1. A Framework of Diagnostic Teaching II

2. Framework A form of progress monitoring, continuous assessment (CA) is another way for the teacher to assess growth by gathering data about students' reading performance as they read in the text used for supported reading and writing.

3. Framework Thus continuous assessment is an unaided assessment taken from the text used during supported reading and writing (SRW) to monitor the effect of instruction on students' learning. Like progress monitoring, it is a vehicle used to check reading performance and analyze patterns of reading performance over time.

4. Framework During the other elements, teacher adjust instruction as students read; therefore, this element assesses students' reading performance without instruction. Continuous assessment allows teachers to collect samples of reading prior to and after instruction. Then, teachers compare data with instruction (CA) and reading performance after instruction.

5. Framework Thus, continuous assessment is a critical aspect of diagnostic teaching. Teachers select texts by asking students to read a selection from what they will use for SRW. They use the criteria of 95% word recognition and 70% comprehension to select text for classroom instruction.

6. Framework They might use lower levels if the instruction is one to one. These samples of reading behavior provide data about the changing reading needs of the students.

7. Framework Conducting Assessment Prior to Reading Text An assessment before SRW provides two kinds of information. First, it provides information about the appropriateness of the text that is being read. If the material proves too difficult (at frustration level), an alternate text is selected and checked for an appropriate match.

8. Framework Teachers ask themselves, "Is the reading material appropriate for SRW?" Second, this assessment provides baseline data so that the teacher can analyze the difference between reading performance without instruction and the students' reading performance with instruction. Teachers ask themselves, "Is the student profiting from instruction? Is there a difference between the reading performance in SRW and CA?

9. Framework If teachers are concerned about a certain student, they create a short assessment to evaluate the appropriateness of the text being used. To begin the monitoring, a 50- to 125-word segment from the text to be used during instruction is read without prior instruction.

10. Framework The teachers write questions that focus on the main idea or problem, key facts or events, key vocabulary words, and inferences. A student reads orally or silently, depending on the focus of instruction. Errors or miscues are counted and analyzed, a ratio of miscues to words read is computed, and a percentage of comprehension is calculated.

11. Framework These data are compared to the criteria of performance for instructional level. Using this information, teachers decide the appropriateness of the text selected. If the selection is at frustration reading level (more than 1 miscue out of every 10 run- ning words and comprehension below 50%), the teacher immediately moves to eas- ier reading material.

12. Framework For example, a student reads a selection from a trade book with a rate of one miscue every seven words and a 50% comprehension score on constructed questions. Since these results indicate frustration-level reading, the teacher selects an easier text to use.

13. Framework If the selection reflects the instructional reading level, the teacher continues using the material and records miscues to establish a pattern of reading performance. For example, Sasha read a selection from a novel with a ratio of 1 miscue every 20 words and 80% comprehension.

14. Framework After three samplings in this text, her teacher noticed that Sasha's reading contained many substitutions on key vocabulary words, limiting comprehension. The teacher developed a program connecting word identification and word meanings

15. Framework If the selection is at an independent level, the teacher evaluates a more difficult text during the CA element. The teacher selects a slightly more difficult text and prepares a segment for evaluation. For example, Toni, whose instructional focus is on meaning processing, read silently, a segment from a second-grade text with 100% comprehension.

16. Framework No previous instruction was provided before this segment was read. Therefore, a text at the third-grade level was selected. To evaluate suitability of that text, the teacher conducted an on-level assessment.

17. Framework Toni read the on-level evaluation silently with 70% comprehension on the constructed questions. As a result, the text used in SRW with Toni is changed to the third-grade level which reflects a level that is challenging yet within an easy instructional range.

18. Framework Conduding Assessment After Reading Students in the emergent reading stage can read very few words; therefore, teachers assess their progress after reading instruction. Teachers often read to and with students before the students read the text on their own. This supportive beginning allows students to read text slightly beyond their reading level.

19. Framework Therefore, the teachers assess performance after instruction. After instruction, they wait about 20 minutes or more before asking the student to read the selection as an assessment. The student should be able to read the text at an independent level that is 98% word recognition accuracy and 80% comprehension.

20. Framework The assumption is that if the student is learning, a text that initially would have been at frustration level will convert to independent level when taught using the supportive reading techniques of shared reading and language experience.

21. Framework However, sometimes the text selected does not convert to an independent level. Teachers need to select an easier text to teach or increase the number of times the text is reread.

22. Framework To monitor progress, a segment from the text already taught in supported reading and writing is read orally or silently. Error or miscue rates and percentage of comprehension are calculated. For example, Alexis was reading together with her teacher, keeping a fairly good pace. After reading the selected text together, the teacher briefly discussed the story and then Alexis read the selection by herself with no miscues.

23. Framework The next day, Alexis read the entire story again with no miscues. The teacher decided to move to a higher-level text to increase the cognitive stretch for Alexis.