Living with Hope, Rather Than Doubt: Classroom Assessment of Adolescent Literacy Learning

by Gwynne Ellen Ash, Texas State University, San Marcos

In an interchange on the PBS show Frontline, Mortimer Adler (educator and philosopher) suggested to William F. Buckley that the purpose of schooling is to develop talent, not to select it. When Buckley demurred that perhaps not all children could learn, and suggested that Adler himself might not actually believe that all children could learn, Adler retorted, "No, but I don't believe that you are sure that all kids can't, and I prefer to live with my hope rather than your doubt" (Guskey, 1999, cited by Alberta Assessment Consortium, n.d.). Formative classroom assessment is a way for teachers to nurture that hope, in themselves and in their students. The recent focus on high-stakes assessments may have left teachers with the sense that literacy assessment consists of an end point that is measured outside of the classroom environment. However, research indicates that ongoing classroom assessment, which includes the students as partners in measuring progress, results in not only higher test scores, but also stronger performance in the classroom (Black & Wiliam, 1998).

Classroom assessment of literacy learning: What do I want to measure?

To inform your instruction, you want to assess literacy proficiencies that affect students' literacy performance, their ability to make meaning with text. Most research suggests that adolescent literacy performance is affected by four factors: orthographic knowledge, vocabulary knowledge, fluency, and comprehension strategy use. Each can be assessed in the classroom, and each can be assessed both by the teacher and by the students themselves.

Orthographic knowledge, which is a catch-all term for understanding how words work, encompasses word analysis, spelling, and morphology-related vocabulary knowledge (knowing words' meanings as a result of understanding the meaning of their component parts―roots and affixes). Orthographic knowledge affects students' ability to read unknown words and make informed guesses about the meanings of those words. Vocabulary knowledge is multifaceted, but it includes the ability to recognize the meaning of words in context, infer the meaning of words in context, compare the meanings of similar words, and interpret the role of word choice in the author's point of view. Vocabulary knowledge affects students' comprehension of text and content-area learning.

Fluency is "the ability to read smoothly, easily, and readily with freedom from word recognition problems" (Harris & Hodges, 1995). Fluency includes elements of automaticity, rate, and prosody. Automaticity is the automatic and correct decoding of words, even words that are unfamiliar. Rate is the reading of the appropriate number of words per minute. Prosody, sharing the same root as prose, is the ability to read written language in a manner that emulates speech. Prosody includes elements such as expression, intonation, phrasing, pitch, and pacing. Fluency is strongly correlated with comprehension performance, and it appears that fluency is a necessary, but not sufficient, component of proficient reading.

Proficient use of comprehension strategies is what delineates most good readers from those who struggle. Good readers understand that all text poses certain difficulties. As they read, good readers monitor their comprehension, making sure that their reading is making sense; and if there is a point at which their reading does not make sense, they use a strategy or a number of strategies to help put their reading back on track.

How do I assess these elements and still have time to teach?

The assessment of the four elements can be incorporated into classroom-based instruction and its evaluation. The first step is discussing the four elements with students, explaining why the elements are important, why you want to help them develop these elements, and how you and your students might work together to assess their progress.

Knowing where your students are is essential to knowing where to begin your instruction. Educators have learned that one-size-fits-all instruction is not as efficient as it might seem. Giving ninth-grade-level spelling words to students who are reading on a third grade level might lead to memorization, but it will probably not lead to students understanding the way those spelling words work and how to apply that knowledge to similar words.

Orthography is typically assessed through spelling inventories. These brief assessments contain 20-25 words focused on particular orthographic features (such as consonant doubling, vowel alternation, or unaccented syllables). The assessments are usually administered in small groups, but they can be administered to whole classes. Students' development can be targeted, and instruction can be designed to match students' needs. Ongoing assessment takes the form of student participation in ongoing word-study activities and traditional spelling assessments. An example of spelling inventories can be found in Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2004). To see an example of such an assessment, see http://www.pearsonhighered.com/samplechapter/013223968X.pdf.

Vocabulary assessment appears to be most effective when it is related to particular sets of words under study, whether they are words with related roots or words related to a particular reading. Many researchers suggest that students first be asked to evaluate their own knowledge of groups of words, so that the students can assess how much they may need to learn to understand a text or apply a root meaning to new words. Janet Allen (1999) provides many examples of vocabulary pre-assessments in her book Words, Words, Words: Teaching Vocabulary in Grades 4-12. Shown below, "Do I Know These Words?" is an adaptation of one of her graphic organizers.

Do I Know These Words?

Title____________________________________________________________________________

Directions: As you read each word listed below in the context of the story, you and your partner should decide if you know a meaning for the word that would fit the context. List the word, and your guess for the meaning of the word if you think or know that you know it, in the appropriate column.

Teachers' assessment of students' vocabulary growth should be keyed to the purpose of instruction. Teachers should first decide how well students must learn the words for their instructional purposes, and then assess vocabulary knowledge appropriately. For example, if students are to gain a surface-level acquaintance with word meaning, more superficial assessment procedures, such as recognition, might be efficient. But if students are to develop in-depth word knowledge, production and application of the words should be required.

Fluency assessment involves measuring in two ways: a quantitative measurement of automaticity/rate, which is typically measured in words correct per minute (WCPM), and a qualitative measurement of prosody, which is usually measured with a descriptive scale. The National Assessment of Educational Progress Scale is often used for measurement of prosody. (To see the NAEP scale, as well a brief report on the fluency development of fourth graders in 1992, see http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/web/95762.asp ; for more recent 2002 data, see http://www.nagb.org/pubs/r_framework_05/append_b.html.) Median end-of-the-year WCPM for middle grade (6-8) students would range between 160 and 200; for high school grades, you would expect median scores between 175 and 220 WCPM.

Although you can set aside time to have each student read with you individually, assessment of fluency can take place during effective instructional activities such as timed repeated readings and peer repeated readings. Students can also be taught, very quickly, to time and assess each other, keeping daily and weekly records of their progress. For more information on alternative prosody scales and expectations for WCPM, see Tim Rasinski's (2003) The Fluent Reader: Oral Reading Strategies for Building Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension.

Assessing strategy use is complex, as it attempts to measure not only students' proficiency at using strategies, but also their proficiency at deciding when and how to use strategies. Research suggests that students learn strategies of all types in three stages:

• Declarative knowledge: The stage in which they can describe the strategy and its purpose
• Procedural knowledge: The stage at which they can use the strategy on demand
• Conditional knowledge: The stage at which they can analyze a situation, determine that a strategy should be used, and select a strategy that appropriately meets their needs (Garner, 1990)

In assessing strategy use, you will want to make sure that students understand what the strategy is (declarative), can use the strategy (procedural), and can apply the strategy as is appropriate in their reading (conditional). Declarative knowledge can be assessed through oral explanations or written descriptions; procedural knowledge might be observed or assessed through students' written reflection. Conditional knowledge can be assessed through think-alouds and other reflective interview and writing techniques. In all cases, students can be active participants in their own assessment, reflecting on their knowledge and how applying their knowledge of strategies helps or does not help their reading. Assessment of Reading Comprehension Using a Reading Interview is a protocol for a reading comprehension interview assessment, developed by a colleague of mine when I was at the University of Delaware. For more information on assessment of comprehension strategies, as well as self-reflection frameworks, see Guided Comprehension (McLaughlin & Allen, 2002). For an example of McLaughlin and Allen's lessons and students' reflections, see http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=226 and http://www.readwritethink.org/lesson_images/lesson226/self.pdf.

Students and teachers as partners

Good classroom assessment informs both the teacher and the students, and it involves both the teacher and the students (Black & Wiliam, 1998; IRA, 1999; NCTE, 2004; Sadler, 1989). As has been noted above, students provide not only the work that is assessed, but their input, self-assessment, and reflection, which can be key in helping shape their instruction. Likewise, reviews of the research seem to indicate that students who are involved in the assessment process are more likely to be engaged in their learning and interested in improving their proficiency (Black & Wiliam, 1998). A perfect example of this motivating effect can be seen in students who are monitoring and charting their own fluency development. I have encountered scores of struggling readers highly engaged in repeated reading activities precisely because they were charting their WCPM and they could see that their word counts were increasing. The charts of repeated reading provide specific feedback to the students, and that feedback demonstrates their growth clearly. Letting students in on their assessment information works in similar ways in other aspects of reading as well. Assessment should not be hidden from students; rather they should understand where they are―and thus where they are going.

Moreover, for teachers to gather all this information on their students, but then to continue to teach as they had planned to all along, obliterates the meaning in the assessment. Teachers need to take what they have learned from student learning (or lack thereof!) and use that information to guide their planning. Black and Wiliam argue that this is the hardest part of using classroom instruction effectively. If, for example, 80 percent of the students in your class indicate that they do not have declarative knowledge of drawing inferences, you should use that information to design further instruction on what an inference is and how a student might draw one, rather than continuing on with your scheduled lesson that asked the students to apply their declarative knowledge and draw inferences in a text. Similarly, if 90 percent of your students correctly self-assess that they know the meaning of key vocabulary words in an upcoming chapter, it would be unwise to spend a full day teaching the class the meaning of those words. The International Reading Association (2002) has concluded, after a review of research, that focusing instruction on adolescent students' needs is key to supporting their ongoing literacy development; assessment is necessary to pinpoint those needs and to begin to design more effective instruction.

Assessment stress: Remembering your purpose

Classroom assessment of literacy learning can be stressful (Johnston, Guice, Baker, Malone, & Michaelson, 1995). It involves reflection on your own teaching (If the students didn't understand, how much of that was due to the way I taught it?), concern for student growth (What will happen if my students have difficulty understanding this?), and worry about how others might perceive you and your teaching (Only Class 6b didn't meet expectations for fluency growth?). And that's just the teachers! Initial assessments should guide your focus for ongoing assessment. Is fluency development a dire need for your students? You won't know until you've conducted an assessment, and only by viewing classroom profiles can you evaluate the importance of ongoing fluency assessment and instruction in your classroom. What you can rely on is the knowledge that your focus on improving student growth and strengthening your own instruction by fitting it to student growth will serve to keep the hope alive that all children can learn.

Gwynne Ellen Ash is a former middle school reading and language arts teacher. After teaching at a Title I middle school in San Antonio, Texas, Gwynne pursued her doctorate in reading education at the University of Georgia. Specializing in struggling adolescent readers, Gwynne has been an assistant professor at the University of Delaware and just recently relocated to her home state, where she is an assistant professor at Texas State University, San Marcos. Gwynne has written chapters and articles on adolescent reading concerns and is currently working on a book on fluency development for adolescent readers. Most familiar to Ohio teachers will be her Reading Online article, Teaching Readers Who Struggle: A Pragmatic Middle School Framework, and her professional development work throughout the state.

Return to top

References

Alberta Assessment Consortium. (n.d.). Questions and answers: AAC...everyday assessment tools for teachers. Retrieved January 4, 2005, from http://www.aac.ab.ca/aboutqa.html.

Allen, J. (1999). Words, words, words: Teaching vocabulary in grades 4-12. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2004). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998, October). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan [Online source] Access: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm

Garner, R. (1990). When children and students do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517-529.

Guskey, T. (1999, April). Bringing performance assessment to classroom practice. Keynote address presented at the National Conference on Standards and Assessment, Las Vegas, NV.

Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. R. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

International Reading Association (IRA). (1999). High-stakes assessments in reading: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: Author.

International Reading Association (IRA). (2002). Supporting young adolescents' literacy learning. Newark, DE: Author.

Johnston, P., Guice, S., Baker, K., Malone, J., & Michaelson, N. (1995). Assessment of teaching and learning in "literature-based" classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11 (4), 359-371.

MacArthur, Charles. (n.d.). Assessment of reading comprehension using a reading interview. Unpublished manuscript.

McLaughlin, M., & Allen, M. B. (2002). Guided comprehension: A teaching model for grades 3-8. Newark DE: International Reading Association.

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). (2004). Framing statements on assessment. Chicago: Author.

Rasinski, T. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic Teaching Resources.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.