Chapter two: Literature review

This chapter examines the literature of continuous assessment strategies as a instruments in reading

class. Black & Williams (1998a,b), Griffin & Nix (1991), literature related to the CEOM year 3 and

4 project, Griffin et al.( 2006a,b), reading assessment Clay (2004), literacy strategies Louden et al.

(2005). Additionally the chapter also review assessment strategies incorporated in reading

classrooms such as, observation anecdotal record, decoding of reading assessments: record of oral

language, running record, comprehension assessments.

Assessment is a driving force of learning, teaching, students’ motivation and informs pedagogy

(Griffin & Nix, 1991). It maintains quality of teaching, evaluating performance of teachers, school

and informs function of educational programmes, excellence of curriculum and books (Wilson &

Murdoch, 2006). Based on the quality of the assessment data received both in the classroom and

system level decisions are taken to improve learning, instruction, training teachers, revising the

curriculum, and books. Additionally the authority may use the assessment information to distribute

funds and resources to various schools (Griffin & Nix, 1991). Thus assessment has many purpose

and can be applied many context and many different forms (Black & William, 1998a).

Furthermore assessment has been used in many countries for evaluating, judging different

programmes and events. For instance, even centuries back, the Chinese used competitive

examination in selecting candidates for the civil services; similarly Aristotle selected his students for

public performances based on a certain criteria (Thorndike, 1990; 2005; & Earl 2005). However, the

concept of educational assessment had been introduced in the western world during the 19th century;

yet, it is only in the 20th century that prototype well-designed modern educational assessment began

to appear in western literature (Thorndike 2005).

According to Griffin (1998), Thorndike (2005) & Earl (2005) it is with industrial revolution that the

school became an important social institution to sort and evaluate the students to accommodate them

in different industries. Students were obligated to pass through the tests and examinations, which

were used as a means to sort and award the students. This type of sorting became the fundamental

basis of the school [at the time] (Stiggins 2001; Earl 2005). Earl (2005) described teachers were

acting as “quality controllers” and “assessment became the gate-keeper” (pp.1-2) in sorting and

promoting students to the next level or to help them make critical choices in their careers.

Furthermore Examination and tests had been used to classify and group students into different

categories (Earl, 2005).

However, during the past three decades, tremendous attention has been given to the quality of

education; the quality related evaluating the students. Dayer (1998 p.1); Gipps (1994, p.1), describe

this shift as a ‘paradigm shift’. Griffin (1998) states that this attention has led to a positive attitude

towards the way of assessing, evaluating, promoting, interpreting, reporting and communicating

(italicized) to the parents. Further it brought a significant change in education in general and in

particular to the educational assessment approaches that have been in practice for many countries

including Australia.

The Australian education improvement is an ongoing process based on the contemporary evidence-

based research both nationally and international available data; as a result the educational system of

Australia is well recognised for its excellence (Griffin, 1997). As early as 1988, Victorian Ministry

of Education developed literacy and numeracy profiles to monitor learning outcomes in literacy and

numeracy. Later this profile was proposed as a model to the Australian Education Council, which

was then adopted by the national territories and states (Griffin, 1999).

During 1998 many programmes were launched throughout the nation to finetune of teaching and

assessment practice in the schools particularly related to learning literacy and numeracy for primary

schools. The programmes such as in Tasmania, the Partnerships in Literacy, and the project aim to

find out how partnership between the school, home and childcare placements help to improve

students’ early literacy. The project develop early literacy assessment tools from birth to eight year of

age additionally the project also gives some intervention strategies.

Moreover consistency of Stage Assessment (COSA)’ a project implemented in New south Wales

aimed to explore and support teachers the continuous assessment strategies that could be practiced in

the classroom to determine achievement of the students to inform instruction and future planning and

learning.

Additionally, in 1999 Adelaide Declaration on National goals for schooling in the 21st Century was

declared (MCEETYA, 1999). The declaration advocates to focusing on students’ learning outcomes

and link between educational equity and achievement of outcome. More recently, Victoria

established the Victorian Essential Learning Standard (VELS) which describes what is essential for

all the students from prep to level 10. The learning standard emphasizes on establishing student-

centered approach and integrates appropriate learner centred assessment strategies to enhance

literacy achievement (VCAA, 2005; Victorian ED&T, 2002). The VELS explain the assessment

standard:

1-Defining the term assessments

1.1 Continuous assessment

There are positive views from many authors pertaining continuous assessment strategies. Griffin &

Nix (1991), Black & William (1998) Stiggins(2003) express the vital role of continuous assessment

in the classroom. Atkins et al., (2001) expresses their view that “often informal assessment is natural

features of teaching and learning whether or not it is so identified by teachers or students” (p5).

National Council on Measurement in Education National Education Association, 1990 defines

assessment as:

The process of obtaining information that issued to make educational decisions about students, to

give feedback to the student about his or her progress, strengths, and weaknesses, to judge

instructional effectiveness and curricular adequacy, and to inform policy (p.30).

This definition describes assessment as both process and product of teaching, additionally this

definition describes to inform policy

Black et al. (2003) states that assessment occurs continuously during the lesson teachers integrate

many assessment activities during a lesson to capture evidence of students learning and needs:

Formative assessment can occur many times in every lesson. It can involve several different methods

for encouraging students to express what they are thinking and several different ways of acting on

such evidence. It has to be within the control of the individual teacher and for this reason; change in

formative assessment practice is an integral and intimate part of a teacher’s daily work’ (p.2)

Additionally Airasian (2001) describes assessment as ‘a process of collecting, synthesisizing, and

interpreting information to aid in decision’ (p.8)

1.2 Operational definition of this study:

Griffin & Nix 1991 describe aassessment and reporting is a process of observing, interpreting and

recording information about student learning and communicating that information to stakeholders

(Griffin and Nix, 1991, p. 10)

This definition describes fundamental characteristics of continuous assessment for learning, when

students are engaged in assessment activities students are observed closely, listen what they say and

document on ongoing based to communicate the students and parents to inform improvement for

future planning. The definition advocates what students learn and how students learn.

Valencia (1998) states that “classroom based assessment grows out of the classroom work, focuses

on individual students, and feeds back directly to the teachers and students, it’s most likely to

improve classroom learning”(p. 5). Likewise in today’s classroom ‘greater emphasis is placed on

teaching and learning strategies that provide students with first hand exploration and observation,

conceptual understanding, problem solving, use of wide range of resource materials and collaborative

group work’ (Easley & Mitchell, 2003, p.12).

Furthermore Earl (2005) states ‘assessment is learning’, supports learning, and it should be integrated

to the pedagogy. Bernstein (1990) states that curriculum; pedagogy and assessment are the three

systems that should go side by as single process to cultivate learning in the classroom. The

assessment evidence is very useful for the teachers to modify learning and teaching. Matters (2006)

states that to make assessment effective in teaching and learning process, teachers need to be fully

skilful and capable to understand the students as learner to facilitate and guide them and

communicate the stakeholders without delay including students. She further states that ‘assessment

starts with learning, supports learning, and reports learning and report attainment result from

learning’ (p.4). Therefore Griffin (2005) describes characteristics of effective continuous assessment

starategies:

Assessment need to be based on learning theories

purposeful

well-planed

Integrate assessment activities with pedagogy

Reliable

Valid

Criterion or outcome based

Moderation

Transparency

Resource sensitive

Fair to all

(Griffin, 2005, pp.8-9).

1.3 What research says about continuous assessment?

Continuous assessment serves multiple functions of the classroom learning and instruction (Griffin,

1991). When teachers integrate the assessment with pedagogy, enables to scaffold, support,

orchestrate the students. Resent research done by Black & Willian (1998) advocates that continuous

assessment improves classroom learning, supports both ability and less ability students to master

learning(Black & Williams, 1998. After synthesis of 250 researches, they report that effect size of

continuous assessment ranges between 0.4 and .7, indicating that when assessment integrated with

instruction, improves classroom learning (Black & William, 1998).

Furthermore, they stressed that assessment would be continuous only when the assessment informs

instruction and encourage learning in the classroom. Additionally they reports that main feature of

continuous assessment should be to diagnose students’ ‘gap’ between the set standard and his/her

present performance and incorporate appropriate assessment strategies close the gap (Sadler, 1989).

The famous research by Black & William (1998a, b) concludes stressing the following points:

Teachers are not aware the continuous assessment strategies well and as a result encourage

rote learning.

Assessment strategies that implement in the classroom learning are not being shared among

colleagues.

Giving grades are over emphasised rather than providing assessment task to meet individual

needs as a result students growth is not being able to recognise

Teachers are not fully aware their students learning needs , hence unable to prepare

Teachers stress to improve competition among the students, rather than improving individual

students’ performance.

1.4 Summative Assessment

Summative assessment as ‘summing up’ is defined as a process of judging students at the end of

teaching episode or term or semester. Normally this point is the final point in evaluating the students’

performance (Griffin 1991, 1999). At this stage it is very late to introduce intervention activities to

enhance students’ performance in line with the curriculum goal. The teachers and students

themselves have no time or opportunity to promote classroom learning. However, Brookart (2001)

Biggs (1998) and Griffin & Gillis(2005) argue that if the test is fully aligned with the instruction and

is curriculum based or criterion referenced, then summativc assessments such as classroom

assessments and unit tests may have a positive effect on the students’ learning and instruction.

In view of this Harlen (2005) describes that summative assessment can be grouped in two:

internal and external summative assessments to the school. She further elaborated that when evidence

of continuous assessment summed up for the reporting purpose, this can be considered as internal

summative assessment. This shows that both continuous assessment and summative assessments

interrelated in classroom learning and instruction (Black & William, 1994). When assessment is

taken from out side the school to determine performance of the teachers, certifying the students and

sorting can be considered as external summative assessments as these exams are imposed to the

school from out side sources. Black and William (1998) and many others expressed concern over and

fear for this type of assessments, it is because when the tests and examinations are imposed from out

side to determine the performance of the teachers or school, it may distort learning atmosphere in the

classroom( Gipps, ).

However many authers have expressed that summative assessment is imported to determine the

accountability of the teachers,

1.5 High stake standard tests

[standard test ] is naïve at best and dangerous to students well-being and worst believe that we can

maximize school effectiveness by inducing fear of public censure for low standardize test

score( Stiggins, 1999. p. 197)

High stake standard tests increase pressure on the teachers, school administers and students. This

substantially affects the classroom learning and teaching process(). Many researches (Griffin and Nix

1991; Stiggins 1999; Black and William 1998) report that the high-stake standardized test increases

pressure on the teachers – this external pressure affects the teachers’ instructional planning. When

teachers see they are being evaluated through the students score or grade, they may focused on

unstructured activities thinking that they will improve students in the tests. “Pressure corrupts and

pressure focused on the test result caused teachers to distort the curriculum” (Golan, 1993. p. 24).

This promotes conventional culture in the teaching and learning environment and encourages

assessment of learning, which can be less beneficial for the students in improving their skills and

attitude (stiggin, 2003).

Stiggins (1999) argues that students already on the borderline face greater risk in the conventional

classroom. They lose their interest confidence and trust as the teachers do not give much emphasis on

correcting students’ mistakes; rather students are drilled to acquire the test skills. The students start

memorizing without understanding much of the concept and are then unable to apply them in new

situations. He further stressed that the purpose of the assessment should not be an index to

demoralize the students; rather it is a tool to help the students develop their belief and confidence in

the learning process. However, in the classroom where test oriented teaching is focused, it merely

supports to rectify students’ weak area and as a result widens the gap further (Sadler, 2005). This

may results in distortion of the learning culture in the classroom and develop negative attitude;

‘hence students may put less effort than their ability’ (Stiggins 1999 p.196.).

2- Interpretation

The assessment evidence needs to be interpreted to understand the level of students’ achievement.

Students’ performance, their strengths, weakness and ability normally interpreted pre-determined

goals. This enables teachers to determine the area to which students and teachers provide more

attention in order to required skill and knowledge (Griffin, 1999). When interpreting the students

performance is interpreted in different forms when the student performance is compared with other

students it is called norm reference. However the performance is interpreted against predetermined

standard or criteria or levels it is called Criterion reference and if students performance is interpreted

against the students, their own goal or standard this reference is called ipsative reference frame

(Griffin, 1999, Airasian, 2001, pp.301-307). The three reference interpretations are defined here

2.1 Criterion reference interpretation

Assessing by judging the strengths and weakness of children against a specified standard, or against

mastery of skill, or against the ability to apply a method of interpreting information seems natural to

teachers. Criterion reference assessment is an extension normal procedure but is also the basis of the

remedial actions at the heart of teaching (Shipman, 1987, p.7, cited Briggs et al., 2003).

Assessment is normally made comparing students performance against set criteria. This enables the

teachers and students to understand the level of the students in mastery of the skill and

knowledge(Griffin, 1999) when students are given the criterion to be achieved, they will start

monitoring and observing their learning as a result the students improve learning. Additionally, more

importantly the teachers can individualize the teaching and instruction, enable teachers to deliver and

cater the lesson according the students ability rather than comparing students (Griffin, 1999; Griffin

& Nix, 1991).

2.2 Norm reference interpretationNorm-reference is assessment reference to measure students’ performance relative to the

performance of whole class (Griffin, 1999). This allows teachers to use assessment as an indicator to

see where the individual students stand among the class or group (Griffin, 1999 Wragg, 2001).

Therefore success of students depends on the performance of the whole class or group (Griffin,

1999).

Additionally, since the norm reference assessment does not have a standard to all the students to

achieve in one occasion, no matter how good the students is he may not get the highest score if the

all the students get higher score. On the other hand students may get A grade, having being lower

score if the whole class performance is poor (Airasian, 2001; Griffin, 1999).

Moreover, since single students’ performance affect the position of the other students in the class,

unhealthy competition can develops in the class. Peer and shared learning can be affected as a result

the social context of the classroom can be come unnatural (Airasian, 2001; Griffin, 1999).

Though the norm- reference assessment may not be a threat to the higher achievers, for the students

at the borderline may affect severely as the students may repeatedly get low marks (Wraggs, 2001).

The students who get the lower marks may result further loosing their confidence, interest to strive

harder to acquire better performance or result. Thus, they may further fall back as compare to the

other students in the class (Airasian 2001). He further stressed that this approach provides teachers

and others to label the students in relation to peer or whole class as a result the less ability students

may ‘limit’ their performance.

However norm-reference frame has been used to sort the students for selection of various

programmes, courses, scholarship. But, many authors have express doubt for its efficacy of

recognising individual needs. Furthermore the method doesn’t encourage classroom learning

according to the individual pace. There is no set criterion or standard for the students acquire at

single time as result the growth of the students in learning cannot be focused, thus when

communicating parents teachers unable to provide the success story of students learning endeavour

to the parents and other stakeholders ( Griffin,1999; Airasian, 2001).

2.3 Ipsative reference assessment

…ipsative-referenced assessment, the individual’s own interpretations relative to his or her personal values, aspirations, expectations, interests or beliefs are used. The individual’s own observations and interpretations are needed in those areas in which only that individual can be the observer and the interpreter

( Griffin & Nix 1991, p.93).

In ipsative-referenced assessment the individual is assessed against the students own previous

performance or standard (Griffin, 1999). This encourage the students more involve in their work

reflect their past work, determine the present performance and enable to resolve their target to be

achieved in the future (Griffin,1999).

Additionally, during assessment process “students can make contribution that no one else can make”

they know what their

3- ReadingReading is a multidimensional and cognitive process, which involves inferring, predicting, thinking,

and meaning making of the text or words (Clay 2001). In 1960’s behaviourists believed that reading

was a passive process, with which the reader receive information or ideas from the text by scanning

it. However, the constructivists believe that the reader learns by active involvement with the text,

When a reader reads the text, he or she constructs the authors ideas, words relating to the prior

knowledge or experience he has to the topic (Graves et al., 2001). The more knowledge the person

has about the topic the more he or she can understand the text. The Victorian learning standard

reading dimension gives definition of reading:

The Reading dimension involves students understanding, interpreting, critically analyzing, reflecting

upon, and enjoying written and visual, print and non print texts. It encompasses reading and viewing

a wide range of texts and media, including literary texts such as novels, short stories, poetry and

plays as well as popular fiction and non-fiction works, newspapers and magazines, illustrations,

posters and charts, film and television and the texts associated with information and communications

technology. Reading involves active engagement with texts and the development of knowledge about

the relationship between them and the contexts in which they are created. It also involves the

development of knowledge about a range of strategies for reading (VCAA, 2005. p. 35).

This dimension implies that reading is more than the speed or fluency of the reading, it involves

‘reading the world’, critical analysis of text based on the experience and knowledge (Freire, 1987).

Moreover, when students interact in meaning making process they also learn the world around them,

the language spelling and words (Baker and Freebody, 1990).

Clay (2002) states that when the novel reader of age five to adult who attempt to read the first book

should need to integrate the information from range of sources by using the four system of cuing:

semantic (possible meaning from the text), syntactic (sentence structure of the language), visual or

graphological patterns (rules about the order of the ideas or words or letters) and phonological

awareness (sound of letters and oral language). She further states that they can comfortably construct

meaning of the text if they are familiar with the topic or subject of the text, understand the

grammatical structure of the words, phrases and sentences. Furthermore, readers who use visual

information of the text and are familiar with the ‘sound to letter and ‘letter to sound’ are essential for

fluent, correct, and efficient reading.

Smith (1971, cited in Winch 2006 et al. 2006) describes how many letters can be read in a single

glance. He used randomly selected letters such as ‘xjprqnoyrtvpslmwkjhzspjm’ to explain. He further

states that when the letters are arranged in words the “brain can recognise twice” as many letters in a

single glance: happy give when improve climb. Moreover, when the words are arranged in a

sentence, the recognised letters in single glance doubled: Small seeds grow tall tree. In response to

the research of Smith (1971), Winch et al (2006) concluded that:

The reader can recognise information from the systematic arrangement of the words more effectively

than the randomly arranged letters.

Redundancy in the language allows the reader to ignore much of the visual display and thus reduce

uncertainty of the meaning

Meaningful arrangement of the words is easy for the readers to recognise

Perfetti (1995) and Winch et al. (2006) explained that readers who read for gist to acquire general

information fixate on few words than the readers whose reading is depth. Winch et al (2006) reports

that adults who are skilled in reading could be taught to read more than 1000 words per minutes; they

skip some of the words and look for the key words and sentences to construct the meaning.

Researches (Lomax and McGee 1987) show that when some students are exposed to the print rich

environment they develop word awareness. However, Adam (1990) argues that to enable them to

construct meaning from the text the students should be taught the basic elements of the text - that is,

words and phoneme (phonic awareness).

3.1 Phonic awareness

‘Phonemic awareness involves the ability to recognize and manipulate phonemes in spoken syllables

and words’ (Paris, Morrison & Miller 2006). Understanding the relationship between letter-to-sound

and sound-to-letter is phonic depends on phonemic awareness (National Reading Panel 2000). They

cited 2000 studies on phonemic awareness on their meta-analysis, out of which 52 matched their

criteria. The study advocates that it is essential to include phonemic awareness, phonic and

vocabulary teaching in instruction. Shanahan, a book edited Rasinki, Blachowicz & Lems (2006)

reports the phonemic education should be continued from the kindergarten to the primary and

continue till the students are able to segment simple words.

Many authors (Winch 2006; Stavovich 1994; Adam 1990) argue that phonic awareness is one of the

predictor of the students’ future success in reading. Students who are aware of phonemes are able to

understand the spelling pattern, sound of the familiar words, spontaneously enable them to

concentrate meaning making of the words. However, some of the students who attend the schools are

not very familiar with spelling and sound pattern for whom it may be initially difficult to recognise

the sound and the letters (Adam 1990). Snow et al. (1998) states that students’ success in reading

initially ‘depends critically on mapping the letters and spelling of words onto the sound and speech

units that they represent’ (p.321). They found that explicit phonic instruction for the students

particularly, the beginning readers, helps them to recognise and develop the skill of understanding

letter-to sound and sound to letter relationships (Louden et al. 2006).

This was supported by Johnston and Waston (2005). On their longitudinal study, they concluded that

phonic awareness has enhanced the students’ understanding of the letter-to-sound relationship, which

then led them to word recognition. Adam (1990) argues that students who have acquired this skill

improves fluency of reading; when they read they do not just focus on the letters or words, rather

they look for the authors’ ideas as well.

3.2 Fluency

Fluency is one of the important skills required to read a text accurately, quickly and with tone. The

readers can get the skills of decoding by sufficient practice. Snow et al. (1998 National reading panel

2000) stated that skilful readers read the text without much difficulty and effort. The (NRP 2000,

chapter 3. p. 5) defined the ‘fluency’ as the ability to read a text quickly, accurately and with proper

expression (Lauden 2006, p.12).

Snow et al. (1998); Rentzel & Cooter (2006) describes that fluent readers recognise words

automatically; this allows them effortlessly bridge between words and sentences to construct

meaning. Haris and Hodges (…) described the fluent reader as the one who reads smoothly. The

skilful, fluent reader is able to link the authors’ ideas to the readers’ prior knowledge.

A national reading panel has reported that there is scientific evidence that reading fluency develops

when integrate the activities with the instruction: Oral reading, repeated reading and feedback. They

further mention provide guided reading also improve students reading fluency. Rentzel & Cooter

(2006) after synthesising the research studies (Snow et al, 1998; NRP 2000; Kameenui & Simons

2001; Jenkins, Fuchs, Van den Broek, Espin, & Deno,2003 Stahl 2004) they proposed seven insights

to develop fluent oral reading: ‘modelling’, ‘quality of instruction, reading practice’, ‘access to

appropriate challenging reading materials’, ‘oral and silent reading’, ‘ wide and repeated reading’

and ‘accountability and monitoring’( p.410). The fluent readers easily comprehend it without any

difficulty

3.3 ComprehensionThe national reading Panel (2000) defined reading comprehension as:

Comprehension is complex process… often viewed as ‘the essence of reading.’ Reading

comprehension is …intentional thinking during which meaning is constructed through interaction

between text and reader. Meaning resides in the intentional, problem-solving, thinking process of the

reader that occurs during an interchange to with a text. The content of the meaning is influenced by

the text and by the reader’s prior knowledge and experience that are brought to bear on it. Reading

comprehension is the construction of the meaning of a written text through a reciprocal interchange

of ideas between the reader and the message in a particular text” (pp.4-5).

Reading for comprehension is more than decoding the words, it involves, interpreting, evaluating the

text and constructing the meaning of the author’s idea by applying the readers’ prior knowledge on

the topic (Medina & Pilonieta, 2006, p.223). Students who are good in comprehension they ask

question to themselves while they read to keep on track to make sure the meaning of the text. While

poor readers ask insignificant questions to keep them understand the text (Clay, 2002). Hence to

make students effective readers the teachers need to deliver effective instruction to motivate the

students. The Wigfield (1997) cited in Reutzel & Cooter, 2007 ) various facets of motivation that will

influence students engagement: Efficacy, Challenge, Curiosity, involvement, importance,

recognition, grade, social, competition, compliance, and work avoidance (p.269).

The other researchers, Field & Pearson (1994), after synthesizing reading researches concluded that

successful reading instruction involves four step processes; they advocated that when the teachers

integrate the four step process, may enhance students’ comprehension and meaning making of the

text. The four step process are: first allocating enough time for the students practice the text, second

teachers effective instructional strategies by considering students natural reading strategies, thirdly

guided practice, modelling and provide feedback, finally provide opportunities for the students to

interact with teachers, students and students.

Additionally, one of the recent researches, the National Reading panel (2000), concluded that reading

comprehension could be improved by teaching students cognitive strategies that help students to

develop self evaluation. The eight strategies that could be integrated in effective classroom teaching:

Comprehensive learning

Cooperative leaning

Graphic and semantic organizers

Story structure

Questions and answering strategies

Summarization

Multiple strategy teaching

Furthermore the NRP advocates that teaching cognitive comprehension strategies improve students

understanding remembering the author’s idea.

Additionally reading is a complex, and multidimensional process, the readers actively engage the

text, inferring, predicting, thinking and apply the readers prior knowledge to interact the text and

bring readers own meaning. They read confidently when they use three linguistic cueing system

semantic, syntactic and graphophonic, additionally phonological awareness is essential for reader to

enhance reader’s fluency correct and efficient reading. “Fluency builds on a foundation of oral

language skill, phonemic awareness, familiarity with letter forms, and efficient decoding skills”

(Chard et al., 2006, p.57).

More over the research here has shown the readers need be taught different reading strategies and

provide enough time, repeated practice, modeling, guided reading, develop skill of self regulatory

reading, summarizing the text, cooperatives learning. This skill may improve readers interacting with

text, thus improve comprehension.

4- LiteracyLiteracy is the centre of schooling, when students are successful in literacy they can be successful

across the curriculum and likely successful in the life. Winch & Holliday (2006) agues that students

who are proficient in literacy they can do better in other disciplines such as mathematics science and

social science. Hence many OECD countries like Australia gives much importance for literacy

learning.

Commonwealth literacy policy for Australian school, literacy for all: the challenge for Australian

schools (DEETYA, 1998) defines literacy as:

… the ability to read and use written information and to write appropriately, in a range of contexts

for much different purpose, and communicate variety of audiences. Literacy is integrally related to

learning in all area of curriculum and enable individual to develop knowledge and understanding

reading and writing, when integrated with speaking, listening, viewing critical thinking, constitute

valued aspects of literacy in modern life (p.7).

This definition stressed that all the students need be taught literacy reading writing listening and

critical thinking in order to develop their performance in other areas of curriculum. Additionally it

also advocates the Australian need be functional for personal growth and also to achieve the country

economic and social goals. However this definition limited only for print literacy. “Today the buzz

word is ‘multiliteracy’ … how reading and writing related in to other sings system” (Cairney, 2006,

p. xxiii). The written

We need to expand definition which recognises that reading and writing, considered as print based

and logocentric, are only part of what people have to learn to be literate. Now for the first time in

history, the written, oral and audiovisual modalities of communication are integrated multi modal

hypertext systems made accessible via internet and World Wide Web

Today the literacy horizon has been expanded it is more than writing and reading from text, involves

reading listening and writing from the internet. In virtual environment through multimodal learning

students are provided opportunities to learn reading, writing and listning and critical thinking.

Whatever mode students use to learn skills and knowledge the definition of the literacy as known

should include reading, writing, critical thinking and other skills which are required the person to

function in the Australian society(Winch, 2006).

In Australia, the Hobart Declaration, the common wealth government and national territory agreed

national goal that ‘every child leaving the primary school should be numerated and be able to read,

write, and spell at appropriate level (Australian education council 1989). In 2000, National

benchmark has set indicators or descriptors which represent nationally agreed minimum acceptable

standards for literacy and numeracy at a particular year level. The benchmark advocates a set of

standard. ‘Minimum acceptable standard’ means a critical level of literacy and numeracy without

which a student will have difficulty making sufficient progress at school.

In April 1999, State, Territory and Commonwealth Ministers of Education met as the Ministerial

Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) in Adelaide. At that

meeting, ministers endorsed a new set of National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century.

The new goals were released in April 1999 as The Adelaide Declaration (1999) on National Goals

for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century.

The Adelaide Declaration provides broad concept of the national goals to guide the territories and

schools to achieve national goal in literacy, numeracy and skills for further information. ‘Literacy

underpins all the learning’ and promotes prosperity of the country in terms of development in

economy, education, social justice and welfare and the nation in pace with others (National inquiry

into the teaching of literacy 2005). It helps them to use the national resources meaningfully for the

development of the individual and society. Additionally, it can be a way of appreciating the diversity

of the cultures across the nations and learn from each other to improve individuals and the nation

(Winch 2006).

More recently the Victorian Essential Learning standard had been developed. The feature of VELS:

Provide frame work for whole school planning by settingout the standard for students to achieve

School can use the standard planning the teaching and learnin

Furthermore the VELS advocates “Students need to develop a set of knowledge, skills and

behaviours which will prepare them for success in a world which is complex, rapidly changing, rich

in information and communications technology, demanding high-order knowledge and

understanding, and increasingly globalin its outlook and influences”(p.2)

5- Assessment methods for literacy Sound assessment is the centre of successful teaching and learning which bridges between the

curriculum and teaching practices, inform students growth. It captures starting point, where students

stand at present and how he learning and he is heading in learning process. The teachers many

assessment strategies in order to capture students growth in learning, diagnose where he is at present,

the function of teaching process and quality of teaching learning programme held in the school. It is

important component to determine students’ literacy growth.

Reutzel & Cooter (2007); Winch and Holliday (2006); Louden et al. (2005) Cohen & Wiener (1997);

O’Malley & Pierce (1996); Griffin & Nix (1991); Crevola & Hill (2005) describe assessment that

could be used in classroom to capture students’ growth overtime in literacy and this assessment

provide information continuously regarding learning process the level of the students, how he learns

and where students heading in their learning process. Additionally they stressed the assessments

cannot be effective unless teachers interpret it properly. These authors have proposed some of the

literacy assessment strategies that can be used as continuous assessment to inform learning and

instructional adjustments. Further more these assessments can be used to determine students

decoding style, reflection, oral language, attitude, comprehension and meta- cognitive development:

Running record

Self assessment

Anecdotal

Literature questionnaire

Reading Inventory

Record of Oral Language(ROL)

Portfolio assessment

Checklist

Retelling

Think-aloud

Guided reading

Oral questions

Conference

Scaffolding

differentiation

6- Catholic Education of Melbourne Project and its benefit

Main focus of the CEOM year 3 and 4 project is to improve school effectiveness through evidence

based research (Griffin et al., 2006a). The research provides data about the effectiveness of the

schools, instruction, teaching, learning, resources and pedagogy. She further stress ‘[The] evidence is

used a number of process, including strategic planning and policy development, accountability and

reporting, the allocation of resources to schools, curriculum development, professional learning,

resource development and school improvement’(Angelico, 2005, p.10).

Over the years CEOM successfully conducted many literacy assessment research programmes to

determine the impact of the student achievements through various literacy programmes, one such

programme was Children’s Literacy Success Strategy (CLaSS), the two-year longitudinal

programme began in 1998, has been reported that it had significantly benefited students, teachers

school leaders for effective literacy planning, teaching and learning. Additionally it that it is

important to lay sound literacy foundation at the preparatory level(p-2) (Crevola & Hill 2005; Ainley

& Fleming, 2000, cited in Angelico, 2005, p.11).

More recently in 2003 CEOM, launched a literacy assessment project for year 3 and 4 classes. In

2004 with the collaboration with Professor Griffin of assessment research centre of the faculty of

education, the University of Melbourne, the project got momentum to monitor students performance

identifying skills required to answer the questions in assessment tools. Additionally meetings of the

Professional Learning Team (PLT) were held to understand various reading and assessment

strategies appropriate to the levels to facilitate teaching to the students of different ability groups in

year 3 and 4 (Griffin et al., 2006a).

The project was participated 70 teachers from 19 schools with approximately 1640 students. It was

focussed to help teachers to equip with appropriate literacy assessment strategies, professional

assistance to the school leaders, literacy coordinators who stationed at the schools, with evidence

based assistance, contemporary theories to make schools effective through sound assessment

strategies, effective pedagogies and developing appropriate teaching resources and materials (Griffin,

2006a).

Moreover, the CEOM literacy assessment project sought data ongoing base, through the students’

assessments tools, Achievement Improvement Monitor (AIM), Developmental Assessment Resource

for Teachers (DART), Tests of Reading Comprehension TORCH, and The PROBE. The assessments

were held twice a year March and November. From the data received over the assessment period,

2005 and 2006, Patrick Griffin and colleagues (2006b) concluded that CEOM year 3 and 4

assessment project has benefited the schools, teachers and more importantly students. The result has

shown students have improved over the assessment period 2006 (Griffin et al., 2006a, b). The feature

of CEOM year 3 and 4 project.

Provide knowledge to the teachers and professional learning pertaining continuous

assessment strategies that could be incorporated with literacy teaching.

Define appropriate teaching and learning resources suitable to various learning level in the

CEOM progression scale.

Providing ongoing base of feedback about the performance of the students and teachers by

the Professor Patrick Griffin, Dr.Esher Care of Assessment research centre The University of

Melbourne.

Provide structured contemporary teaching, learning and assessment strategies.

Incomplete understandingsLower level skillsRudimentary knowledge

deaper understandingsmore sophisticated skillsadvance knowledge

Language / Developm

ent / Progress / G

rowth

7-The Literacy scaleIn continuous assessment should be measured in relation to a frame reference, a reference could be a

scale, shows progression of levels, describes students development in area of learning (Griffin, 1991;

Foster & Masters, 1996). The progression scale provides information what students know and how

they develop in attaining various knowledge, skills, and attitude (Griffin, 1991).

Students develop or improve reading ability at different time. The scale allows teachers observe

individual students against the set criteria or indicators describe at various level of the literacy scale.

It is important to use appropriate language, “rather than attempting ‘can/cannot do’ conclusion about

outcomes”(Griffin, 2004, p.2), should clearly describe that students are advancing in their learning or

progressing in their studies such as “‘better’, ‘higher’, and more importantly describe the students

progress in particular area of learning” (Foster & Masters, 1996, p.1).

Adopted from (Foster & Masters, 1996, p.1)

Literature has shown such progression scale use to measure students performance. Here below

mentioned some of the literacy scale used to assess reading competence of the students in various

assessment instruments including the scale mentioned in the CEOM year 3 and 4 literacy assessment

project.

In United States of Ameica, National Assessment of Educational progress 2007 (NAEP), uses

reading achievement scale to report national samples. The score which shows in the parenthesis is the

cut score, and represents lowest score for that level.

Proficient (238):

Fourth-grade students performing at the Proficient level should be able to demonstrate an overall

understanding of the text, providing inferential as well as literal information. When reading text

appropriate to fourth grade, they should be able to extend the ideas in the text by making inferences,

drawing conclusions, and making connections to their own experiences. The connections between the

text and what the student infers should be clear.

Advanced (268):

Fourth-grade students performing at the Advanced level should be able to generalize about topics in

the reading selection and demonstrate an awareness of how authors compose and use literary devices.

When reading text appropriate to fourth grade.

Basic (208):

Fourth-grade students performing at the basic level should demonstrate an understanding of the

overall meaning of what they read. When reading text appropriate for fourth-graders, they should be

able to make relatively obvious connections between the text and their own experiences and extend

the ideas in the text by making simple inferences.

In 1989-93, Australian curriculum profile was constructed with the collaboration of national territory

states, and commonwealth. The profile had eight broad areas of school learning: English,

mathematics, science, studies of society and the environment, technology, language other than

English and physical education.

The area of each learning area was divided into different strands and for each strand the achievement

level was identified to report the stakeholders. The achievement level describes development,

proficiency and sophistication of learning (Foster & Masters, 1996).

Griffin & Thanh (2006) describes the Vietnam reading achievement levels for year 5. Six levels of

achievements were identified after auditing the items and the students were mapped to the various

levels according to their performance. The achievement level made easy to identify needs of the

children, intervention strategies and developing teaching methodology (Griffin & Thanh, 2006). The

achievement levels were according the development of the learning area:

Level 6 Combines text with outside knowledge to infer various meanings, including hidden

meanings. Identifies an author’s purposes, attitudes, values, beliefs, motives, unstated assumptions

and

Level 5: Links inferences and identifies an author’s intention from information stated in different

ways, in different text types and in documents where the message is not explicit

Level 4: Links information from different parts of the text. Selects and connects text to derive and

infer different possible meanings

Level 3: Reads and understands longer passages. Can search backwards or forwards through text for

information. Understands paraphrasing. Expanding vocabulary enables understanding of sentences

with some complex structure

Level 2: Locates text expressed in short repetitive sentences and can deal with text unaided by

pictures. Type of text is limited to short sentences and phrases with repetitive patterns

Level 1: Matches text at word or sentence level aided by pictures. Restricted to a limited range of

vocabulary linked to pictures

Similarly Griffin, Smith & Burrill (1995), constructed the American literacy profile which describes

progress of learning in four strands of language: Reading, writing, speaking and listening and

viewing. Each strand is included area of learning which shows ‘dimension of achievement and

developing competence’, the level are hierarchical according to sophistication of the text and

skills( Griffin et al, 1995). Reading achievement levels describe in the profile is:

Reading band I: Is skilful in analysisng and interpreting own response to reading. Can response to a

wide range of text style.

Reading band H: Is clear about own purpose for reading. Reads beyond literal text and seeks deeper

meaning. Can relate social implications to text.

Reading band G: Read learning as well as pleasure. Reads widely and draws ideas and issues

together. Is developing a critical approach to analysis of ideas and writing.

Reading band F: Is familiar with range of genres. Can interpret, analyse and explain responses to text

passages

Reading band E: Will tackle difficult text. Writing and general knowledge reflect reading. Literacy

responses reflect confidence in setting and characters.

Reading band D: expects and anticipates sense and meaning in text. Discussion reflects grasp of

whole meaning s. Now absorb ideas and language.

Reading band C: Looks for meaning in text. Reading and discussion of text enjoyment of reading.

Shares experience with others

Reading band B: Recognises many familiar words. Attempts new words. Will retell story from a

book. Is starting to become an active reader. Interested in own writing.

Reading band A: Knows how a book works. Like to have books and stories read. Likes to talk about

stories.

Additionally the American profile had provided various teaching strategies, related to each levels and

indicators of students’ responses, their attitude. The profile also documented some of the assessment

strategies that can be helpful for the classroom teachers to various level of the scale to document the

growth of students overtime.

8-How the levels were formed in CEOM year 3 and 4 projectIn CEOM year 3 and 4 assessment project, the participating schools were monitored for their

students’ performance and achievement through assessments tools such as AIMS, PROBE, DART

and TORCH. In 2005 the participating schools were asked to administer two tests either year 3 AIM

or one of the assessment tools out of the pool of assessment tools DART, PROBE and TORCH.

Later the questions were audited to determine the cognitive skills involve in each of the questions.

The instrument PROBE was further audited for the comprehension skills required and ‘six

comprehension skills were identified: literal comprehension, reorganisation, inference, Vocabulary,

evaluative comprehension, reaction (Griffin et al., 2006)

When all the items of all the tools were audited and later Progression of Reading Development of

nine levels was identified and it was classified from A through I (Griffin, 2006a). The progressions

scale shows the development of the students in learning area, proficiency in reading and attaining

various literacy skills (Maters & Foster, ). Students were mapped onto various levels of the

progression scale according to their achievement in the tests. The scale can be easier method for

teachers to map and determine individual needs of the students and also provide intervention

strategies relevant to each student.

Additionally, in November 2005, the participating schools were again asked to administer two tests

from the assessment tools. This time the assessment tools AIM reading test year 5 was included in

the assessment pool. It was to cater for higher achievers. In year 2006 one of the participating

schools withdrew their participation in the project, hence in March 2006 first monitoring session

eighteen schools were asked to administer two assessment tests from the assessment pool. The data

received from the tests used to further validate the progression scale (Griffin, 2006; personal

contact). The nine levels of progression scale were hierarchical according to the sophistication of the

skills required:

I Critical reading: Locates information in longer text by reading on and reading back to combine

information from various parts of the text so as to infer and evaluate what the writer has assumed

about the both the topic and characteristics of order.

H Analytical reading: Locates information in longer text by reading on and reading back in order to

combine information from various parts of the text so as to infer writer’s personal beliefs (value

systems, prejudice and/or biases).

G Inferential reading: Reads on and reads back through longer text in order to combine information

from various parts of the text so as to infer the writer’s purpose.

F Interpretive reading: Reads on and reads back in order to combine and interpret information from

various parts of the text in association with external information (based on recalled factual

knowledge) that “completes” and contextualizing meaning.

E Liking and combining information in paragraph: Reads on and reads back in order to link and

interpret directly stated information located in various part of the text.

D Sentence-level meaning: Interpret meaning (by matching words and phrases, completing sentences

or matching adjacent words) in a short simple text by reading on reading back.

C Phase-level meaning: Locates words in sentences involving preposition and abstract concept; using

cuing system (by sounding out, using simple sentences structure and familiar words) to interpret

phrases by reading on.

B Word-level meaning: Locates words involving concrete concepts and everyday objects follow

short simple instruction

A Insufficient information:

(Project background doc, 2006)

9-How the levels are used by the participating teachers When the skills involve in each items of the assessment instrument were audited, and were calibrated

with item response modelling (Adam & Khoo, 1995; Wu et al., 1998). Later ‘the skill descriptors

were arranged in order of question difficulty’ (Griffin et al., 2006a). Thereafter the students were

mapped to the different levels of the progression scale according to their achievements in literacy

tests. It was possible to understand the students who had or have attained the standard (Griffin &

Thanh, 2006) of year 3 and 4.

The literacy levels enable the teachers directly interpret the performance of the students and are able

to individualize teaching and learning strategies according to the pace of the individual students

(Griffin, 2007). When teachers know where student stand compare the learning standard, it may be

easy for them to prepare teaching learning resources. The CEOM year 3 and 4 assessment project

provides the teachers skills and knowledge of preparing various reading, assessment strategies

appropriate to various levels of the progression scale (Griffin et al., 2006a).

10- Classroom observation studies of literacyThe Classroom Literacy Observation Schedule (CLOS) developed by Louden et al., (2005) based on

the literature findings. They found 33 literacy teaching practices that can be helpful for the teachers

to continue literacy teaching practices. The 33 litercy teaching practices were further classified in to

broad dimensions based on the similar characteristics: knowledge, orchestration, support,

differentiation, and respect. They confirm the CLOS was reliable and valid to use ‘for classroom

observation of teachers pedagogical practices’ (p. v).

Louden et al. (2005) concluded in their research, “the literacy teaching ‘practices’ varied according

to teacher effectiveness” (p. v). They describe that, more effective and effective teachers show

greater extend of literacy teaching practices across the six dimension than the effective teachers.

Additionally the literacy practices were more integrated in the instruction in the more effective and

effective teachers class. Winch et al., (2006) stressed that students achievement in literacy gain is

highly influenced by teachers pedagogy and their ability to put intervention to support the students.

Additionally Louden and her colleagues have reported that more effective and effective teachers use

more structured literacy teaching practices than that of the less effective teachers. They have been

observed using less commonly used, highly structured literacy teaching practices such as pace,

metalanguage and challenges, these practices were not seen from the less effective teacher repertoire

of teaching practices (Lauden et al., 2005). The

Additionally Louden and her colleagues stress that almost all the teachers give attention to teach

phonic, but the effective and more effective teachers integrate more effective teaching practices in

order to teach the students clearly the concept of the phonic ‘‘within a wider context’ (p. iv) .

Moreover they use support to the students with ‘scaffolding’ and guided reading to make them

understand clearly phonic. They have also been observed focussing to develop students literacy skills

along with teaching practices.

The CLOS can be used as an indicator to observe teaching practice of literacy teachers. It has been

reported that it is reliable and valid to capture the performance of the effectiveness of the literacy

teachers. In effective and more effective teachers have reported that they practice ranges of

challenging and higher order teaching practices that are less frequently observed in the literacy

classrooms. Additionally the effective and more effective teachers incorporate the literacy skill in

their teaching practices. In this study the CLOS had been used to capture classroom teaching and

assessment practices. The CLOS is given in the appendix C.

11-Small scale survey methods and instruments for reading assessment

studiesReading is more than reading the text loudly. It involves many skills met cognitive process in

meaning making of the authors ideas. Students need to know letter to word level and word level

meaning in order to read fluently therefore the reader to be fluent he she should know skills of

decoding comprehension in order to make meaning from the text. On the other hand the teachers

responsibly in determining the starting point of the reading, process, and product need to know in

order to understand growth of the students.

Many assessment strategies are possible to employ to determine the strength and needs of the

students. Diagnostic assessment, classroom assessment, standardized tests, authentic assessment

performance assessment. Since in this study all the classroom assessments that inform learning and

instructional adjustments are synonyms of the continuous assessment, the classroom assessment

strategies

11.1 Portfolio Assessment

The portrait presented by the portfolio, the conferences, and the exhibition is a richer, more vibrant

representation of the whole student than picture provided by report cards and standardized test alone.

Despite the ‘great labour’ involved in developing and maintaining a portfolio system, the ‘human

masterpiece’ that evolves from the process- a student involved in his or her own learning – truly a

work of art ( Burke, et al., 1994, p. 137).

Portfolio assessment is multifaceted approach, provides successful stories of the students in academic

achievement (Griffin & Nix, 1991). They further states that portfolio assessment provides as a base

for the students to nurture their skills, organizes their knowledge and attitude in order to enhance

learning. This enables the teachers to understand students’ level of learning to give further guidance

to improve their learning (Burke et al., 1994). Portfolio also collects products that tell the end of the

story of their learning journey. This makes it easy for teachers to communicate with student’s

achievement to parents (Valencia, 1990).

Portfolio assessment is simple but ‘powerful’ to bridge between home and classroom (O’Malley and

Pierce 1996). Parents can have opportunity of seeing the process of their children’s growth in

attaining the academic goal. It also enables parents to see the child’s ability, skill, creativity and ideas

in the form of essays, pictures, art, reports. Students and parents collaboratively work at home

“students contrast and compare the [different artifacts and] pinpoint how and why they have

improved” (Abodeeb 1999 p.708). Additionally, other than teacher, the students and parents work in

partnership to make future goals for their child’s learning. Moreover, the parents also get chance to

evaluate the artifacts in the folder and provide descriptive feedback. It can help to develop

partnership between the classroom and home, teachers and parents for the success of students’

educational journey (Benson and Smith 1998).

Wiener & Cohen (1997) states that students can learn read, write, speak, listen and develop thinking

skills more effectively, when they are engaged assessment activities in the classroom. In this context

the portfolio can be one of the effective strategies that would foster students’ literacy learning.

Portfolio assessment promotes students self - reflection, Meta-cognitive awareness and improve self-

monitoring (Rhodes & Shanklin, 1993; Wiener & Cohen, 1997). (O’Malley & Pierce 1996; Valencia,

1990) describes different portfolios.

Showcase Portfolio: showcase portfolio only holds students end product which does not show how

the students arrived to the present position in terms of the students skills, ability and master of the

context: it does not provide the process of students. Rather, it shows final product. Normally the

showcase portfolio is being used to show parents school administration child’s improvement.

Collection portfolio: (also called working folders) contains from sketch draft to end product,

classroom work, assignment work in progress. These portfolios may contain both process and

product; however they may not be well-planned or a focused collection

Assessment portfolio: It is systemic, well planned, collection of students’ work related to specific

goals. The collection is evaluated by both the teacher and the students based on a criteria or checklist.

The students give descriptive evaluation as to why they selected the item for the portfolio.

Portfolio provides teachers to reflect the students’ chronological development in studies, which they

may not see from single assignment or exercise (Burke et al., 1994). It also gives very rich

information and evidence for the instructional plan and would be easy for teachers to organize

various activities that suit to the students(Wiener & Cohen, 1997). When the information is

continuously gathered, teachers can give the students constructive feedback and visualize the

descriptive development of each child in the classroom. Portfolio describes students’ everyday

experience in learning, acquiring knowledge, open opportunities for the teachers and students to

develop partnership in the learning process (Valencia, et al., 1990; Rogger 1991)

Conference is one of the aspects, where students and teachers work closely and it is indeed one of the

very important components of portfolio assessment. Conference also helps to encourage the students.

Moreover, it allows the teachers to gain an insight of the students, understand how students think

about their own self as a reader and progress in their studies.

During the conference, students selected the item for the portfolio assessment and give brief

descriptive explanation as to why the item is being selected (Wiener & Cohen, 1997; Roger 1991).

portfolio conference to be effective, the teachers should review the students’ portfolio and must plan

well in advance, make note of students’ strengths, changes, improvement and concerns. Also some

teachers conduct portfolio conference at the end of term (O’Malley and pierce 1996). However,

Weiner and Cohen suggest that conducting the portfolio assessment conference four times

throughout the year would be more effective so that students would know how their work is progress.

The portfolio conference provides reliable evidence on how and why the students think about them

as readers, on the other hand students gets appropriate guidance and encouragement to evaluate their

portfolio and selection and assistance for further improvement.

11.2 Anecdotal Observational Record

Observation is one of the key aspects of continuous assessments strategies that teachers reflect their

teaching and students improvement (O’Malley& Pierce, 1996). Daily observation if systematically

recording provides teachers the useful information about the process of students’ development. The

systematic recording is known as anecdotal observational recording.

Anecdotal observational record is brief description of students learning pattern, this enable teachers

to individualise the instruction (Griffin & Nix 1991). Taking observational records allows teachers to

understand wide range of behavioural change that students gain. This observation notes allows

teachers to determine the pattern of students’ interaction with the teachers, peer, texts, engagements

in activities, motivation, attitude towards learning (O’Malley & Pierce, 1996; Griffin & Nix 1991;

Boyd-Batstone, 2004).

Teachers observe the students while they are engaged in various activities and record systematically

and uncover how the child interact various forms of print, writing, reading, listening, speaking and

their habits and skills(Clay 2002). She describes these teachers as “ crafts people” and “sensitive

observer.” Anecdotal observation record allows teachers to capture: the process of learning, the

existing ‘repertoire,’ ‘strategic activity’ and whether the child is able to apply what he studies (Clay

2002, pp.7, 144).

When making anecdotal record Boyd-Batstone advise to follow six steps: first write observable data

and describe what the students can do with the help of action verbs , secondly use significant

abbreviation as this would allow teachers to make speed up the notes and description of the event

related to individual students, thirdly write records in the past, fourthly support records with

example as evidence, fifth not use ‘can’t’ when recording the data, finally avoid redundancy.

Griffin & Nix (1991), Thorndike & Hages(1977) cited in Rhodes & Nathenson-Mejia (1992),

suggests when making anecdotal records to describe specific events, report rather than evaluate and

Relate the material to other facts that are known about the child.

As taking the observational records, it may be important to analyse them to get meaning out of it.

Teachers may analyse data and infer the learning pattern instantly as the teachers take anecdotal

record and bring a instructional change. However some other anecdotal records teachers analyse

during instructional planning or during the meeting with the subject teachers for further planning.

“Analysis of records allows teachers to find patterns of success for both individuals and groups of

students” (Rhodes & Nathenson-Mejia, 1992, p.507).

Anecdotal record supports students learning, it can be helpful for the students to review their learning

as a writers and readers (Griffin & Nix 1991 & Nathenson-Mejia, 1992). When they know their

strength and weak, they may be motivated to make stronger effort to improve on those areas where

they are weak. Moreover this also supports to establish communication to the parents during the

parent teachers conference, meetings. The anecdotal observation allows parents, school authorities to

see the children’s growth as the way teachers see students’ growth in learning.

The anecdotal record is one of the continuous assessment strategies that allows teachers to capture

the process and product of the students learning style, motivation and attitude. These help teachers’

instructional change, support students learning and report to the stake holders provide students clear

desrpitive developments of the students as a learner, writer and reader.

11.3 Running Record

A useful and practical way to diagnose aspects of reading text is to maintain systematic running

records of students reading. A strategy first developed by New Zealand educator Marie Clay( 1972,

1985, 1997, 2002) to diagnose students reading strategy and process, has high reliability ( .90 on

error reliability), captures students reading process, and provide information for the teachers about

progress and decoding style of the students reading( Cooter, Jr & Reutzel, 2007). As name suggests,

it is systematic recording of what student say when he/she reads aloud a text assigned to student.

“The teacher note everything the child says and does while reading; all the correct words and all the

miscues are recorded” (Wiener & Cohen, 1997; Cooter, Jr & Reutzel, 2007). This would include

correct and incorrect any omission, insertion, repetition, substitution and self correction (Cohen &

Wiener, 1997 p.159).

Therefore the procedure of recording, and analysis of running record is similar to that of miscues, in

fact running record is type of miscue analysis ( O’mally & Pierce, 1996). Unlike miscue analysis,

which involves the teachers making duplicate copies of the text and recording miscues, running

record is relatively easier. The running record can be taken on a blank paper, teachers record all the

errors and the reading strategies students follow (O’mally& Pierce 1996). Teachers also note students

behaviour, eye and hand movements while students read, at the foot of the page.

For recording running records, Clay (2002) has suggested fourteen step procedures. This procedure

describes the scoring guidelines and notation of running records. Each of the correct word student

read is recorded with check mark, indicating the students have read the words correctly, however,

students’ insertion, omission, appealing, teacher’s assistance, substitutions are record as errors.

Nevertheless, students self corrections, repetitions, trials which are eventually correct are recorded

not an error. She further describes that when students break the words into syllables, then it is

recorded as error of pronunciation, but not as an error of reading. Additionally, students will not

receive minus score; the lowest score would be zero.

The process of taking, maintaining and reflecting on running records itself could be a rewarding

experience for the teacher as well, in that it could allow them to ‘gain valuable insights into their own

administration of running records and instructional activities’ (Cohen & Wiener, 1997, p. 160). A

teacher could use the diagnostic information obtained through running records to plan better

instructional programs and activities for students with specific problems. Thus, running records allow

teachers to cater for individual students and target specific learning difficulties. Reflecting on

running records could also help a teacher’s professional development Clay, 2002).

A further advantage of running records is that they are, like miscue analysis, easily integrated into the

daily classroom routines (Rhodes & Shanklin, 1993). However, they also suffer from time constraints

as with other assessment strategies like miscue analysis (after, O’Malley & Valdez Pierce, 1996).

More importantly, however, running records are more suitable and highly effective when used with

beginning readers (since they are often slow readers) and readers with specific decoding problems.

Nevertheless, with older students and intermediate students (who could read lengthy texts faster), it is

often more difficult and tiresome to take running records effectively (Rhodes & Shanklin, 1993).

Even with younger students, however, teachers need training and practice to make running records

more useful and the process more rewarding both for the student and the teacher.

Empirical evidence about reliability of running records as a potential source of qualitative, diagnostic

information on student reading literacy is however ‘mixed’. For example, substantial differences

have been reported to exist between the reading ability levels measured by the Reading Recovery

teachers and regular classroom teachers using the same procedures (Chapman, Tunmer, & Prochnow,

2001; Glynn, Crooks, Bethune, Ballard, & Smith, 1989). Nonetheless, some researches establish

evidence of test-retest reliability of running records (e.g. Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer,

1994). Also, there has been substantial evidence of high validity of most running records used in

empirical studies as well as real-life classrooms. According to researchers (e.g. Pinnell et al, 1994),

findings from running records often demonstrate a high correlation with those of other early literacy

measures, after accounting for treatment conditions. Running records assessment is also

recommended by national curriculum authorities (e.g. in New Zealand) and is considered as a

potential assessment strategy by many specialist teachers (after Bean, Cassidy, Grumet, Shelton, and

Wallis, 2002).

In short, besides being a highly practical assessment strategy that could be integrated into the daily

routines of the classroom, running records (as a formative assessment strategy) provide useful

information on the reading and comprehension skills of the students that could be used to develop

corrective measures to address specific reading difficulties. Given proper training, enough practice

and commitment on the part of the teachers, running records is just one of the ideal assessment

strategies to evaluate the progress and development of students in terms of the various aspects of

reading (Cohen & Wiener, 1997; Clay 2002).

11.4 Think-Aloud

Reading comprehension is a metacognitive process, which cannot be directly observed. Teachers use

different strategies to draw the mental picture of the child, when he/she is interacting with the text

(Cohen & . Think-aloud is a one of the effective strategies by which students are taught how to

monitor their comprehension and teachers can easily infer the development of the child in

understanding and applying the knowledge he/she has with the new knowledge (Harris & Hodge,

1995, p.256; and Block & Israel 2004, p.154). Many researches (Smith 2006; Baumann, Jones, and

Seifert-Kessell 1993; Walker 2005; Block and Israel, 2004; Wade, 1990) report that think-aloud

helps students to improve their ability of monitoring their comprehension.

During think-aloud process students verbalize their thought before, during and after reading (Wiener

and Cohen, 1997, p.156-157). Before reading students overview the text, theme, author, quality of

the text and comment on what they see and apply the background knowledge they have and predict

the story. During reading, students “stop periodically and reflect how the text is being processed and

understood” (Baumann, Jones, and Seifert-Kessell, 1993, p.185). They also summarize orally what

they read and develop their understanding of the text. They describe the difficult words, phrases and

construct understanding by using synonyms in place of difficult words. After reading, students

verbally react on the text applying their background knowledge with the new knowledge and develop

their understanding (Baumann, Jones, and Seifert-Kessell 1993; Block & Israel 2004; Wiener and

Cohen, 1997, p.156-157). Oster (2001); Block and Israel (2004), argue that with think-aloud strategy,

students develop their ability to overcome the different challenges they face when interacting with

the text.

Think-aloud strategy also enables teachers to identify the strength of the students as readers. During

the think-aloud discussion, students reveal their ability in comprehending the text and predicting the

‘big’ picture of the author’s idea, and other areas such as background knowledge or general

knowledge related to the topic and vocabulary deficit (Oster, 2001). She further notices that many

weaker students are unable to make connection with old and new knowledge due to the lack of

vocabulary. They have limited vocabulary to express the ideas; hence they are unable to advance

their reading comprehension strategies (Smith, 2006). When students read the text they construct

knowledge, link the background knowledge to the present knowledge, and reflect what they

understood. This gives teachers enough evidence to make instructional plan to make the think-aloud

strategy more effective and provide effective strategies that students employ to think -loud

effectively.

Teachers try to find out ways to stimulate the students’ interest in engaging them in reading so that

they become more fluent and improve vocabulary in order to construct meaning while they read. The

recent research by Block (2004) reveals that think-aloud improves the students’ reading vocabulary,

comprehension fluency on standardized test. The research was carried out among 1200 students from

kindergarten to fifth-grade in South-western United States (Block and Israel 2004). They have

proposed a model

Before reading

Overview

Look for important information

Connect to Authors’ Big idea

Activate relevant knowledge (background knowledge)

Put myself in the book

During reading

Revise prior knowledge and predict

Recognize an author’s writing style

Determine word meaning

Ask questions

After reading

Notice novelty in Text

Relate the book to my life

Anticipate use of knowledge

Think-aloud can be a good strategy for teaching, assessing for students’ comprehension. It improves

students’ cognitive process, advance understanding of the text, extend interest and participation. It

gives teachers’ effective information about students’ general knowledge related to the text theme,

vocabulary, and power of constructing new knowledge. Hence teachers can easily plan flexible

instruction to meet the needs of the students.

11.5 Retelling

Reading comprehension strategies that underpin students’ meta-cognitive ability is, retelling the text

by using the readers own words without seeing the text previously read (Rathvon, 2004). For

retelling to be effective Weiner & Cohen (1997) advised that the students should be informed when

they read text that they may be asked to retell the text. They further states that in retelling the text

teachers may understand how the students meaning making from the text, understand main plot,

setting and characters of the story.

Reutzel & Cooter (2007), Flynt and Cooter (2005) classified retelling into three levels of reading.

First is the guided oral retelling, where the text is read and students read with the teacher, after which

the students demonstrate their comprehension by speaking. The second level of retelling is graphic

organiser retelling in which students draw a concept map of the story or write key words or events to

retell the story. In the third level, written retelling, students write the summary of the story or text

and retell it orally. All these approaches are effective in improving a student’s comprehension levels

while enabling teachers to determine the development of their reading comprehension.

Retelling is one assessment strategy that could be employwed to determine students metacognitive

development in reconstruction of the text and express it by using students own words and it can be

told either orally, graphic organiser, drawing picture and writing the summary of the of the text.

11.6 Oral questioning

Oral question could be one of the most common assessment strategies that could be employed to

ascertain what, how students understand what is being explained (Airasian, 2001; MacNauhton &

William, 2007; Wassermann, 1991; Wing, 1992). It could be employed when a new lesson is

introduced to students to brainstorm, bring their attention into the lesson and determine what students

have learned, to support, scaffold and prompting the students to guide for learning(Wing, 1992).

11.7 Checklist Checklist is one of the practical and convenient methods of tracking and documenting students

achievements through the observation (Winch et al., 2006; Wiener & Cohen, 1997; O’Malley &

Pierce, 1996). It has a list of observable indicators of the students that can be ‘often related to

expected learning outcomes’. When checking students achievements, the teachers mark with the

observable behaviour of the students with a tick (Weiner & Cohen, 1997). In addition to the teachers

checklists can be used by the parents and students themselves (Winch, et al., 2006).

11.8. Research 1

Research is another teaching and assessment strategy where students focus on critical reading. They

identify key words of the sentence and topic sentence of the paragraph to develop a story. Students

also develop skills of literature research through electronically, manually from the journals, books

etc. Teachers assess students’ knowledge of acquiring information related to the theme and

developing reports on the theme of the text being read.

1 Suggested by the reading teachers of CEOM schools and they have been practicing this strategy as teaching as well assessment strategy in reading and writing classes.