Holistic assessment provides SLPs and other educators with information about the processes that are at work when students with special language and learning needs function successfully and unsuccessfully in contexts that require interpersonal and cognitive/academic communication. SLPs and other educators can build portfolios that present holistic pictures of students' abilities in a variety of learning contexts. This paper presents three practical strategies (reading miscue analysis, holistic scoring of written stories, and dynamic assessment)for collecting, organizing, and interpreting language data that can be incorporated into a larger portfolio assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anthony, R., Johnson, T., Mickelson, N., & Preece, A. (1991). Evaluating literacy: A perspective for change. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2.
Blank, M., & Franklin, E. (1980). Dialogue with preschoolers: A cognitively-based system of assessment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 127–150.
3.
Diederich, P.B. (1974). Measuring growth in English. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
4.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). Dynamic assessment in retarded performers. Baltimore: University Park Press.
5.
Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513–516, 575–578.
6.
Gillam, R. (in press). Whole language principles at work in language intervention. In D. Tibbits (Ed.), Language intervention: Beyond the primary grades. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
7.
Gillam, R., & Johnston, J.R. (1992). Spoken and written language relationships in language/learning impaired and normally achieving School-age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 1303–1315.
8.
Gillam, R., McFadden, T., & van Kleeck, A. (in press). Improving the narrative abilities of children with language disorders: Whole language and language skills approaches. In M. Fey, J. Windsor, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Communication intervention for school-age children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
9.
Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language?Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
10.
Goodman, Y., Watson, D., & Burke, C. (1987). Reading miscue inventory: Alternative procedures. New York: Richard C. Owen.
11.
Johnston, P. (1992). Constructive evaluation of literate activity. NY: Longman.
12.
Kirby, D. & Liner, T. (1981). Inside out: Developmental strategies for teaching writing. Montclair, NJ: Boynton-Cook.
13.
Kovarsky, D., & Crago, M. (1991). Toward the ethnography of communication disorders. NSSLHA Journal, 18, 44–55.
14.
Lee, L. (1974). Developmental sentence analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
15.
Lidz. C. (Ed.)(1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating learning potential. New York: Guilford Press.
16.
Lidz, C. (1991). Practitioner's guide to dynamic assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Long, S., & Fey, M. (1993). Computerized profiling. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
19.
Myers, M. (1981). A procedure for writing assessment and holistic scoring. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
20.
Nelson, N.W. (1991). Teacher talk and child listening - fostering a better match. In C.S. Simon (Ed.), In C.S. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
21.
Patterson, S., & Gillam, R. (in press). Assessment of students beyond the primary grades. In D. Tibbits (Ed.), Language intervention beyond the primary grades. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
22.
Samuels, M., Tzuriel, D., & Malloy-Miller, T. (1989). Dynamic assessment of children with learning difficulties. In R.I. Brown & M. Chazan (Eds.), Learning difficulties and emotional problems (pp. 145–165). Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.
23.
Simon, C.S. (1984). Evaluating communicative competence: A functional-pragmatic procedure. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.
24.
Watson, D. (1989). Defining and describing whole language. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 129–141.
25.
Zachman, L., Jorgensen, C., Huisingh, R., & Barrett, M. (1984). Test of Problem Solving. Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.
