1

Final Exam

Samantha M. Smith

College of Education, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

CIL 621: Assessment in Literacy

Dr. April G. Douglass

December 6, 2020
 Smith 2

Final Exam

In my first discussion post, I stated that literacy was a complex, debated term that has

historically been defined through unclear means. Despite this, I defined literacy as a broad tool

that individuals could use for communication rather than just the ability to read and write.

Following Keefe and Copeland’s (2011) ideas, I believed this definition to be the most

appropriate as it is more inclusive and thoughtful of unconventional ways of displaying literacy,

such as linguistic understanding and emotional competence. Furthermore, this broader definition

states that literacy “is a human right and is a fundamental part of the human experience” (Keefe

& Copeland, 2011, p. 97), shifting the duty of literacy learning from the individual to the

community.

Although my definition of literacy has not fundamentally changed from the definition

described above, the readings and assessment experiences have proven that a broader definition

of literacy allows for more inclusivity of ever changing communication methods. Specifically,

this course has made me realize that the definition of literacy is flexible and allows for more

modern forms of communication. For example, today’s students will be able to demonstrate their

literary knowledge through technological means, such as “visual images, design elements, and

hypertextual elements in addition to written language” (Serafini & Youngs, 2013, p. 401). This

adaptability is important to note as it creates more inclusive means of displaying literary abilities

in addition to the conventional means of reading and writing. As is indicative throughout this

entire course, literacy is not limited to a single, narrow definition, but continues to change and

adapt to current forms of communication that students can both learn and share with the

community.
 Smith 3

In establishing my current classroom context, I often refer to the major reading

components as a way of making sure each one of my students succeeds in my class. This context,

which is the philosophy that all students are able to learn literary skills, allows me to provide

differentiated instruction to students so that they can increase their fluency, vocabulary,

comprehension, and spelling skills. In doing so, I am able to prepare my students for the next

stages of their educational careers, while also giving them the reading skills that they will use for

the rest of their lives.

In order to differentiate literacy instruction for my students, I have often had to refer back

to this course, which has ultimately given me the resources to be able to help my students. One

of the most applicable resources I have accessed was the informal reading inventory. It is widely

known that informal reading inventories are critical “in helping educators to diagnose the gaps in

the abilities of readers who struggle the most” (Nilsson, 2008), something that I can attest to. I

gained valuable information from my student, Brianna, when I administered her IRI in the third

assessment experience. Through this, I was able to identify her reading stages and specific

strengths and areas of improvement, and thus provided the appropriate differentiated materials to

help address her reading needs. In addition, this course has stated the importance of

differentiating assessments for students so that they can have an equitable chance of succeeding.

Tierney (1998) explains that “studies across cultures, across classrooms, and within classrooms

suggest that different students respond in different ways to different forms of assessment

depending upon their histories - cultural, classroom, or personal” (p. 382). Because every

student is so different, I have implemented differentiated assessments within my own classroom

so that all of my students can succeed. Through this notion, along with assessments like IRIs, I

have been able to utilize course materials to help each student achieve their literary goals.
 Smith 4

References

Keefe, E. B., & Copeland, S. R. (2011). What is literacy? The power of a definition. Research

and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(3-4), 92–99.

https://doi.org/10.2511/027494811800824507

Nilsson, N. L. (2008). A critical analysis of eight informal reading inventories. Reading Teacher,

61(7), 526–536. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/10.1598/RT.61.7.2

​Serafini, F., & Youngs, S. (2013). Reading workshop 2.0: Children's literature in the digital age.

The Reading Teacher, 66(5), 401–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.01141

Tierney, R. J. (1998). Literacy assessment reform: Shifting beliefs, principled possibilities, and

emerging practices. Reading Teacher, 51, 374–390.