Running head: STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

Assessment and Interventions for R.C.

Matthew DAgostino
EDU 325

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

Assessment and Interventions for R.C.

It is important to frequently assess students for the purpose of planning instruction and
determining if a student needs intervention. For this project background information given by a
classroom teacher, data collected from a Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS) assessment, and research will be used to identify literacy skills that a student struggles
with and determine which strategies can be used to address these areas. DIBELS is an
assessment that measures a student on his or her phonological knowledge as well as other early
literacy skills for example, phonics, fluency comprehension, and vocabulary. This assessment is
routinely given three times a year in the fall, winter, and again in the spring.
R.C. is a 7-year-old male student in second grade at Bishop John King Mussio
Elementary school in Steubenville, OH. According to his teacher, Ms. Filby R.C. lives in a
suburban environment in a two-parent home with his two older siblings. The teacher describes
him as a conscious student who tries to do his best. He is a student who receives average grades
in reading, spelling, and math and satisfactory grades in writing. When supervised he has good
self-control and appears to have a good sense of humor. When in small group settings R.C. will
divert his attention from his work to playing with other male classmates. If unsupervised he
becomes talkative and will sometimes play rough with other students. R.C. tends to have good
relationships with all of his peers, generally getting along with everyone. He needs to be
reminded where things go and benefits from teacher guidance when faced with unknown
problems. R.C. is motivated by working in groups, free time, stickers, and praise. Lastly Ms.
Filby indicated that R.C.s parents want him to become a good reader and behave while in
school. During the DIBELS assessment the student seemed to avoid eye contact and talked in a
low voice making him seem envious and shy. The student also paused for an extended period

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

time before beginning to read, answering questions, or giving sentences for given words. The
student was well behaved and remained still during the assessment,
Procedures
Arranging the meeting date. One of my classmates, Katie Hostutler, put me in contact
with Ms. Filby, a teacher at Bishop Mussio School, through email and we scheduled a day for me
to visit the classroom to assess a student. On Monday October 3rd I visited the school and Ms.
Filby introduced me to R.C.
Administering the assessments. Before going to the school I read, printed and reviewed
both the directions for administering the assessments, and the student materials that I would be
using to assess the student. On the day of the assessment, I brought the student outside the
classroom to a desk in the hallway. I began by introducing myself to the student and talking with
him to make him more comfortable. The materials used were the student assessment materials
for second grade students, the second grade scoring booklet, and a timer. After placing the
assessment materials on the table I followed the assessment instructions in the scoring booklet.
After reading the directions I would give the student one minute to complete each of the five
assessments. I scored each assessment as the student completed each assessment. After the
student completed each assessment I brought the student back to the classroom.
Obtaining background information and analyzing the data. After assessing the
student I scanned the student background interview paper and emailed it to Ms. Filby. She
quickly printed the paper, filled it out and sent the paper back. While visiting the classroom I also
talked to Ms. Filby about R.C. and his performance in her class. After collecting the information
from the assessment I scored the assessment and compared the data to the DIBELS benchmark
information. Although I was not able to obtain the background data before working with the

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

student I was able to learn about the student and his reading level through the conversation I had
with his teacher.
Selecting the strategies. After analyzing the data I determined the areas for
improvement. The student struggled with both the RT probe and the WUF probe. This lead me to
search for strategies that were proven to help students in these areas of reading. I researched
strategies and though about strategies that I had seen in use in the classroom as well as ones I had
learned throughout college. From my research I selected four strategies that I thought would best
help the student in each of these areas and meet the students needs.

Assessments Given
The DIBELS Assessment uses one minute, individually administered probes to measure a
students early literacy skills. Each probe is designed for a specific grade level. This curriculum
based measurement (CBM) assesses the five domains of literacy including phonological
awareness, the alphabetic principal, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Pavri, 2012). R.C.
was given four assessments. These assessments included Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), Oral
Reading Fluency (ORF), Retell Fluency (RT), and Word Use Fluency (WUF).
The NWF probe tests the students knowledge of the alphabetic principle, including the
ability of students to blend written letters into words (University of Oregon, 2016). The
alphabetic principle is the connection between individual sounds (phonemes) and printed letters
(Alber-Morgan, 2010). During this probe a student is given a paper with 50 two and three letter
nonsense words. The student is then read the directions and prompted to either sound out each
letter of the word or say the full word. For example a student could either say vog or /v/ /o/
/g/. The student is directed to read the words from left to right and reads for a minute as the

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

educator scores how many correct and incorrect letter sounds the student produces. According to
Alber-Morgan (2010) it is important to teach the alphabetic principal because this skill is needed
for sounding out and decoding words. Additionally, it is important to assess a students
knowledge of the alphabetic principle because it allows a teacher to determine what letter sounds
the student has already learned, and determine areas for further practice (Alber-Morgan, 2010).
The ORF probe is routinely given three times during one school year. In most cases, it is
administered once in the fall, winter, and spring. This probe is a CBM that is used to assess the
students understanding of the alphabetic principle, phonics accuracy, automaticity, and fluency
(University of Oregon, 2016). To perform this assessment a student is given a passage of
approximately 250 grade level words. The student is asked to read the passage with speed and
accuracy. The student is then stopped after one minute of reading. The Test administrator follows
along with the student as he or she reads and marks misread words, self-corrections, and other
data. The teacher then examines the data to determine if the students mistakes showed a specific
error pattern. According Hook and Jones (2004) to automaticity can be defined as accurate
effortless and fast word recognition. They go on to say that automaticity is the best predictor of
comprehension. Fluency is correct word identification combined with correct tone, phrasing and
rhythm while reading a phrase or text (Hook and Jones, 2004). It is important to asses these two
areas because they can help a teacher predict and monitor a students reading ability. Teaching
this concept is also important because automatic reading of single words and phrases are not only
crucial in reading class but also in daily life and other content areas.
After the student reads the story he or she is then asked to retell in their own words what
happened in the passage. The teacher tallies the number of words that the student retold correctly.
Only words that are relevant to the story are scored as correct. RF is used to measure a students

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

comprehension skills. The RF assessment is important because it prevents the student from speed
reading without gathering information from the test. Because the students are prompted to retell
the story it is more likely that they will take their time as they read gathering meaning from the
text (University of Oregon, 2016).
Lastly WUF assesses a students knowledge of vocabulary and oral language. Even more
specifically WUF measures the students ability to use words to portray a specific meaning
(University of Oregon, 2016). To give this probe the test administrator orally reads the directions
to the student and gives an example sentence. This probe requires the student to use the word in
an audible sentence. After the student practices using an example vocabulary word in a sentence,
the timer is started and the student is given one word at a time to use in a sentence. The student
uses as many orally presented words as he or she can in correct sentences for the duration of the
one-minute. As the student gives the sentence for the word the educator scores and records data
in the DIBELS score book.
Results & Analysis
NWF. The first probe that R.C. was given was the NWF assessment. R.C. performed
very well on this section of the assessment. He sat attentively listening to the directions and
waiting for cues. According to the DIBELS benchmark goals R.C. exceeded the Fall benchmark
score of 62 for total correct letter sounds (CLS) and 13 total word recorded completely and
correctly (WRC).
NWF Assessment results
CLS

WRC

Errors

Error Pattern

90

29

Phoneme m

ORF. R.C. was given 3 OEF probes. Although R.C. scored well on this assessment he did
have some trouble with fluency. When reading, the student paused at awkward point in the

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

sentences and read in a monotone voice. He also had trouble with rhythm. He occasionally
looked up to ask for reassurance when reading a word that he was hesitant about. Compared to
the DIBELS benchmark goal for ORF of 41 words correct for the fall the student did very well.
Compared to the benchmark goals for the winter of 76 words correct the student would be
recommended for strategic instruction. According to the DIBELS benchmark goals R.C.
exceeded the Fall benchmark percentage of 91%.
ORF Assessment Results
Benchmark 1.1
Benchmark 1.2
Benchmark 1.3

Total Words
65
52
59

Errors
4
2
4

Words Correct
61
50
55

Accuracy
93.8%
96.2%
93.2%

RT. Although the RT assessment is optional and not endorsed data was still collected.
R.C. struggled with retelling the stories and appeared to have limited comprehension of the
passages that he read. The student was only able to retell about two short sentences for each of
the three passages. The student retold 15 words for the first and second probe and 16 words for
the third. The student could not retell the information in any order but instead recalled random
parts of the story.
WUF. The student struggled with this part of the DIBELS assessment. The student was
able to use five words in correct sentences. R.C. used a total of 29 words in correct sentences. He
used one word incorrectly. The DIBELS benchmark goal for the beginning of the year is 37
words used correctly. The student would have a strategic need for support according to this goal.
Areas for targeted improvement
Comprehension and RT. This area was targeted because the student had significant
trouble understanding the story and retelling even significant plot points of the passage. When

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

the student tried to talk about the story he was only able to say about 15 words relating to the
passage. Two strategies that could be used to improve the students reading comprehension
include thinking aloud to improve comprehension and the questioning strategy. In the think aloud
strategy students verbally speak their thoughts as they read. The student takes time to pause
while reading and engage in self-reflection to determine if they understand what they are
reading. Mckeown and Gentilucci (2007) assert that the think aloud strategy allows students to
monitor their comprehension, understand a text, and help students self-regulate. This strategy
also allows students to judge if they are comprehending the text and relate background
knowledge to what they are reading (Mckeown, and Gentilucci, 2007). Struggling readers
sometimes lack skills needed to comprehend a text effectively. A teacher can improve a students
ability to comprehend a text by directly teaching a student these strategies. Think alouds are
beneficial to a students thinking process when a teacher teaches the students how to think about
the readings properly (Ortlieb and Norris, 2012).
The questioning strategy allows students to think about the text in a different way. This
strategy involves both students and teachers asking questions about the text, author, and related
information. Effective readers generate questions about the text including misunderstandings,
questions for clarification, prediction questions, and many others (Duke and Pearson, 2001).
Some readers may need to be taught how to generate important questions about a text. A teacher
should give students an opportunity to practice generating these questions with guidance.
Students should also be given an opportunity to answer questions. Childrens comprehension is
strongly supported by teachers asking students question and teaching the student how to
adequately answer these questions (Duke and Pearson, 2001).

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

To monitor the students progress a teacher could give the student grade level texts
similar to the passages used in the DIBELS ORF probes. The student would be prompted to read
for one minute using the strategies he had learned. After the student read the passage the teacher
would ask the student to re-tell the passage in his own words. The teacher would record how
many correctly retold words the student produced. The teacher would also record what sections
of the text the information came from and in what order the student presented the information.
This would be completed every 2 weeks.
WUF. This area was chosen for improvement because R.C. struggled with this section of
the assessment. Although the student could correctly create sentences for five vocabulary words
the sentences were not long, occasionally choppy and included words that were not necessary to
the meaning of the sentence. One strategy that could be used to improve a students WUF would
be to teach the student vocabulary in context. Although direct instruction is necessary and often
crucial to student learning students can also be taught vocabulary within the context of daily life
or in the context of a story. According to Naeimi and Chow Voon Foo, (2015) successful
vocabulary learning should go beyond memorizing definitions. It is necessary for students to
integrate the meaning of vocabulary words into their existing knowledge and relate this
vocabulary to other areas to grasp it fully (Naeimi and Chow Voon Foo, 2015). By relating the
vocabulary to something meaningful the student can more easily remember the meaning behind
the word. Learning vocabulary in this context can also help a student with his reading
comprehension (Naeimi and Chow Voon Foo, 2015).
The second strategy to improve WUF would be to use an interactive word wall. When
using interactive word walls a teacher posts words that are clearly visible to all students in the
classroom. The words are also arranged in a particular order to show connections and facilitate

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

10

learning. In addition to the words the wall should include visual supports to help the student
learn the words and the meanings of the words. These word walls help students connect
vocabulary to other concepts, gives students a chance to review items independently, and is a
powerful review and teaching tool (Jackson, Tripp, and Cox, 2011). The teacher should
frequently review the words on this wall with the students. The students can also be included in
the selecting of words and choosing the visual cues that are included on the wall to make the
learning more meaningful.
To review the information presented a teacher could hold weekly vocabulary reviews. In
these reviews the teacher would ask the student to present the meaning of a word by either giving
a personal definition or by using the word in a sentence. The teacher could also have daily
reviews of words through choral review. The teacher could also check student understanding by
writing a word on the board and having the student hold up a whiteboard with either a check for I
understand or an x for I do not know this word. This would allow the teacher to determine
what words need to be reviewed.
Conclusion
In summary using the DIBELS assessment is a multi-step process that provides important
information about student performance. This assessment is important because it can help guide
instruction and intervention. Specific information about student performance was provided by
this assessment and was easily compared to benchmarks to determine the students strengths and
weaknesses. This particular assessment showed that, although the student was proficient in most
areas, the student still struggled with comprehension and WUF. Although R.C. scoured very well
compared to the benchmarks in the areas of ORF and NFW the student still needed intervention
in two other reading categories. Finding this information was made possible by this CBM and

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

11

this shows the overall importance of progress monitoring. Frequent progress monitoring allows a
teacher to determine what interventions are working and what interventions need to be changes.
CBMs provide a great deal of incite about a students present level of performance. During
CBMs like the DIBELS assessment data is gathered both formally, through probes, and
informally, by talking to the teacher and observation of the student. Finally it is clear that CBMs
provide important information about a students performance that general observations or tests
alone could provide.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT

12
References

Alber-Morgan, S. (2010). Using RTI to teach literacy to diverse learners, K-8: Strategies for the
inclusive classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Duke, N., & Person D. (2001). Chapter 4 Reading Comprehension: Strategies That Work
Hook, P. E., & Jones, S. D. The Importance of Automaticity and Fluency for Efficient
Reading Comprehension. Perspectives. : The international Dyslexia Association
Jackson, J., Tripp, S., & Cox, K. (2011). Interactive Word Walls: Transforming Content
Vocabulary Instruction. Science Scope, 35(3), 45-49.
Mckeown, R. G., & Gentilucci, J. L. (2007). Think-Aloud Strategy: Metacognitive Development
and Monitoring Comprehension in the Middle School Second-Language
Classroom. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2), 136-147.
Naeimi, Maki, and Thomas Chow Voon Foo. "Vocabulary Acquisition through Direct and
Indirect Learning Strategies." English Language Teaching 8.10 (2015): 142-48. Web.
Ortlieb, E., & Norris, M. (2012, March 13). Using the Think-Aloud Strategy to Bolster Reading
Comprehension of Science Concepts. Current Issues in Education, 15(1), 1-2.
Pavri, S. (2012). Effective assessment of students: Determining responsiveness to instruction.
Boston: Pearson.
University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. (2016). UO DIBELS Data System.
Retrieved October 25, 2016, from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/