learner should point to the next line of print

Word Awareness – Say, "Now you point to thewords while I read" Learner should be pointing word byword, line by line, while read to aloud



Beginning of a Word – Say, “Where is the beginning ofthe word “____” referring to the last word readSay, “show me the first letter in that word”

Upper and Lower Case Letters – Say, "Show me acapital letter" "Show me a small letter"

Punctuation – Say, “What is this for?”

Word Order – While finger pointing, read a linebackwards, Say, "What did I do wrong?”

End of a Word – After reading a page, select a word,show its beginning letter, Say "Where does this wordend?"



Sentence – After you read a given sentence, ask“Where did that sentence begin?” "Where did thatsentence end?“

Back of the Book – Say, "Where is the back of thebook?“

Beginning of story – Say, "Do you remember how thestory began?"

End of the story, Say, "Do you remember how thestory ended?"



Ohio Content Standards that are assessed using theConcepts About Print Test – Kdg: Hold books right side up, know that people read pagesfrom front to back and read words from left to right.Know the differences between illustrations and print.Identify and distinguish between letters, words andsentences.Grade 1:Follow simple oral directions.Speak clearly and understandably.


Rationale for Clinician Constructed Literacy Assessments

For most learners with moderate to severe special needs, it has already been ascertained that their skills vary from normative expectations – we do not need touse standardized measures to confirm this

Scattered, spotty, or inconsistent skills are revealedbecause clinician constructed testing progresses “at leisure” and no ceiling or criterion must be enforced

Clinician constructed tests show accomplishment offunctional behaviors

Establish functional tasks to be continued in therapy


Rationale for Clinician Constructed Literacy Assessments

Tasks coincide with Ohio Content Standards andestablish the need for modification of mandatedachievement tests or use of alternative testing

Use pre-primer or primer passages, unless learner surpasses this level

Record both correct and incorrect responses

Note how many items were attempted, how many responses were accurate, and how many wereinaccurate

For most tasks that require lists, 10 items are usually sufficient


Assessment of Word Reading

Word Assessment 1: Reading Isolated Words Learner reads from graded word listsLog miscues, analyze error patterns

Word Assessment 2: Matching Words Learner looks at a stimulus word then locates in againin an array of three or four visually similar wordsExample: snow

swan snow now sow

Word Assessment 3: Matching Words to Pictures

Word Assessment 4: Using Single Words to Fill in theBlank in a Sentence Example: We drank water and _____.

milk sit dog


Assessment of Word Reading

Ohio Content Standards that are assessed byAssessment of Word Reading – Grade 1:

Read regularly spelled multi-syllable words by sight.Blend phonemes (sounds) of letters and syllables to read unknown words with one or more syllables.Use knowledge of common word families (e.g., -ite or -ate) to sound out unfamiliar words.Segment letter, letter blends and syllable sounds in words.Distinguish and identify the beginning, middle and ending sounds in words. Demonstrate a growing stock of sight words.Read text using fluid and automatic decoding skills.Read accurately high-frequency sight words.


Assessment of Graphemes and Phonemes

Grapheme Assessment 1: Letter Naming – 26 Items Upper Case, 26 Items Lower Case

Grapheme Assessment 2: Letter-Sound Correspondence - 26 Items Upper Case, 26 ItemsLower Case

Grapheme Assessment 3: Writing to Dictation – 104 Forms

Grapheme Assessment 4: Visual Memory for RandomLetters

Grapheme Assessment 5: Copying a Printed Passage



Grapheme Assessment 6: Decoding Pseudowords

Grapheme Assessment 7: Building a Word from a Model/Building a Word from Supplied Letters/Building aWord from an Array of Letters – Making Words

Grapheme Assessment 8: Supplying a Spoken WordThat Begins with the Same Phoneme as a GivenPrinted Word

Phoneme Assessment 1: Recognizing Rhyming Words

Phoneme Assessment 2: Rhyme Generation



Phoneme Assessment 3: Isolating First, Middle, and Ending Sounds in Spoken Words

Phoneme Assessment 4: Blending Speech Sounds intoWords

Phoneme Assessment 5: Segmenting Words intoSpeech Sounds

Phoneme Assessment 6: Deleting Sounds from Words

Phoneme Assessment 7: Phoneme Pattern Detection –Sorting Tasks





Ohio Content Standards that are assessed byAssessment of Graphemes and Phonemes – Kdg

Identify and complete rhyming words and patterns.Distinguish the number of syllables in words byusing rhythmic clapping, snapping or counting.Distinguish and name all upper- and lower-caseletters.Recognize, say and write the common sounds ofletters.Hear and say the separate phonemes in words,such as identifying the initial consonant sound in aword, and blend phonemes to say words.Reread own writing.Write from left to right and from top to bottom.



Write from left to right and from top to bottom.Print capital and lowercase letters, correctly spacingthe letters.Leave spaces between words when writing. Show characteristics of early letter name-alphabeticspelling.Use some end consonant sounds when writing.

Grade 1:Reread own writing for clarity.Print legibly and space letters, words and sentencesappropriately.Spell high-frequency words correctly.Create phonetically-spelled written work that can usually be read by the writer and others. Distinguish and identify the beginning, middle andending sounds in words.


Assessment of Reading Fluency

Fluency involves rapid, automatic reading

Fluency Assessment 1: Matching SentencesThere Are No Blue Cats.

There Are No Blue Cars.There Are No Blue Cats.There Are No Big Cats.

Fluency Assessment 2: Reading Graded SentencesAloud

Fluency Assessment 3: Reading Graded Passages Aloud


Assessment of Reading Fluency

Ohio Content Standards that are assessed byAssessment of Reading Fluency – Grade 1 and Grade 2

Read regularly spelled multi-syllable words by sight.Read text using fluid and automatic decoding skills.Read accurately high-frequency sight words.


Assessment of Reading Comprehension

Comprehension Assessment 1: Oral Narration Comprehension Assessment 2: Following Directions Comprehension Assessment 3: Reading for the Meaning of Synonyms and Opposites Synonyms

Dog Puppy FishPop Coke MilkChair Seat WindowHat Coat Cap

Opposites Happy Little Sad

Hot Cold ShortBig Old LittleIn Sit OutLike Hate Sleep



Comprehension Assessment 4: Sentence ComprehensionLearner read a sentence and answers comprehensionquestions about sentence

Comprehension Assessment 5: Passage ComprehensionLearner read a passage or paragraph and answers comprehension questions

Comprehension Assessment 6: Retelling a Passage orStory Heard Read Aloud

Comprehension Assessment 7: Learner Reads and Retells a Passage or Story

Comprehension Assessment 8: Predicting Content Priorto Reading



Ohio Content Standards that are assessed byAssessment of Reading Comprehension – Kdg

Predict what will happen next, using pictures and content as a guide.Answer literal questions to demonstrate comprehension of orally read grade-appropriate texts.Monitor comprehension of orally read texts by asking and answering questions.Use pictures and illustrations to aid comprehension.Follow simple directions. Retell or re-enact a story that has been heard.Listen attentively to speakers, stories, poems and songs.Connect what is heard with prior knowledge and experience.Speak clearly and understandably.



Ohio Content Standards that are assessed byAssessment of Reading Comprehension – Grade 1

Make predictions while reading and support predictions with information from the text or prior experience.Recall the important ideas in fictional and non-fictional texts.Answer literal, simple inferential and evaluative questions to demonstrate comprehension of grade-appropriate print texts and electronic and visual media.Monitor comprehension of independently- or group-read texts by asking and answering questions. Identify the sequence of events in informational text.

and Grade 2




Identify characters, setting and events in a story.Retell the beginning, middle and ending of a story, including its important events.Report information to others.Use active listening skills, such as making eye contact or asking questions. Predict content, events and outcomes from illustrations and prior experience and support those predictions with examples from the text or background knowledge.Summarize text by recalling main ideas and somesupporting details.Retell the plot of a story.




Predict content, events and outcomes by using chapter titles, section headers, illustrations and story topics, and support those predictions with examples from the text.Summarize texts, sequencing information accurately and include main ideas and details as appropriate.Make inferences regarding events and possible outcomes from information in text.Answer literal, inferential and evaluative questions to demonstrate comprehension of grade-appropriate print texts and electronic and visual media.Retell the plot sequence.






I Hope That’s All. . . . .


Adams, M. J. (1994). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic awareness in young children. Ladders to literacy. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004, January 20). ED issues final rulemaking for testing disabled students. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://www.asha.org/about/legislation‑advocacy/cognitive‑disabilities.htm

Arter, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. New York: Corwin Press.

Ashby-Davis, C. (1981). A review of three techniques for use with remedial readers. The Reading Teacher, 34(5), 534-538.

Barudin, S. I., & Hourcade, J. J. (1990, September). Relative effectiveness of three methods of reading instruction in developing specific recall and transfer skills in learners with moderate and severe mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 286-291.


Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2000). Words their way. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Bennett, J., Jaccoma, R., & Weinstein, L. (Eds.). (1997). So far: Words from learners. Markham, Ontario: Fitzhenry Whiteside.

Calkins, L. M. (1983). Lessons from a child. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Carpenter, C. D., Bloom, L. A., & Boat, M. B. (1999). Guidelines for special

educators: Achieving socially valid outcomes. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(30), 143-149.

Celek, J. A., Pershey, M. G., & Fox, D. M. (2002). Phonological awareness acquisition in children with coexisting mental retardation and behavioral disorders. Contemporary Issues in Communication Sciences and Disorders, 29, 194-207.

Chapman, M. L. (1996, January). The development of phonemic awareness in young children: Some insights from a case study of a first-grade writer. Young Children, 31-37.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2003, Spring). Taking delight in words. American Educator. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://www.aft.org/american_educator/spring2003/words/html.


Clay, M. (1982). Observing young readers: Selected papers. Exeter, NJ: Heinemann.

Clay, M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey with recovery procedures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cramer, E. H., & Castle, M. (1994). Fostering the love of reading: The affective domain in reading education. Newark, DE: IRA.

Cullinan, B. E. (Ed.). (1993). Children's literature in the reading program. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Cullinan, B. E. (1993). Children's voices: Talk in the classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Cunningham, P. M. (2000). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

Dailey, K. A. (1991, Spring). Writing in kindergarten: Helping parents understand the process. Childhood Education, 170-175.


Dyson, A. H. (1983). The role of oral language in early writing processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 17(1), 1-30.

Dyson, A. H. (1984). “N spells my grandmama”: Fostering early thinking about print. The Reading Teacher, 38, 262-271.

Ehren, B. J. (2004, January). Curriculum relevant therapy: SLP focus in addressing standards. Paper presented at the Cuyahoga County Special Education Regional Resource Center, Cleveland, OH.

Erickson, K. A., Koppenhaver, D. A., & Yoder, D. E. (1994). Literacy and adults with developmental disabilities. Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy.

Farrell, M., & Elkins, J. (1991). Literacy and the adolescent with Down syndrome. In C. Denholm (Ed.)., Adolescents with Down syndrome: International perspectives on research and programme development. Victoria, BC: University of Victoria.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performance: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers grades 3-6. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.


Fowler, A. E., Doherty, B. J., & Boynton, L. (1995). The basis of reading skill in young adults with Down syndrome. In L. Nadel & D. Rosenthal (Eds.)., Down syndrome: Living and learning in the community (pp. 182-196). New York: Wiley-Liss.

Fry, E. B., Fountonkidis, D. L., & Polk, J. K. (1985). The new reading teacher’s book of lists. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ganske, K. (2000). Word journeys: Assessment-guided phonics, spelling, and vocabulary instruction. New York: Guildford Press.

Giordano, G. (1996). Literacy programs for adults with developmental disabilities. San Diego: Singular Publishing.

Gipe, J. P., Duffy, C. A., & Richards, J. C. (1993). Helping a nonspeaking adult male with cerebral palsy achieve literacy. Journal of

Reading, 36(5), 380-389.Goodman, Y. (1990). How children construct literacy: Piagetian

perspectives. Newark, DE: IRA.Hook, P. E., & Jones, S. D. (2002, Winter). The importance of automaticity

and fluency for efficient comprehension. International Dyslexia Association: Perspectives. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from

http://207.440158.59/~admin2/dyslexia/index/articles/display/30


Hughes, D., McGillivray, L., & Schmidek, M. (1997). Guide to narrative language: Procedures for assessment. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

Johnson, M. S., Kress, R. A., & Pikulski, J. J. (1987). Informal reading inventories. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Katims, D. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35(1), 3-15.

Kliewer, C., & Landis, D. (1999). Individualizing literacy instruction for young children with moderate to severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 66(1), 85-100.

Kuhs, T. (2001). Put to the test: Tools and techniques for classroom assessment. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishers.

Lalli, J. S., & Browder, D. M. (1993). Comparison of sight word training procedures with validation of the most practical procedure in teaching reading for daily living. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 14, 107-127.

Laminack, L. L. (1990). "Possibilities, Daddy, I think it says possibilities": A father's journal of the emergence of literacy. The Reading Teacher, 43(8), 536-540.


Lartz, M. N., & Mason, J. M. (1988). Jamie: One child's journey from oral to written language. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 193-208.

Laubach, F. C., Kirk, E. M., & Laubach, R. S. (1991). Laubach way to reading. Syracuse, NY: New Readers Press, Publication Division of Laubach Literacy International.

Marcaccio, M. (1991). A will to learn. In G. L. Porter & D. Richler (Eds.)., Changing Canadian schools: Perspectives on disability and inclusion. North York, Ontario: The Roeher Institute.

Massey, D. D. (2003). A comprehension checklist: What if it doesn’t make sense? The Reading Teacher, 57(1), 81-84.

McGehee, K., & Nehring, P. (2003). Collaborative IEP writing: Beyond related services. Advance for Speech-Language Pathologists, 13(7) 8-9, 21.

Moll, L. C. (1990). Introduction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.)., Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 1-27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Moni, K. B., & Jobling, A. (2000a). Ignoring the frontiers: Teaching poetry to adolescents with Down syndrome. Social Alternatives, 19(3), 36-39.


Moni, K. B., & Jobling, A. (2000b). LATCH-ON: A literacy course for young adults with Down Syndrome. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 40-49.

Moni, K., & Jobling, A. (2001). Reading related literacy learning of young adults with Down syndrome: Findings from a three year teaching and research program. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48(4), 377-394.

Morrow, L. M. (1993). Literacy development in the early years. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Mulvaney, D. E., Fitzhugh, L. C., & Wagner, B. R. (1980). Teaching elementary spelling to a retarded resident by another retarded resident. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 523-526.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). National Assessment of Educational Progress: The nation’s report card. Retrieved

January 20, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An

evidence‑based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.


No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov

O’Connor, R., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Ladders to literacy. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Ohio Department of Education. (2005). Ohio’s alternate assessment for students with disabilities. Columbus, OH: Author. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency/AlternateAssessment/default.asp

Ohio Department of Education Office of Assessment. (2005). Ohiostatewide testing program rules book. Columbus, OH: Author. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency/Rules/Rules_Book_11_17_05.pdf

Pershey, M. G. (2001). A rationale for classroom listening and speaking instruction. The Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 17(2), 18-25.

Pershey, M. G. (2003). High-stakes testing: The background behind testing-based educational reforms and implications for speech-language pathologists. Contemporary Issues in Communication Sciences and Disorders, 30, 47-58.


Pershey, M. G. (2003). Testing-based education reforms and implications for SLPs. ASHA Division 16 Newsletter: School Based Issues, 4(1), 46-52.

Pershey, M. G., & Gilbert, T. W. (2002). Christine: A case study of literacy acquisition by an adult with developmental disabilities. Mental Retardation, 40(3), 219-234.

Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Raines, S. C., & Canady, R. J. (1990). The whole language kindergarten. New York: Teachers College Press.

Raphael, D., Brown, I., Renwick, R., & Rootman, I. (1996). Assessing the quality of life of persons with developmental disabilities: Description of a new model, measuring instruments, and initial findings. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 43(1), 25-42.

Retherford, K. S. (2003). Normal development: A database of communication and related behaviors birth to 12+ years (2nd ed.). Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2003). Strategies for reading assessment and instruction: Helping every child succeed (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.


Rosa, A., & Montero, I. (1990). The historical context of Vygotsky’s work: A sociohistorical approach. In L. C. Moll (Ed.)., Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 59-88). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Roskos, K., & Walker, B. J. (1994). Interactive handbook for understanding reading diagnosis. New York: Merrill.

Ruiter, I. D. (2000). Allow me! A guide to promoting communication skills in adults with developmental delays. Toronto: The Hanen Centre.

Schuele, C. M., & Dayton, N. D. (2000). Intensive phonological awareness program. Obtain from [email protected] or (615) 837-2860.

Scott, J., & McCleary, S. (1989). Diagnostic reading inventory for primary and intermediate grades. Akron, OH: Scott & McCleary Publishing Company.

Silvaroli, N. J. (1997). Classroom reading inventory. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark Publishers.

Slosson, R. L. (1963). Slosson oral reading test. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Educational Publications.

Smith, P. (1999). Drawing new maps: A radical cartography of developmental disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 117-144.


Speaking of equality: A guide to choosing an inclusive literacy program for people with an intellectual disability. (1995). North York, Ontario: The Roeher Institute.

Speaking of equality: Making literacy programs accessible to people with an intellectual disability. (1995). North York, Ontario: The Roeher Institute.

Stahl, S. A. (1992). Saying the “p” word: Nine guidelines for exemplary phonics instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45(8), 618-625.

Stahl, S. A., Osborn, J., & Lehr, F. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print by M.J. Adams. A summary. Urbana- Champaign: U. of IL.

Stahl, S. A. (2003, Spring). Words are learned incrementally over multiple exposures. American Educator. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from http://www.aft.org/american_educator/spring2003/index.html

Stauffer, R. (1970). The language experience approach to the teaching of reading. New York: Harper & Row.

Stieglitz, E. L. (1997). The Stieglitz Informal Reading Inventory. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Storey, K., & Horner, R. H. (1991). An evaluative review of social validation research involving persons with handicaps. The Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 352-401.


Sturm, J., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (2000). Supporting writing development in adolescents with developmental disabilities. Topics in

Language Disorders, 20(2), 73-92.Sylwester, R. (1995). A celebration of neurons: An educator's guide to the

human brain. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Tompkins, G. E. (1998). 50 literacy strategies: Step by step. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). From deficit thinking to

social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special education. In D. P. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad, (Eds.)., Review of research in education, Vol. 23 (pp.277-307). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). No Child Left Behind: Supplemental educational services non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 20, 2004, from

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/suppsvcsguid.doc


van Dongen, R. (1986). "I like the long name": Young children using literate language. Insights into Open Education, 18(8), 3-17.

van Kraayenoord, C. E. (1994). Literacy for adults with an intellectual disability in Australia. Journal of Reading, 37(7), 608-10.

van Kraayenoord, C. E., Moni, K. B., Jobling. A., & Ziebarth, K. (2002). Broadening approaches to literacy education for young adults with Down syndrome. In M. Cuskelly, S. Buckley, & A. Jobling (Eds.)., Down syndrome across the lifespan (pp. 93-106). London: Whurr.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wallach, G. P., & Miller, L. (1988). Language intervention and academic success. Boston: College Hill Press.

Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice from socio-psycholinguistics to whole language (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Metzler, C. A. (1995). How self-determined are people with mental retardation? The National Consumer Survey. Mental Retardation, 33(2), 111-119.


Wertsch, J. V. (1990). The voice of rationality in a sociocultural approach to mind. In L. C. Moll (Ed.)., Vygotsky and education:

Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 1-27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Westby, C. E., & Costlow, L. (1991). Implementing a whole language program in a special education class. Topics in Language Disorders, 11(3), 69-84.

Wong, B. Y. L. (1986). Metacognition and special education: A review of a view. Journal of Special Education, 20(1), 9-29.

Young, L., Moni, K. B., Jobling, A., & vanKraayenoord, C. E. (2004). Literacy skills of adults with intellectual disabilities in two community-based day programs. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51(1), 83-97.

Documents

Gordon Pershey, M. (2006) OSLHA1 ASSESSING READING-RELATED BEHAVIORS IN STUDENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE SPECIAL NEEDS Presented at the Ohio Speech-Language-Hearing