DYNAMIC ASSESSMENT OF READING ABILITIES

Josef Balazic

A thesis submftted in canformity with t h e requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts

Graduate Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto

@ Copyright by Josef Ba laz ic 1997

National Library 1*1 of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques

395 Wellington Street 395, nie Wellington Ottawa ON KfA ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence dowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thése sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfilm, de

reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation.

Dynamic Assessment of Reading Abilit ies Josef Balazic Masters of Arts, 1997

Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto

Abstract

The effectiveness of dynamic assessment compared to static

assessment of reading abilities was investigated in this study.

Thirty nine children participated in this study who were reading

below the 25th percentile for their chronological age based on

the Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (WRAT 3). The participants were

students who experfenced word recognition difficulties, and

ranged from 8 to 11 years of age. They were placed into three

groups and were tested in three sessions: a pretest,

treatment/assessment, and a posttest session. The main dependent

variable was o r a l reading and the independent variable was

dynamic assessment at three levels: a Static control ( S ) ; and two

Dynamic reading groups ( P h o n e m i c Prompt, PP and Phonemic Prompt

with Contextual Mediation, PPCM). The results showed that at

posttest: ( a ) children ln the PPCM group did not produce higher

reading scores than children in the PP group, but did score

higher than children in the S group; and, (b) children in the PP

group scored higher on reading ability than children in the S

group. These findings demonstrate that D y n a m i c Assessment of

reading a b i l i t i e s compliments S t a t i c Assessment by providing more

information about the studentls reading profile.

Acknowledgements

The author expresses gratitude to Linda S. Siegel P ~ J . for

her immeasurable support and direction as the thesis advisor

during this research study. Appreciation 1s extended to Ton

Humphries Ph.D. for acting as a member of the thesis committee.

His inquiry and suggestions were most helpful to the editing

process . Thanks also t o Earlscourt Child and Family Centre i n Toronto

for recognizinq the relevance of this study, and to David Day

Ph.D. for his comments regarding the manuscript.

Thank you to Wide Range, Inc, for granting copyright

permission for the use of the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT

3 ) for reading.

The author wishes recognise the Metropolitan Separate School

Board in Toronto for endorsing this study in their schools, and

acknowledging this as a relevant project to education. Finally,

thanks to the students who inspired this project.

T a b l e of Conten t s "

Title Page

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Appendices

f ntroduction

Method

Data Analysls

Discussion

Limitations

References

ii

iii

L i s t of Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of Part ic ipants in Study by Group 11

Table 2 : Pretest Treatment Posttest Design for S ta t i c and Dynamic Assessrnent Groups

Table 3 : Mean Raw Reading Scores (SD) f o r S t a t i c and Dynamic Groups by Sessions

Table 4 : Mean Gain Scores (SD) for Groups 2 0

Table 5 : Analysis of Variance for Comparing Group by Pretest, Treatment, Posttest and Gain Scores

L i s t of Appendices

Appendix A: WRAT 3 Tan Words and Phonemic Prompts Dynamic Assessment 1

AppendLx B: Phonemic Prompt Contextual Mediation Dynamic Assessment 2

Appendix C: WRAT 3 Tan Words Corresponding to Posttest Transfer Sentences

Appendix D: WRAT 3 Blue Words Corresponding to Posttest Transfer Sentences

Appendix E: Method of Administration of Tan and Blue Forms to Subjects

Dynamic assessment attempts to modify the studentls

performance during testing by introducing material or

ins truct ions to elicit higher achievement levels (Embretson,

1987). The value of employing the dynamic mode1 of assessment

compared to static assessment for students with special needs has

been postulated (Budof f , 1987b; Feuerstein, Rand, Jensen, Kaniel

& Tzurlel 1987; Lidz, 1987). In order for dynamic assessment to

be an accepted method of testfng students, the dynamic assessment

procese should be evaluated. Laughon (1990) evaluated three

approacbes ta dynamlc assessment and concluded that there were

difficultlee with the reliability and validity of the measures

used with dynamic asrmessment. Laughon suggested that more

reaearch was needed in this area.

Similarly, Lidz (1992) uurveyed psychology trainerst

perceptions of dynamic assessment as a viable method of cognitive

assessment. It wa8 reported that a lack of technical adequacy,

research support, and time necessary for adniinistration were

major limitations for employing dynamic asseesment in practice . There are also few etudies which examine the relationship

between dynamic assessment and oral reading. The majority of

articles appear to addrese dynamic asseasment in reading from a

theoretical framework tather than providing any enpirical data

( e . ~ . , Carney & Cioffi, 1992; Carney & Cioffi, 1990; Cioffi &

Carney, 1983).

Dynamic assessment of reading abilities should compliment

the traditional static method which utilizes standardized n o m

referenced instruments. Esch model of assessment has its own

particular strengths and weaknesses.

S t a t i c assessment aims to idegtify the student's word

recognition skills related to grade level or chronological age

(Carney & Cioffi, 1990). This 1s a product oriented model which

follows the restorative apptoach to intervention in special

education. In bath the static assessment and dynamic assessment

models the student may be referred for assessment outside the

niainstream classroom settinq (Jordan, Kircaali-Iftar & Diamond,

1993).

Static assessment of reading abilities measures the

studentfs achievement in reading. The examiner may ask the

student to read a word list until 10 consecutive words are

missed. This usually reflects where the student stands relative

ta a normative group rank. Although decoding xniscues can be

analyzed, generally the aim 1s t o determine the studentrs reading

skills at one isolated point in time ( C i o f f i & Carney, 1 9 8 3 ) .

Conversely, dynamic assessment 1s designed to investigate

how students respond to instruction during the assessment

procedure. Therefore, when diagnosing reading problems, the

emphasis f a on collectfng information related to the s t ra teg i e s

that are used by the student during the reading decoding process

(Carney & Ciofff, 1992). The dynamic assessment approach to

diagnosing reading ptoblems attempts to identify the etudentts

learning potential as defined by ~ygo2sky's zone of proximal

development. The zone of proximal development 'refers to the level

3

of performance a s tuden t can reach independently, compared t o t h e

l e v e l that can be reached guided by a more knowledgeable

pa r t i c ipan t (Campfone, Brown, Jones, Ferrara & Steinberg, 1985).

Two levels of development are determined in t h e dynamic

assessment model: t h e "actual l e v e l of development," and the

l e v e l of " p o t e n t i a l d e v e l ~ p m e n t . ~ The l e v e l of " ac tua l

developmentn incorporates the cogni t ive func t ions t h a t have

matured i n the student as a result of a l ready coxnpleted

developmental cycles (Vygotsky, 1 9 7 8 ) . For i n s t ance , it 18

assumed t h a t a s tuden t whose phonemic awareness s k i l l s a r e f u l l y

developed w i l l o r a l l y decode t h e word nhorlzon~ independently, o r

without t h e a s s i s t a n c e of a pee r o r an adu l t . T h i s "ac tua l

developeental l e v e l n is t y p i c a l l y assessed by employing a

standardized t e s t , such as a nom referenced graded word l i s t .

The second l e v e l , 1s the l e v e l of " p o t e n t i a l development."

This level defines t h e cogni t ive functions t h a t have not yet

matured i n t h e s tuden t , but are i n the process of maturation

(Vygotsky, 1 9 7 8 ) . The l eve l of "po ten t ia l developmentI1 is

determined dur ing dynamic assessment. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n a

standardized test 1s adminïstered which also employs leading

question8 and h i n t s provided by t h e assessor. When the s tudent 1s

unable to independently decode t h e word nhorizonv the assessor

may prompt t h e student by po in t ing and asking t h e etudent t o

emulate t h e sound of t h e l e t t e r llhw. Should t h i s f a i l t h e

assessor may model o r t e l l the l e t t e r and e n t i r e word t o the

s tudent . When t h e s tuden t imi t a t e s o r reads the word i n

4

collaboration with the assessor, it indicates those reading

skills that are still maturing in the student, hence the level of

"potential development."

Furthermore, when a student has difficulty reading a word,

the tester modifies the teating format with cues and mediation

strategies that are hypothesized to foster success. By exploring

the studentls responses to reading in dynamic assessment, the

examiner not only identifies the level at whfch the student is

functioning, but also identifies the instructional programniing

strategies which when implemented, may lead to a higher reading

level, or an improved reading ability. In the dynamic assessment

process the distance between the ''actual developmental level" as

determined by independent problem solving, and the level of

"potential developmentgv as determined through collaboration with

peers or adults, 1s defined as the zone of proximal development.

(Vygotsky, 1978).

The zone of proximal development may be determined in the

following rnanner. When a 12 year old student achievee an I1actual

developmental leveln score at the at the 30th percentile, and a

"potential developmental levelw score at the 75th percentile with

adult collaboration, the zone of proximal development la the

difference between 75 and 30, or 45 percentlle points. The range

of 45 indicatm the studentls learning potential as achieved with

peer or adult aaeistance. Accordinq to Vygotsky (19781, the level

of "potential developrnentw today will become the "actual

developmental levelm tomortow. The student will achieve the

5

"actual level of developmentw with specialized instructional

intervention.

Dynamic assessment may be useful when investigating the

relationships between reading and memory. In a recent study of

129 children and young adults between the agee of 5 to 18 years

Swanson (1992) studied whether dynamic assessment can modify

working memory as a predictor of reading ability. He used a

dynamic probing procedure, which included graduated prompts and

hints, to analyze responses when the participants failed to

recsll words from their working memoriee. Fos example, when the

participant did not recall the correct order of words in a

rhyminq task the experimenter telle the participant one of the

words: "the last word ln the sequence 1s Y a P , now can you tell

me the words in orderm (p.482). The dynamic assessment model used

in this study was based on the work of Campione, Brown, Ferrara,

Jones & Steinberg (1985) which focused on measuring cognition by

the numbet of hints which are necessary to achieve success in a

ta&. This model 1s known as cognitive modifiability. Swanson

found that reading performance related to recalling words from

the participantla workfng memory improved with dynamic

assessment. These reaults supported the notion that dynamic

testing procedures enhance predictions of reading.

Spector (1992) compared the effecta of dynamic assessment

versus static assessaent on predicting phonemic awareness ln 38

kindergarten students over a one year period. The study compared

static phonemic awareness tasks wfth a dynamic phonemic awareness

t a sk .

The s t a t i c assessment was the Yopp-Singer phoneme

segmentation task . T h e dynamic assessment procedure was the same

test , but included tasks with prompts i n t h e form of cor rec t ive

feedback when ch i ld ren experienced d i f f i c u l t y with l e t t e r

recogni t ion and phonemic segmentation t a s k s . For ins tance when a

ch i ld was unable t o pronounce a t a r g e t word, t h e asseeso t asked

the c h i l d t o i d e n t i f y the f i r s t sound of the word. Also, the

segments of the word were modeled by ueing pennies t o represent

each sound i n t h e word. The chi ldren were aseeseed i n t h e fa11 on

recep t ive vocabulary, letter and word recogni t ion, invented

spe l l i ng , phoneae segmentation, phoneme d e l e t i o n and dynamic

phoneme segmentation. The pa r t i c ipan t s were r e t e e t e d a t the end

of t h e school year on reading s p e l l i n g and phoneme awarenees.

Spector found t h a t dynamic assessnent of phonemic segmentation

tasks was a b o t t e r predictor of year end reading scores than

s t a t i c assessrnent procedures. These sco re s increased by

approximately one h a l f s tandard dev ia t ion .

In a study which compared dynamic and s t a t i c assessment of

reading a b i l i t i e s f o r etudent placement i n remedial programmes,

Kragler ( 1991) examined 2 1 third grade s tuden t s who were

experiencing reading problems. The p a r t i c i p a n t s were administered

t h e Houghton n i f f l i n Informal Reading Inventory as t h e p r e t e s t .

T h i s was a c r i t e r i o n referenced graded reading passage.

Vocabulary wae s e l e c t e d from t h e p r e t e s t and was used i n the

treatment measure. T h e con t ro l group rece ived a t r a d i t i o n a l

l esson format for l ea rn ing the vocabulary which resembled a

s t a t i c teaching method. The par t i c ipan t s were taught a repeated

reading method followed by s t o r y t e l l i n g . T h e participants i n the

dynamic group were administered a mediated procedure which

included lea rn ing and reading vocabulary i n contex t . For

ins tance , a f t e r a word was read t o the s tuden t a s e r i e s of

guiding questions were presented t o a s s i s t the s tudent wlth a

d e f i n i t i o n , and c r e a t i n g a sentence using that word. The p o s t t e s t

was t h e same assessment t h a t was employed as the pretest. Tbere

was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e rence between the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e

dynamlc group compared t o participants i n t h e s t a t i c group. The

p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e dynanic n~ses8ment group achieved higher

reading scores i n the p o s t t e s t .

The emphasis i n the Kragler ' s study was t o employ dynamic

assessment of reading s k i l l s during i n t e r a c t i v e complex

ind iv idua l ized i n s t r u c t i o n . The design of th18 s tudy modeled a

r egu la r classroom environment while examining s t a t i c and dynamic

assessment f o r i n s t r u c t i o n . Thia method r e f l e c t s the preventa t ive

mode1 i n rpecial education where remedial i n t e rven t ion is

provided i n a main~tream s e t t i n g with co l labora t ion between the

resource and the r egu la r classroom teachers (Jordan, Kircaal i -

Iftar & Diamond, 1993) .

fiowever, dynanic assessment o f reading abilities can al60 be

administered within a r e s t o r a t i v e specia l education framework.

This 1s a method of s p e c i a l education intervention which 1s

common i n many Ontario school boards (Ontario 'Regulat ion, 1988).

8

I n order to i d e n t i f y a pupil as exceptional t he I d e n t i f i c a t i o n

Placement and Review Cornmittee (IPRC) must employ a standardized

psychological assessment, whlch usually includes an assessment of

t he s tuden ts reading performance. In t h i s mode1 a dynamic

assessment approach t o testing may be used. For ins tance , a

s tandardized test is modified w i t h b t i e f prompts and mediation

s t r a t e g i e s . T h i s 1s known as I t tes t ing the l i m i t s w of a

s tandardized test, t o determine the studentîs learning p o t e n t i a l

in reading (Spector , 1992) . Dynamic asseesment compliments s t a t i c assessment i n t h i s

method of t e e t i n g . In a d d i t i o n t o i den t i fy ing the studentls zone

of proximal development, observat ions of the s tudent 's reading

miacues are recordad i n more deta i l compared t o s t a t i c

assessment, which does not u t i l i z e prompts o r cues. I n dynamic

assessment the assessor prompts the s tuden t w i t h phonemic cues,

or models e n t i r e words. For ins tance , we may find t h a t the

studentts reading score8 are higher with dynarnic prompte and

mediation compared t o t h e s t a t i c scores which do not use these

strategies. Moreover, as se s so r and s tudent co l labora t ion during

dynamic assesantent may provide more information with respect t o

word ana lys fs skills, compared t o static assessment where the

s tudent is not involved l n mediation wi th t h e assessor. Reading

compreheneion skille aay also be examined during rec ip roca l

teaching s t r a t e g i e s that are employed with dynamic assessment

(Carney 6 C i o f f i , 1 9 9 0 ) .

Carney and Cioffi ( 1 9 9 2 ) ptoposed t he idea t h a t dynamic

9

assessment of word recognition skills should include different

instructional episodes with varylng levels of cornplexity. For

instance, when the student fails t o read a new word the assessor

may begin with prompting syllables. Should this f a i l , the word

could be placed Fnto a context and presented in a sentence. In

theory, different dynamic approaches to assessment will provide a

more elaborate profile of the student's oral reading abilities.

There are still very f e w studies examining the relationship

between readfng and dyaamic aesessment. More studies are needed

which examine thle relationship (Spector, 1992). Purthemore,

there appears to be a lack of studies which investigate the

"test ing the limitsn approach to standardized tests of reading

performance. A more detailed account of studentsr strengths and

weaknesses can be provided by using a dynamic assessment approach

to assessing reading abilitfes in special education studente.

This information would lead to more effective instructional

programming during remediation, resulting in improved reading

abilities for the atudent.

The main purpose of this rrtudy was to examine the

differences between the dynamic and static assessment of reading

abilities, while employing a restorative special education model,

uith students who were experiencing word recognition reading

problems, and who were reading below the 25th percentile for

their chronological age. Th18 study also compared the differences

between the two dynamic asaessments employed as the

treatment/assessment measures: Phonemic Prompt ( D y n a m i c

10

Assessment 1, PP: prompting the student with phoneric cues) and

Phonemic Prompt with Contextual Mediation (Dynamic Assesement 2 ,

PPCM: teaching the student words i n context) .

Hypothesis

students in the dynamic assesament groups are expected to

produce higher reading scores than students i n the s t a t i c

asseesment group. Students i n the Phonemic Prompt with

Contextual Mediation group are expected to produce higher reading

scores than students i n the Phonemic Proapt group. The second

research hypothesis was based on work by Carney and C i o f f i ( 1992 )

who proposed that more asseesor intervention during tes t ing could

e l i c i t higher reading scores.

MethoCl

ParticiPants

The participants were 39 elementary students between grades

3 and 5, who were experiencing word recognitian reading

difficulties. These students exhibited the following

characteristics as described by thefr teachers: difficulty with

word recognition s k i l l s , or reading words in a connected t ex t .

The sample included both female and male students who were

between the ages of 8 and Il years. One-way ANOVAfs across groups

( S , PP and P P m ) were conducted, and no signif icant d i f ferences

were found for the following variables: age E ( 2 , 3 6 ) = .16 E >

n s , and percent i n reading lag on the WRAT 3 reading subtest

( 2 , 36 ) = 1.79 E > ns. Characteristics of participants are given

in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristici of part ic ipants i n Study %y Croup

Characterist ics s PP PPCM

Sex

Fernale (n=18 ) 4 Male (n=21) 7

WRAT 3 Reading Lag 25th Percentile or Less

Chronoloqical Age In nonths

S = S t a t i c Group; PP = Phonemic Prompt PPCM = Phonemic Prompt Contextual Wedlation

12

The participants were from eight elamentary schools in the

Toronto area. Three of the schools were located in suburban

residential areas, and five schools were from inner city

neighbourhoods. The selection of the participants was based on

recommendations of the studentst teachers along with a sfgned

consent from the parent(s) or guardian(s).

Desian

The procedure for the adniinistration of the experiment

followed the rertorative model of assessment. In this model the

assessor u ~ u a l l y ha8 had little previous contact with the

participants. The reetorative model also requires that a

standardized assessrnent procedure l a employed, and that the

assesament is completed in one or two sessions within a short

period of time (Jordan, Kricaallf-Iftar & Diamond, 1993).

The experiment was composed of a randoiized 3 group pretest,

posttest, control group design. The experimental design 1s shown

in Table 2. The Instrument used in this study was the Wide Range

Achievement Test 3 for Reading (WRAT 3), and two dynamic

assesementa derigned by the reeearcher (Wilkinson, 1993). The

WRAT 3 resding eubtest included Blue and Tan aqulvalent foms for

word recognition. Both atandardized reading foras were used in

the design. Half of the participants received the Blue form and

half received the Tan form. This procedure wae implemented to

control for between form reliability; biaa in the forms; and, to

a ~ s u r e that al1 participants had an opportunity to be tested

using both the Tan and Blue forms. ~dministration time using one

Table 2

Pretest Treatment/Assessment P o s t t e s t Design for Static and Dynamic Assessrnent Groups

Groups Treatments/Assessment

S = Static Control Treatment/Assessment ( S ) PP = Dyriamic 1 Phonemic Prompt Treatment/Arreessient (PP) PPCM = Dynamic 2 Phonemic Prompt Contextual Mediation (PPCH)

14

form of the WRAT 3 reading subtest was 30 minutes. Since each

participant received both forms, and the administration time was

kept consistent, the study was conducted in two 30 minute

sessions one week apart.

A l 1 the participants were administered a pretest. Half of

the participantu received the WRAT 3 Blue reading form, and the

other half of the participants received the WRAT 3 Tan reading

form (see Appendix C and Appendix Dl. This pretest was used i n

the standardized format and was al60 employed as a screening

inetrument for participant se lec t ion . Participants were selected

as having reading d l f f iculties if they scored below the 25th

percentile on the WRAT 3 reading subtest. The pretest took 30

minutes per participant.

One week after the pretest, the participants were randomly

assigned to 1 control group (Stat ic Assessment) and to 2

treatment/assessment groups (PP and PPCM). One half of the

control group were adminirtered the WRAT 3 Tan form and the other

h a l f of these participante received the Wrat 3 Blue form (see

Appendix 8 ) . The aasessor adhered to the normal administration

procedures as outlined in the WRAT 3 administration manual.

The treatment/assessment groups were administered modified

versions of either the WRAT 3 Tan and Blue forms which included

Phonemic Prompts (PP ) and Phonemic Prompts wi th Contextual

Mediation (PPCM). Each assessment session laeted a duration of

30 minutes. These modified assessments are deacribed in the Task

section below.

15

fmmediately after the control and treatment/assessment

measures, both the control and treatment/assessment groups

received a near transfer posttest as a criterion learning

measure. The participants were tested by the researcher in rooms

designated for psycho-educational assessments at the schools

where the students attended classes.

Tasks

The pretest and control group measures followed the

standardized assessrnent procedures as outlined in the WRAT 3

administration manual. The test was discontfnued when the

individual missed 10 consecutive words. Ten seconds were allowed

for the individual t a respond (Wilkinson, 1993 p. 12). The last

correct letter or word was recorded along w i t h the raw score for

each participant. In addition, the reading errors that were made

by the participant were recorded on c a s s e t t e tape. The authors of

the WRAT 3 measured the stability of their test by using a test

retest method. They reported corrected stability coefficients

that ranged from .91 to . 9 8 . Correlations on raw scores between

the alternate Tan and Blue forms ranged from .87 to .99

(Wilkinson, 1 9 9 3 ) .

For the Phonemic Prompt strategy (PP), the participant read

from the Tan or Blue form reading eubtest. Each participant read

from the alternate form which he or she received in the p r e t e s t .

The procedures followed the instructions as outlined in the WRAT

3 administration manual. When the participant experfenced

difficulties with decoding, the assessor began the Phonemic

16

Prompt s t ra tegy . The test was discontinued when t h e student

f a i l e d to decode t en consecutive words with t h e Phonemic Prompt

strategy in place. The l a s t word c o r r e c t l y read by the s tudent

was recorded.

Thia dynamic measure was developed by the researcher and was

based on previous s t u d i e s related t o dynamic assessrnent and

l e a rn ing po ten t fa l (Budoff, 1987a; Spector (1992). In th18

treatment/assessment measure the p a r t i c i p a n t was given phonemic

cues from modified WRAT 3 Tan and Blue reading forms. This

reflected how well the student read with ass i s tance fram t h e

assessor. The object ive was twofold. F i r s t , to ga ther information

related t o t he phonemic awareness a b i l i t i e s of the student, and

second, t o test the l i m i t s o r l ea rn ing po ten t ia l r e l a t e d t o the

participant's decoding skills ( ~ e e Appendix A ) .

The second dynamic measure was the Phonemic Prompt

Contextual Mediation s t r a t e g y (PPCM) which was administered to

t h e second treatment/assessnent group. This measure was developed

by the researchet and was based on the previous research

conducted by Palincsar and Brown (1984) related to inductive

teaching strateqles. The aim of t h i s dynamic contextual mediation

strategy wae to engage the student in dialogue during t h e process

of l e a rn ing t o read a new word.

In t h i s task a word from the WRAT 3 graded word l i s t was

placed i n t o meaningful context f o r t h e pa r t i c ipan t s . The s tudent

attempted t o learn the word as the assessor used a serfes of

teaching models i n the form of ques t ions , c l a r i f f c a t i o n s ,

extensions and summaries. T h i s strategy was also used witb

Phonemic Prompts. Contextual Mediation was employed as soon as

the student had d f f f i c u l t y decoding a word with prompts. ~ h i s

strategy was discontinued when the participant experienced

frustration with the task. Throughout the task the participant

was told the word by using the following teaching strategies:

modellinq, prompting, and mediation. Al1 the words that the

participant experienced success with during this mediation task

were recorded. The dialogue between the participant and the

assessor was also recorded on cassette tape. This information

included the assessorg questions and the participants responses

to the contextual mediation task (see Appendix B).

The final stage of the experlaient was the p o s t t e s t which was

designed as a near transfer learning test. The goal was to

meaaure the participant's a b i l i t y to transfer knowledge of the

words irnmediately after they were learned in the control and

treatment/assessment phases. In this task the student read

modified sentences which contained words from the WRAT 3 Tan and

Blue graded word Iists. These were the same words used in the

treatment/assessment phase. The participants received the

alternate form to the one they received in the pretest.

Accordingly, half of the students i n each group received the Blue

form and half received the Tan form. This task was the same for

al1 groups. This test was designed by the researcher. ft focused

on sentence structure that was a t the grade one and two reading

levels. The purpose of this test was to facilftate the transfer

18

process for al1 groups by controlling for new words that might

present difficulty for the participant. The words for the

sentences were selected from graded word lists found in The

Brigance Diagnostic Inventory of Basis Skills (Brigance, 1982)

and T h e Instant words reading inventory (Fry, 1972).

The transfer task was administered to al1 groups immediately

after the control and treatment/assessment interventions. Half of

the participants in each group recelved the Blue form and half

received the Tan forni. T h e students were asked t o read the

sentences which contained the WRAT 3 words independently, with

out prompts or mediation. The t e s t was discontfnued after the

participant experienced difffculty, or appeared frustrated with

at least 5 consecutive sentences. The target words from the Tan

and Blue WRAT 3 word lists which were read correctly by the

participant in the sentence, were recorded (see Appendix C and

D). A raw score o f one was assigned to each word read correctly.

Data Analysla

The dependent variable for this study was oral reading from

the reading subtest list found in the Tan and Blue alternate

forms of the Wfde Range Achfevement T e s t 3 (WRAT 3). The

independent variable was three different assessment strategies:

Static Assessment (SI; Dynamic Asseesment 1 (PP); and Dynamic

Assessment 2 (PPCM). The findings for both raw (posttest) and

gain scores confirmed the main research hypotheses for this

study: that students in the dynamic assessment groups (PP & PPCM)

were expected to produce higher reading scores than students in

19

the static assessrnent group (SI; however students in Dynamic

Assessment 2 (PPCH) did not produce higher reading scores than

students in the Dynamic Assessment 1 group (PP) as was predicted

in the second research hypothesis.

The statistical design for this study was a One-way ANOVA

with three levels of the independent variable; which was group

(S, PP, PPCM). Separate ANOVAS were run for each of the three

sessions. Table 3 shows the mean scores for each group ( 5 , PP,

PPCH) durfng the three sessions (Pretest, Treatment/Assessment,

and Transfer), and Table 4 shows the meana for the gain scores.

Table 5 shows a series of one-way ANOVA comparisons for the

following group results: the groups were not significantly

different at the pretest session, E(2,36) = . 6 5 g > ns; but

significant effects were observed a t the treatment/assessment

session; E(2,36) = 33.10, Q < .01; at the posttest session,

E(2,36) = 5 . 4 4 , e < A l ; and, the gain scores, ~ ( 2 , 3 6 1 = 20.76, E

< .01. Post hoc comparisons for the raw scores using the Tukey-

HSD procedure indicated that the PPCM Group scored significantly

higher than participants in the S Group during the posttest

session, E < .05. However, no significant differences were

observed between the PPCW Group and the PP Group. Final ly , for

gain scores the Tukey-HSD test showed that the PP and PPCM Groups

scored significantly higher than the S Group, E < . O S , but the PP

Group and the PPCM Group were not significantly different from

each other. An independent group t Test showed no significant

differences by sex, and Spearman Correlation Coefficients were

Table 3

Mean Raw Reading Scores (SD) for Static and Dynamic Groups in each Session

Group Pretest Treatment/ Posttest Assesement

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

S = Static; PP = D y n a m i c 1 Phonemic Prompt; PPCM = Dynamic 2 Phonemic Prompt Contextual Mediation * The Test Ceil ing Was Reached Since Student Waa T o l d The Word

Table 4 Mean Gain Scores (SD) For Groups

Group Mean SD

(R) PPCM 7.00 2.73

S = Static; PP = Dynamlc 1 Phonemic Prompt; PPCM = Dynamic 2 Phonemic Prompt Contextual Mediation

Table 5

One-way ANOVA Comparleons for Group By Pretest , Treatnent/Asseesment, Posttest and Gain Scores

Pretest X Group . 65

Treatment/ X Group 33.10 Assessrnent

Posttest X Group 5 . 4 4

Gain X Group 20.76

not significantly different for sex by gain, and age by

gain (E > ns).

Discussion

This experiment showed that participants in dynamic

assessment with Phonemic Prompts, and Phonemic Prompts with

Contextual Mediation, produced higher reading scores on the WRAT

3 reading subtest, compared to participants in the static

assessment group which followed standardized procedures in the

t e s t ing manual. Differences in reading scores were not observed

between the two dynamic groupe: Phonemic Prompts and Phonemic

Prompts with Contextual Hedfation.

The resulta of this study may be beneficial in the field of

special education in two ways. First, dynamic assessrnent could

provide a more detailed reading profile of the student as

illustrated by the zone of proximal develapwent theory where both

the independent and dyna~aic reading levela are obaerved. Second,

information pertaining to dynamic assessment would provide

insights into assessment for those in the field of education who

employ standardized tests regularly.

Several observations may be made of a student who scores at

a higher reading level with dynamic assessment than a student who

is assessed using only the static method. Embretson ( 1 9 8 7 )

suggested that dynamic assessment may improve the Vrue abilityft

of a student to perform on a task. This idea may be applied to

phonemic awareness. ~y employing Phonemic Prompts for word

recognition skills in a standardized graded word list,

22

information may be gathered regarding phonemic awareness (Carney

and C i o f f i , 1 9 9 0 ) . F o r ins tance , words may be segmented i n t o

initial consonant sounds, vowel rules, digraphs, sy l lables and

morphemes. By probing for this information t h e a s s e s s o r may gain

a broader profile of t h e student's phonemic awareness a b i l i t i e s

compared t o s t a t i c assessment where ass i s tance on tasks is not

permit ted.

The f indings suppor t t he theory t h a t dynamic assessment of

reading abf l i t i e s i s a v a l i d method of observing reading

behaviour. It compliments s t a t i c asseesment by providing more

elaborate information regarding t h e s t u d e n t f s reading p r o f i l e .

Therefore, these f i nd ings provide resea tch support for t h e

relevance of dynamlc assessment t o cogni t ive processes. For

ins tance , cuing o r prompting 1s n o t permitted during the

adminis t ra t ion of the WRAT 3 reading sub tes t . Conversely, by

prompting the s tudent dur ing the dynamic segment of the t e s t , t h e

s tuden t was able t o read t h e word co r r ec t l y . The short "ut' sound

1s a t y p i c a l s u b s t i t u t i o n f o r the "hu" consonant vowel blend i n

t h e word "hugeW from the Tan reading f o m . Often t h e student

reads the word "hugeW as "hugW. m e n t h i s error 1s made t h e

assessor points t o t h e letter "un, and through t h e method of

guided discovery i n s t r u c t s the s tuden t t o retry t h e word by

changing the shor t I1um t o a long "uW sound. The student then

reads the word c o r r e c t l y . Two deductions may be drawn from t h i s

mediated reading intervention. F i r s t , t h e s tudent achieves a

higher reading score . Second, the error made Liy t h e etudent with

23

respect to the letter "un sound defines the phonemic processes

that are still maturing in the student's reading skllls. This

gfves the assessor an indication of the cognitive processes t h a t

will eventually become a part of the studentrs completed

development (Vygotsky, 1978). In other words, we know that the

student is capable of mastering the word "hugel1, and may be able

to assimilate the learned information into a new reading task.

It 1s poeeible that the significance observed in the group

by posttest session (PPCM) was biased. The treatment/asaessment

phase of the study required that the WRAT 3 words be placed into

contextually meaningful sentences during student-asseaaor

dialogue. The posttest was also consposed of the WRAT 3 target

words placed into contextual sentences t o be read by the student.

Therefore, the treatment/assessment phase resembled the posttest

and may have affected the re su l t s .

On the other hand the group by gain score results showed

that participants i n both dynamic groups scored significantly

higher than participants in the static group. Furthemore, no

differences were observed between the two dynamic teaching

levels: Phonemfc Prompt and Phonemic Prompt with Contextual

Eiediation. Hence, both etrategiea appear equally as effective in

producing higher reading scores when compared to static

assessment and the Phonemic Prompt strategy

(treatment/assesement) stands on its own merit since it did not

resemble the posttest.

Both dynamic methods require inductive teaching strategies

24

and dialogue between the assessor and s tudent . T h i s idea is based

on Vygotakyls (1978) theory t h a t we can assess developmental

achievement by obeerving the i n t e r a c t i o n between instruction and

learning. By using ptompting and mediation during a standardized

reading assessment w e obtain a c l e a r e r p i c tu re of the s t u d e n t f s

learning potential. The ain is t o provide a more accurate reading

placement f o r the student by analysing and report lng the

independent and learning po ten t i a l l eve l s .

The information collected during pronpting and mediation

a c t i v i t i e s i n dynamic assessment, such as phonemic anarenesa and

reading comprehensfon, then could translate into ins t ruc t iona l

programminq recommendations designed t o meet the reiedial reading

needs of the student. T h i s information may be useful for the

teacher s ince more reading behaviours are observed during dynamic

assessment compared t o s t a t i c assessment. T h i s would be

p ro f i t ab le for spec ia l education s tudents s ince successful

academic experiences fos te r t h e development of self eeteem, and

prograniming for self esteem is an important outcome for these

students (Wfnzer, Rogow & David, 1 9 8 6 ) .

The reeul ta of the present ~ t u d y address t he concerns raised

by Laughon (1990) regarding t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and va l id i ty of the

measures ueed wi th dynamic assessment. Fur ther iore , t h i s study

deals with the i s sues of technical adequacy and time necessary

for administrat ion as was pointed out by Lidz ( 1 9 9 2 ) -

By " t e s t i n g the limitsw of a standardized t e s t , as was shown

w i t h the WRAT 3 reading subtes t , the v a l i d i t y and the r e l i a b i l i t y

25

of t h e instrument was maintained i n r e l a t i o n t o the zone of

proximal development theory. The WRAT 3 was implernented according

t o t h e procedures specif ied in the instruction manual.

Subsequently, an independent reading level was obtained for each

participant. Unlike most research r e l a t e d t o dynamic assessment

t h i s s tudy recommends the i nc lus ion of static assessment as a

p a r t of the dynamic assessment process. However, it 1s

recommended that niore research be conducted in developing the

r e l i a b i l i t y and va l id i ty of t h e lea rn ing potential component of

dynamic assessment i n future atudies.

I n conclusion, t h e f ind ings of th18 study support t he

hypothesis that dynamic asseasment 1s not a replacement for

static asaessment, but a procedure which compliments traditional

methods of assessing students in a restorative special education

framework. l ieferr ing students f o r assessrnent in a restorative

setting is still a policy of many school boards (Ontario

Regulati on, 1988) . Theref ore, by using dynamic assessment

procedures with standardized tes t instruments we gain more

ine ight into t h e reading p r o f i l e of the s tuden t . T h i s may be

advantageous t o the assessor, who may be the school resource or

regular classroom teacher, because the results of a dynamic

aseeaement i n reading Bay provide information for instructfonal .

programming. Most importantly, it f a the students who may profit

most from dynamic assessment because t h e i r reading a b f l i t i e s may

be more accuta te ly assessed. T h i s i n turn may lead to higher

levels of independent reading.

Liiitations

Possible threats to internal validity should be considered

when interpreting the results of t h i s research study. The major

areas of concern are : instrumentation, gain scores, assessment

time differences between dynamic groups, and experimenter bias.

The threat t o instrumentation 1s the transfer task

(posttest) which waa created by the researcher in this study.

This task was designed as a maintenance score to observe reading

transfer performances from the treatment/assessment sessions. The

participants uaed their recognition memory skills during th18

task. It was administered to a l 1 three groups including the

control group and the two dynamic assessment groups. It would be

preferable t o employ a validated standardized instrument for this

transfer t a s k . Hence, a threat to internal validity should be

considered when interpretfng the results related to the transfer

t a s k .

A gain score was administered to measure improvement in

reading abilitiea. Accordingly, the results may be limited by

scores that have unequal interval va lues . For instance two

students may have achieved a gain score of 5 , but one student had

to read more d l f f icult words . Theref ore the gain score does represent the same level of learning and development for the two

s tudents.

The duration time of administration is a valid concern when

assessing etudents with dynamic assessment in a restarative

model. This 1s particularly true for some dynamic assesaments

27

which require an ex tens ive t each ing component i n a l e s s o n format

t o detemine t h e studentfs true reading l e v e l s (Krag le r , 1 9 9 1 ) .

After conducting an ANOVA between t h e groups t h e researcher of

t h i s s t u d y found a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s t a t i c and

dynamic groups with respect to admin i s t r a t ion time. T h e dynamic

measures requi red more time to complete. However, the time

r e q u i r e d t o a t t a i n the independent and learning p o t e n t i a l l e v e l s

was approxfmately 30 minutes which seems r e f l e c t i v e of a typical

s t andard ized t e s t i n g format .

f t may be claimed t h a t participants i n the dynamic groupe

scored higher because more t i m e was spent assesa ing their reading

a b i l i t i e s . This study demonstrated t h a t s tuden t s may have

at tained higher reading scores because of a s sessor - s tuden t

mediat ion during t h e t e s t l n g procedure, and no t because more time

was s p e n t with the part icipants i n t h e dynamic groups. I n o t h e r

words, s t u d e n t s scored higher when the n a t u r e of the test lng

i n s t rumen t was changed w i t h asaessor student-mediation. A static

asseesment, o r more specifically t h e WRAT 3 reading t e s t , would

n o t lfkely produce higher scores r e g a r d l e s s of the amount of time

spent with t h e etudent because s t a t i c assessment does n o t permit

cuing o r prompting from the assesBor. Time and mediation a r e

i n e x t r i c a b l y related i n dynamlc asaesement. I f the aim of dynamic

assessment 1s t o e l i c i t the two reading l e v e l s ( independent and

l e a r n i n g p o t e n t i a l l e v e l s ) demonstrated by t h e zone of proximal

development theory, then more t ime may be necessary t o a d m i n i s t e r

the t e s t .

28

Final ly , th18 study was designed by the researcher who views

dynamic assessrnent as an effective method of testing reading

performance. The experimenter may have unknowingly i n f luenced the

participants during the treatment/assessment task completion with

e x t r a motivation. Therefore, the threat of experimenter b ias

should be weighed when interpreting the results of th18 study.

References

Brigance, A. Hm (1983). -ive -orv of Basie North Billerica: Curriculum A~sociates.

Budoff, M. ( 1987a ) . Validity for learning potential assessment . In Lidz (Ed) , m c -t: An hteract ional

to ev- learninnotu (pp. 52-81) . New York: Guilf ord Press.

Budoff, H. (1987b). Measures for assessing learning potential. In Lidz (Ed) , D v n w c ass-t: interactional

t o e v w n a les-u n a t u (pp. 173-195). New York: Guilfotd Press.

CampIone, J. C . , Brown, A.L . , Perrara,R.A., Jones,R., & Steinberg, B. (1985). Bteakdown in flexible use of information: Intelligence related dffferences in transfer following equivalent learning performance. u t e m e . 9 297- 315 .

Carney, J.J., & Cloffi, G. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . The dynamic assesement of reading abilities. Jfim of D u t v pevelo~ment and E m . 39(2), 107-114.

Carney , J.J., 6r Cioffi, G. (1990). Extending traditional dfagnouis: The dynamic assessment of reading abilit ies.

P~vcholomr. 11. 177-192.

Ciofff, G e I & Carney, J.J. (1983). Dynamlc assessment of reading dizsabilitieu. Rea-a T e W . 36, 765-768.

Embretson, S. B. (1987) . Toward developing a psychometric approach. In Lidz (Ed) , - w ~ e s w t : An

osa to ev-a l_eaniina ~ o t e p t i p l (pp. 141-172). New York: Guilford Press.

Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Jensen, M.R. Kanie l . , S & Tzuriel, D. (1987). Prerequisite for assessment of learning potential. In Lidz (Rd), Dvnamfc a s ~ e s s m e n t : l a a ~ ~ r o a c h t~

u n o t e n u (pp. 35- 51). New York: Guilford Press.

Fry , B. (1972). ~ ~ t r u c t i o n fo r the classroom and clfnfc. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Jordan, A., Kircaali-Iftar, G., & Diamond, c . T. P. (1993). Who has the problem, the student or the teacher? Differences in teachersf beliefs about their work with at risk and integrated exceptional students. mtemational Journal of Le-a Disabi l i tv and Develo~mem. 40(1), 45-62.

Kragler, S . (1991). Medlated reading levels of chapter 1 third grade students. -CI &gprovwnt . 3.8. 125-128. Laughon, P. (1990). The dynamic assessment of intelligence: A review of three approaches. m o l P s v c h ~ l o a v ~ v i e w . 12(4), 459- 470.

Lidz, C m (1987 ) . m a s s s s n e n t : An i n t ~ t a c t i m a 1e-u n o t u . New York: Guilford

Press.

Lidz, C m (1992). The extent of incorporation of dynamic assessment coursee: A national survey of psychology trainers. m e J o w of m e c m m c a t m , 2g(3) , 325-331.

Ontario Regulation 5 5 4 / 8 1 Ministry of The Attorney General, Toronto: D.P.Capl1ce Queens Printer for Ontario (1988).

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L m (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension: Postering comprehension-monitoring activities. Co- m t r u c t i ~ p . L ( 2 ) , 117-175.

Spector, J. ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of

a t w P s Y c w l R 4 ( 3 ) , 353-363.

Swaason, HeLo ( 1 9 9 2 ) . General modifiability of working memory among skilled and less skilled readers. JO-

cat- PBYC~Q~QQV. A & ( 4 ) , 473-488.

Vygotsky, LeS. (1978). m d a soaetv: The develoomt of l o u i w DroceRs- Cambridge: Harvard University

Press.

Wilkinson, G.S. (1993). ma Wi-~anoe AcM~vemrnt Test. Wilmington: Wide Range, Inc.

Winzer, M., Rogow, S .M. , & David, C. Go (1986). m c e ~ t l o n a l Scarborough : Prentice Hall Canada f nc .

see red mi lk was then j ar letter city between clif f s t a l k grunt huge p l o t Sour humidity clarify residence urge rancid conspiracy deny quarant ine deteriorate

c Asses-: 330 m u t e s 1

Begin when a s tudent does not respond t o a word f o r 10 seconds. Level 1: Visual Prompt - Point t o l e t t e r and ask "what l e t t e r is t h i s ? " ( c i n city) - Student: "cW Teacher: rtgood what sound does it make ti - Student: " s s s s n Teacher: "good, now sound o u t the rest of the letters i n t h e word. - I f s t uden t 1s successful go t o next word - i f s t uden t 1s not success fu l not go t o Level 2 .

Level 2: Audio Prompt of Unit Phoneme (vowels &i consonants)

- Model t h e sound for t h e student. "cm makes the tvssm sound. - Student emulates the sound. Teacher: "good, now try say ing it with the next l e t t e r . " - I f s t uden t does not blend t h e sound, move to l e v e l 3.

Level 3: Auââo Prompt of Digraphs,Clusters, ( ep l i t syllables)

- Model t h e sound of t he f i r s t s y l l a b l e f o r s tuden t " c i w - Student emulates the sound, then mode1 " tyn. - Teacher: "now try reading a l 1 the l e t t e r s toge ther . " - If the s tuden t does no t read t he word, d iscont inue prompts and attempts a t new words.

Analysis of Graphemie Units of Words Uhich May Requlre Prompting; and Recordfng of P a r t i c i p a n t r s Responses on nord L i s t 1. See - i n i t i a l consonant and vowel digraph 2 . Red - i n i t i a l / f i n a l consonant, shor t vowel sound 3 . Milk - I n i t i a l consonant s h o r t vowel sound, f i n a l c l u s t e r 4 . Was - i n i t i a l / f i n a l consonant and short vowel sound 5 . Then - consonant digraph, short vowel, f i n a l consonant. 6 . Jar - i n i t f a l / f i n a l consonant, shor t vowel sound 7 . Letter - consonant vowel blend and diphthong 8. city - consonant vowel blend, s u f f i x 9 . Between - long vowel sound, vowel disra~h - -

cliff - consonant blend s h o r t vowel sound S t a l k -two i n i t i a l consonants w i t h vowel blend, s i l e n t l e t t e r Grunt - consonant blendfng and shor t vowel sound Huge - blend one consonant with vowel, vowel rule P l o t - consonant blending and sho r t vowel sound Sour - i n i t i a l consonant, vowel digraph ~umid i ty - long and s h o r t vowel consonant b lend , sy l lab ica t ion C l a r i f y - consonant voue1 blend, s h o r t and long vowel sound Residence - consonant s h o r t vowel blend, s u f f i x Urge - s h o r t vowel and consonant i r r e g u l a r i t y rancid - short vowel consonant blend, consonant i r r e g u l a r i t y Conspiracy - consonant and short vowel blend, i r r e g u l a r i t y Deny - Consonant vowel blend, sufffx Quaran t ine - consonant vowel blend, vowel rule Dete r io r a t e - long vowel rule , dfphthong, sy l l ab i ca t fon

tion ITMnmc qaSe8-t 3) e; 30 m u t e n

Begin with at the end of Level T h m e from Phonemic Prompt. nodel by saying the entire word and begin Contextual Mediation.

A. Question Teacher: " What does c i t y rnean?It Student: I t i s where we livelw

B o Clarification Teacher: V t l s where we l ive?" student : V e a . " Teacher: "VOU mean Torontomn Student: Vean

C.Extension (Question) Teacher: IQK, can you make up a sentence with the words city

and Toronto in it? Student: Vea we l i v e in a city called Toronto." Teacher : NGoodw

D. Sunary Teacher: noKr tell me what city meansmm Student: "Itls a place where people live. .... like Toronto*

- Amount of prompting and mediation will Vary with student. The assesror will record student responsea to dialogue. - Diacontinue when student experiences frustration with pronunciation of word even after modelling, prompting, and mediation . This 1s to be done at the discretion of the assessor if the student appears frustrated even after the word has been told and put it into contextually meaningful example.

see red m i l k was then j ar letter city between clif f stalk grunt huge plot gour humidity clarf fy residence urge rancid conspiracy deny quarant ine deteriorate

1 see with my eyes.

The bal1 1s red.

H i l k 1s good for you.

He wae a good boy.

The cat came home, then it had some milk.

The jam 1s in the jar.

1 got a l e t ter i n the mail.

I l i v e i n the city of Toronto.

1 l i k e to a i t between my two friends.

The house 1s on the cliff by the sea.

I saw the corn s t a l k in the f i e l d .

The boy who f e l l l e t out a big grunt.

A huge tree was cut down i n front of the school.

T h e story had a scary p l o t .

Lemons t a s t e sour.

It was hot out s ide because of the humidity.

Please c lar i fy what you said, 1 did not understand you.

M y siater l i v e s l n the schoolls residence.

If you would l i k e a better mark on the t e s t 1 urge you to study.

Food that 1s rotten often ha# a rancid smell.

They were planning a conspiracy against him.

You ahould not deny people the r ight ta be free.

The s ick boy was kept i n quarantine for five days.

If the old house on the street 1s not fixed up f a s t it w i l l deteriorate soon.

1 live i n a house.

M y cat has green eyes.

T h i s book i s good.

The tree is t a l l .

How fast can you run?

The animal has sharp claws.

H e was s t i l l hungry even after he ate a Big Mac.

Please s p e l l th l e word for me.

She has a cut on ber f inger .

M y shfst is one s i ze too big for m e .

The boy felt sad because h i8 puppy died.

He ate a banana s p l i t for dessert .

The bird was lame and could not fly.

Hockey playera should always stretch be fore playing.

The bulk food store sel18 large bags of potato chips.

Today we aust al1 t ry to prevent the abuse of Our planet by keeping it c lean.

The radio station plays contemporary music.

During an earthquake many buildings col lapae.

The f l u bug i s very contagious.

The winning team lifted the cup i n triumph.

1 like t o s i t and read by the window i n the alcave.

The bibliography i n my school project liste the books 1 read.

The sun set over the horizon.

The mayor ha8 an office i n the municipal building.

1. in 2. cat 3. book 4. tree 5 . how 6. animal 7. even 8. spell 9. finger 10. size 11. felt 12. s p l i t 13. lame 14. stretch 15. bulk 16. abuee 17. contemporary 18. collapse 19. contagious 20. triumph 21. alcove 22. bibliography 23 . horizon 2 4 . muni cipal Analgsis of Graphemic Units of Words ühich May Require Prompting; and Recording of Participant Responaes on Word List 1. in - initial short vowel 2. cat - consonant, short vowel blend 3. book - Initial consonant short vowel digraph 4. tree - two initial coneonant and short vowel sound, digraph 5. how - consonant vowel blend. 6. animal - short vowel sounds with consonant blend,sy~labication 7. even - long and short consonant vowel blend 8. spell - two consonant and vowel blend, final c l u s t e r 9. finger - initial consonant short vowel blend, diphthong 10. size - consonant blend with short vowel sound,vowel rule 11. felt - initial consonant short vowel blend, final cluster 12. split - three consonant blending and short vowel sound 13. lame - initial consonant short vowel rule 14. stretch - three consonant blending and consonant digraph 15. bulk - initial consonant vowel blend, final cluster. 16. abuse - long vowel consonant blend, long vowel rule 17. contemporary-prefix,short vowel ~ ~ ~ n d s , ~ ~ f f i ~ , ~ y l l a b i ~ a t i ~ n 18. collapse - initial consonant short vowel blend, irregularity 19. contagious - prefix, long vowel, irregularity, suffix 20. triumph - two consonant vowel blend, silent letter 21. alcove - short vowel two consonant blend, short vowel rule 22. bibliography - consonant short and long vowel blend ,silent

letter, suf f lx, syllabication 23. horfzon- consonant short and long vowel blending 24. municipal - i n i t i a l consonant long vowel blend, irregularity

Method of Administration for Blue and T a n Wrat 3 Forms Half of Participants Receive Blue and Other Half Receive Tan

To Control for Between Forms Rel iabi l i ty

Groups (T1)Pretest (T3)Tteatment (T2 )Transfer

S ( ~ = 1 0 ) n=Sa Blue n=Sa Tan 2 n=Sb Tan n=Sb Blue

PP (p=lO) n=5a Blue n=Sa Tan 2 n=Sb T a n n=Sb Blue

PPCM(p=lO) n=5a Blue n=Sa Tan 2 n=5b Tan n=Sb Blue

n=5d Tan n=5b Blue

n=Sa Tan n=5b Blue

n=5a Tan n=5b Blue

S = Stat ic Control PP = ~ynarnfc 1 Phonemic 'rrompt PPCM = Dynamic 2 Phonemic Prompt Contextual Mediation

TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIED IMAGE. lnc - = 1653 East Main Street

O 1993. W i e d Image. Inc.. All Righls Resewed