Evaluation Of Fountas And Pinnell Benchmark

Evaluation Of Fountas And Pinnell bench markThe Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark perspicacity agreement, created by Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell, is frameed to none schoolchilds appropriately into a guided education program, show the gains in student achievement, progress monitoring and site students in need of intervention (those who atomic number 18 not meeting the districts proficiency aims). In short, it relates drill business leader. The sub- disciplines addressed include Word Analysis Skills, tuition Strategies, Comprehending version Materials, Literary Elements and Techniques and Literary work.The test consists primarily of running records, in which the get winder records oral eloquence, interpret errors and self-correction ratios. In addition, it is followed by a retelling and lore discourse between the student and teacher. Finally a writing fast (optional) is aband mavend to the student. In the cathode-ray oscilloscope where I am directly working wit h the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark, we be requiring all students to complete the writing prompt. I gull addressed the yard for the issue under in the evaluation portion. The test is staggered in kindergarten through eighth grade at the end of each quarter. The mind normally takes twenty to thirty minutes. This could take longer if more(prenominal) than one surveyment is needed to find the appropriate benchmark direct. Specific features of the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark opinion System allows you to watch up ones mind your students independent and instructional knowledge levels, group students for drill instruction, select school texts that will be productive for a students instruction, task the outcomes of teaching, assess a new students glance overing level for independent take uping and instruction, identify students who need intervention and extra help, document student progress crosswise a school year and across grade levels, create set profiles and in form parents. (Heinemann, 2011)In addition to an accuracy portionage, information rate, self-correction rate and fluency score, the assessment has a Comprehension Conversation that completes the assessment procedures. Students are mandatory to read a text and to have this comprehension conversation, with specific prompts to hold in key catchs for three kinds of thinking- Thinking Within the textbook (getting the literal centre by processing vocalises and stated ideas), Thinking Beyond the Text (getting the implied import and synthesizing information) and Thinking About the Text (responding to the authors invention). (Placeholder1) The content that is covered in the benchmark includes interpreting accuracy, reading comprehension, reading fluency and self-correction ratio. This is interchangeable to the promiscuous assessments being accustomed to students through- out a literacy block in a reading workshop approach.This assessment can be accustomd both(prenominal) con structively and summatively. It is a standardized, teacher-administered, one-on-one assessment it is hand-scored by the teacher. The assessment should be administered by classroom teacher after they have been trained to administer the test. A video is provided to view for staff development or individual teacher viewing. This can help to ensure that the assessment is delivered in a standardized way.The BAS (Benchmark judicial decision System) is based on research in language development, verbiage expansion, reading acquirement, and reading difficulties. Five realms addressed by the National indicant Panel as fundamental to student success in literacy acquisition are assessed in the BAS. These are phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. The assessment also addresses student motivation and interest in overall reading. According to the official athletic field study document of the assessmentThe field data were collected systematically and analyzed on an ongoing basis to determine the programs achievement of its accusatives. Reports were highly-developed and used as a basis for determining the soundness, complexities, and utility of the program. receiv fitted to the process incorporating ongoing feedback gathered by examine quizzers, the program authors and developers were able to make informed decisions regarding adjustments and refinements. At the conclusion of the field study, an independent data-analysis police squad was brought in to evaluate the programs reliability and hardiness. This formative research was conducted in devil phases. Phase I of the study addressed research questions 1 and 2 Phase II addressed research question 3. Prior to the formative evaluation, an editorial process was used to establish the text leveling.Field exam include a total of 497 students spanning grades K-8. Field testing of System 1 included 252 students and System 2 included 245 students. School sites from which these students were drawn were socioeconomically, ethnically, and geographically diverse. The research goal was to identify typical students. Accordingly, students were selected on the basis of their ability to read and understand texts that were written approximately at grade level or above. Participants were also proficient speakers of English.Each field test examiner determined an individual students eligibility after discussing his or her reading profile with their various(prenominal) teachers. Thirteen field-test examiners were selected. All field-test examiners were educators who had extensive training in administering running records and in utilise early(a) forms of benchmark assessments to assess students reading levels. Field-test examiners were not affiliated with the field sites and therefore could be objective in both identifying students and in administering assessments. Prior to the beginning of the field testing, a two-day intensive training session led by the authors, guided the fie ld-test examiners in the formative evaluations protocols and procedures. A total of 22 different schools participated in field testing of either System 1 or System 2 (some schools participated in both field tests). Field testing took place across the next geographic regions of the United States Boston Metropolitan area 1 examiner 1 school / Providence, Rhode Island 1 examiner 2 schools / Houston Metropolitan area 2 examiners 5 schools / Los Angeles area 4 examiners 6 schools / Columbus, OH, area 3 examiners 5 schools / Orlando, FL, area 2 examiners 3 schools. (Field find out of Reliability and Validity of the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark perspicacity Systems 1 and 2). (Fountas and Pinnell, 2011, pp. 2-3)Assessment carriage and ContentThe assessment includes two options of books for each level- System 1 (Grades K-2, Levels A-N) contains 28 Books (14 Fiction and 14 Nonfiction) and System 2 (Grades 3-8, Levels L-Z) contains 30 Books (15 Fiction and 15 Nonfiction). The Fountas and Pinnell levels gradient is a defined continuum of char make foreristics related to the level of subscribe and challenges that a reader meets in a text. At each level (A to Z) texts are analyzed using ten characteristics (1) genre/form (2) text twist (3) content (4) themes and ideas (5) language and literary features (6) sentence complexity (7) vocabulary (8) word difficulty (9) illustrations/graphics and (10) book and print features. Texts are leveled using a highly reliable process in which teams of trained teachers, working severally and then through consensus, assign a level to books after analyzing them match to the ten factors. They are then analyzed by Fountas and Pinnell. The benchmark books were real created to precisely match the gradient, and they were independently analyzed using the same process. (Heinemann, 2011)The Assessment Guide to the BAS describes the administration of the assessment as followsThe students appropriate reading level for the assessment to be adm inistered is based in the students current guided reading level, or can be determined by a Where to arrive word list that was developed by the authors to assist examiners in right away placing a student at his or her appropriate reading level. Next, the administer is to assess the students ability to read and comprehend three levels of books. They are to determine one book that is easy the students independent reading level one book that offered just enough difficult vocabulary and/or concepts to make the reading interesting and challenging , the students instructional reading level and a third book that was too challenging the students hard reading level. the true of reading guidelines, consistent with Fountas and Pinnells framework (2006b), is as follows independent level (95-100 share accuracy) instructional level (90-94 percent accuracy), and hard level (below 90 percent accuracy). (Fountas Pinnell, pp. 180-181)The assessment should be given in the classroom or other fam iliar setting. A reasonably quiet and comfortable environment is inevitable so that distractions do not interfere with the assessment. All materials should be deposit to go accessible to the teacher, so that the assessment may run smoothly with few distractions. If the student bes to be getting frustrated after reading one or two texts, it may be necessary to discover the assessment and begin at a later time.Each of the areas assessed relates to the content and sub-content (in various levels) taught to kindergarten through eighth grade students during their literacy block. The BAS lets the administrator think somewhat, assess and identify a variety of different skills and strategies the reader may have strengths or deficits in. It is designed to measure progress in each of the sub-skills in a way that informs instruction. It is linked to a continuum of observable behaviors to assess and teach for at every level. (Heinemann, 2011) Each teacher in grades kindergarten through eig hth grade has a copy of the continuum. The assessment format is similar to the snug assessments (running records and conferring with readers) used in the classroom. These informal assessments are used periodically end-to-end the quarter. The Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System does require a more in-depth conversation than traditional classroom conferences.The students fluency level is also assessed using the following criteria Readers phrase or group words, through intonation, stress, and pauses. They emphasize the beginnings and endings of phrases by the lift and falling of pitch or by pausing. Students adhere to the authors syntax or sentence structure, reflecting their comprehension. Readers are expressive their reading reflects feeling, anticipation, and character development. Once a students instructional reading level is determined, the student is engaged in a comprehension conversation closely that particular book. If students are unresponsive or give an inco mplete response, educators may prompt them according to a influence set of questions. Next, the teacher rates the students perceptiveness of a text using the Fountas and Pinnell comprehension guidelines. The areas are rated on a scale from 0-3 Thinking within the text, thinking beyond the text and thinking some the text.Evaluating the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment SystemA review of the benchmark assessment shows no slash towards individuals or groups based on race, ethnicity, gender or disabilities. Students with disabilities are given the assessment that aligns with their individual progress along the literacy continuum and text gradient for the reader. At times, when the fluency level is timed, an educator may note on the post specific speech issues. All other accommodations as mandated by their IEPs are allowed. The assessment is used to determine reading ability, therefore, students with IEPs requiring that test be read for certain circumstance are not allowed this accommodation for the benchmark. The wording and content of the benchmark assessment is predominately age and grade appropriate. However, for students reading extremely below their age or grade level peers, the text may seem immature for their age. The gradient levels of difficulty of the text chosen for the assessment were guardedly thought out and field tested.I feel the content validity of the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System can be improved by adding a more rigorous requirement in the writing about reading area. I do not feel that one prompt adequately show how a student can write about reading. In addition, I feel that as students move into the older grades, that comprehension should be judged more on the students writing about the text than a comprehension conversation. One other area of the assessment could be improved. on that point are only two books, one fiction and one nonfiction, at each level. This does not give educators much room for error or sp ecial education teachers room to reassess at a similar level, identifying strengths in a particular sub-content and not just text level gradient.There is at least one circumstance per buns, with some items having more than one item per target. Some of the sub-content areas did not have a target for each taxonomy level, but with further investigation (into the upper grade Benchmark Assessment, possibly) it would most likely cover each taxonomy level. In addition, each item does belong on the assessment and relates to a specific sub-content area/taxonomy level. The Illinois drill Standards addressed include 1.A.1b Comprehend unfamiliar words using scene clues and prior knowledge verify meanings with resource materials, 1.B.1c Continuously check and clear up for reason (e.g., reread, read ahead, use visual and context clues, ask questions, retell, use pregnant substitutions), 1.B.2d Read age-appropriate material aloud with fluency and accuracy, 1.C.2b Make and support inferences and form meter readings about main themes and topics, 1.C.2d Summarize and make generalizations from content and relate to purpose of material, 1.C.2e Explain how authors and illustrators use text and art to express their ideas (e.g., points of view, design hues, metaphor), 1.C.1f Use information presented in simple tables, maps and charts to form an interpretation, 2.A.2b Describe how literary elements (e.g., theme, character, setting, plot, tone, conflict) are used in literature to create meaning and 2.B.1a oppose to literary materials by connecting them to their get experience and communicate those responses to others.Classroom Assessment Blueprint and Learning TargetsThe classroom assessment blueprint and the list of study targets appear below. Assessment items and the number of the associated learning target are included in the blueprint. opineingUnderstandingApplyingAnalyzingEvaluatingCreatingTotalTargetsWord Analysis Skills1. depict the meaning of unfamiliar words using prior knowledge2. break up the meaning of unfamiliar words using context clues.22. Monitors own understanding and accuracy.20. Constructs literal meaning of the text through solving words.4Reading Strategies4. Reads primarily in larger, meaningful phrases or word groups.23. Predicts information about the text.5. Demonstrates fluency by reading using mostly smooth, expressive interpretation and pausing guided by authors meaning and punctuation.3. Assess and clarify for understanding (e.g., reread, read ahead, use visual and context clues, ask questions, retell, and use meaningful substitutions).4Comprehend Reading Materials6. devolve ideas by reference to details in the text.18. pose the main ideas and supporting details of a flooring or fiction passage.9. Summarize a story or non-fiction passage.19. Demonstrate sharp understanding of the text through summarizing. (Includes just about all important information and main ideas.)10. Demonstrate understanding of characters in a sto ry or non-fiction passage (i.e. through retell).11. account connections with prior knowledge or in-person experiences.25. Infers what is implied but not stated in the text.22. Monitors own understanding and accuracy.** cardinal places**17. Tell the main idea of a non-fiction paragraph.27. Write a response about the reading (from given prompt).10Literary Elements and Techniques7. fructify setting in a story or fiction passage.8. Recall chronological succession of events.12. Summarize the major events in a narrative.29. Demonstrate an understanding of the foxiness and structure of a text (literary language, story structure, perspective, etc.).16. Distinguish elements of the authors craft.30. Support knowledge and ideas (and act on them) to include ones thinking by writing in response to text15. Construct chronological sequence of events after reading a story or fiction passage.7Literary Works24. pose key details when summarizing a story or non-fiction passage.28. call up and rep ort key ideas and details from texts, including understanding characters.13. Point out the authors purpose.14. fork out how the authors purpose affects the interpretation of the reading selection.26. Tells new information by synthesizing and ever-changing own ideas.5Learning TargetsStudents will be able to1. Identify the meaning of unfamiliar words using prior knowledge.2. Discover the meaning of unfamiliar words using context clues.3. Assess and clarify for understanding (e.g., reread, read ahead, use visual and context clues, ask questions, retell, and use meaningful substitutions).4. Reads primarily in larger, meaningful phrases or word groups.5. Demonstrates fluency by reading using mostly smooth, expressive interpretation and pausing guided by authors meaning and punctuation.6. Recall ideas by reference to details in the text.7. Define setting in a story or fiction passage.8. Recall sequence of events.9. Summarize a story or non-fiction passage.10. Demonstrate understanding of characters in a story or non-fiction passage (i.e. through retell).11. Identify connections with prior knowledge or personal experiences.12. Summarize the major events in a narrative.13. Point out the authors purpose.14. Interpret how the authors purpose affects the interpretation of the reading selection.15. Construct chronological sequence of events after reading a story or fiction passage.16. Distinguish elements of the authors craft.17. Tell the main idea of a non-fiction paragraph.18. Identify the main ideas and supporting details of a story or fiction passage.19. Demonstrate excellent understanding of the text through summarizing. (Includes almost all important information and main ideas.)20. Constructs literal meaning of the text through solving words.22. Monitors own understanding and accuracy.23. Predicts information about the text.24. Identify key details when summarizing a story or non-fiction passage.25. Infers what is implied but not stated in the text.26. Tells new in formation by synthesizing and changing own ideas.27. Write a response about the reading (from given prompt).28. Remember and report key ideas and details from texts, including understanding characters.29. Demonstrate an understanding of the craft and structure of a text (literary language, story structure, perspective, etc.).30. Support knowledge and ideas (and act on them) to include ones thinking by writing in response to text.