Running Head: STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 1

Student Assessment Project; Zoe Smith

Jenna Kuebler

Franciscan University

EDU 325

Student Assessment Project

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 2

The overall goal of performing the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

(DIBELS) assessment with a local student was to evaluate the student’s reading levels and to

address any difficulties through the use of professional instructional strategies. Through this

approach, the assessor could better track academic levels and thus adjust instructional lessons for

the student.

The DIBELS assessment took place on April 9th, 2018 with Zoe Smith at her home in

Steubenville, Ohio. The process took approximately forty five minutes to complete. Almost all of

the family members were present in the home and the home environment was warm, welcoming,

and cozy. While there were a few distractions throughout the testing, it did not seriously alter any

of the data and she was able to maintain a high level of focus.

Zoe was a fourth grader who homeschooled with her family. She was the youngest of five

children and was a timid yet playful young girl. Some of her favorite hobbies included making

arts and crafts, dressing up in costumes, playing board games and card games, spending time

with her older siblings, going on family adventures, and acting in homemade films directed by

her sisters.

In the previous time spent with the family, the assessor gathered valuable information on

Zoe and her relationship with educational affairs. Zoe had moved multiple times in her life and

for this reason, much of her education suffered from the transmigration. Having been originally

raised in Austria, Zoe had already been undergoing tutoring sessions in Europe. With moving to

America less than a year ago from the date of this assessment, the new educational standards and

levels in America proved to be additionally foreign to her. For example, while playing board

games the assessor noticed that Zoe could not read simple clue cards that contained basic

vocabulary that a typical fourth grader would know. Other noted observations included the fact
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 3

that while Zoe did not have any diagnosed disabilities, her speech did suffer occasionally from a

recurring stutter. This affected both her reading and her speaking abilities. It was also noted that

these stuttering instances occurred most often when she had become excited or while posing

questions. Despite these obstacles in her speech, both Zoe’s receptive and expressive language

skills were noticed, through informal observation, to be exceptional. She was extremely creative

and quite skilled at creating original stories, telling them with both emotion and passion.

As it could be clearly deduced from her hobbies listed before, Zoe enjoyed spending a

large amount of time with her family. Although this could certainly be seen as advantageous, it

seemed to produce visibly detrimental effects on Zoe’s education. For instance, through spending

multiple days at her house during school days, her parents did not seem to regard academics very

highly, yet instead appeared lax with the concepts of homework, tests, assignments, projects, the

practice of learned content, and the activation of prior knowledge. Within the home, a greater

emphasis appeared to be placed on imagination, the humanities, religious studies, and family

time rather than curriculum or academic subjects.

Procedures

The student chosen for the DIBELS assessment was the daughter of a Franciscan

professor and a close family friend of mine. Having had prior experience with the student

through family visits, tutoring sessions, and babysitting hours, I was extremely familiar with the

routines of the household and of potential difficulties that might arise in assessing the Zoe’s

abilities.

Since I had known Zoe for so long and had a strong idea of her academic standings

through my multiple visits to her house throughout the past year, I decided to ask her mom for
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 4

permission to administer the tests. Her mother was very open and willing; we set a date and time

later on and I was kindly welcomed into their home once more.

Before the assessment, I put the testing booklet together and familiarized myself with the

content. I searched for clarification on grading, put Zoe’s materials in chronological order,

memorized the differing allotted time portions, and confirmed that Zoe’s materials matched my

own. When it was time for the assessment to take place, I was driven to the Smiths’ house and

Mrs. Smith settled me and Zoe in the living room. While I assembled my testing materials, I

gave Zoe a quick word of comfort, reminding her that she should not be nervous for the tests

because it would be simple and also would not take a substantial amount of time.

The first Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) I gave to Zoe was the Oral Reading

Fluency (ORF) assessment. Zoe was fascinated by the reading passages and did not mind

reciting any of them. She was intrigued by each new story and seemed motivated to continue for

as long as needed. I corrected some of her vocabulary as we went along because she was

misreading the nouns that were the subject of the whole essay and would completely miss the

main points without these. This would have ruined her next assessment,

The second CBM I gave was the Retell Fluency (RF) assessment. Zoe enjoyed recounting

what she had just finished reading. She was confident in her vocal abilities and in connecting her

visual reading to the deeper content stored in her memory. During the RF, she was very curious

as to why I was following along a numberline as she spoke and proceeded to ask me what I was

counting on my own worksheet. I told her that I would let her know when she was finished.

The last CBM that I gave was the Daze Probes (DP) assessment. This proved to be the

most difficult CBM for Zoe. She was seriously confused with the presented sentences and would

spend vast portions of time stuck on a single phrase or vocabulary word. I noticed that this was
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 5

majorly skewing her scores and so, before we went onto the last one, I informed her that if she

were to get stuck on a single sentence or word she should simply skip it and move onto the next

one and displayed it to her. Her score increased significantly after that redirection.

Assessments Given

A total of three CBM’s were administered to Zoe: the ORF model, the RF model, and the

DP model. These are the chosen models for all fourth grade students. Each CBM was provided

with an allotted amount of time for completion or with instructions for creating a proper stopping

point.

The ORF test consisted of numerous short passages that Zoe read aloud. This test

assessed both the accuracy and the speed of her reading. Each passage contained multiple lines

of reading material. The total number of words, along with the amount of incorrect or skipped

words, was taken into account when scoring in order to accurately determine her oral reading

ability. ORF is a useful tool that measures student comprehension through assessing an

individual’s fluency, that is, his or her reading in terms of both accuracy and automaticity

(Bellinger & Diperna, 2011). Through multiple opportunities and the varying writing styles

offered, Zoe had multiple chances to read at different levels and was able to show familiarity in

all vocabulary, reading fluency, and comprehension. Acquiring the data on these skills was

crucial because the assessor was able to observe the specific areas of reading where Zoe was

struggling.

Next, the RF assessment was imperative because it provided Zoe with the opportunity to

explain what she had just read aloud. This assessment was so vital because reading must involve

the comprehension aspect or else the reading is practically futile. Zoe was asked to relay the

main points of the story she had just read. The assessor continued counting until Zoe had
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 6

finished her summary. After assessing how many words Zoe used to explain the concepts, the

assessor then recorded the amount of accuracy her student had used, on a scale from 1-4. Retell

fluency assessments have been proven to offer educators a reliable tool for honing in on

classroom reading levels, in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness through identifying

students who may not be absorbing the material presented to them (Roberts, Good, & Corcoran,

2005). Zoe did exceptionally well on every RF test. The assessor was able to recognize that Zoe

had taken in the sentences that she had read aloud and was not simply reading off words.

Lastly, the DP assessments were administered. These assessments consisted of multiple

passages with words missing every few lines. Herein, Zoe would have to evaluate a list of three

words and choose the vocabulary term that made the most sense for that blank spot in the

sentence. The Daze Probes measure how a student absorbs meaning from texts, connects prior

knowledge with new material, recognizes words, and how he or she utilizes reasoning skills

(Dewey, Latimer, Kaminski, & Good, 2012). This assessment was extremely useful because it

assessed whether or not Zoe could firstly recognize vocabulary terms then secondly utilize their

definitions. It also helped in further analyzing where Zoe’s level of reading comprehension was

through the intensified presence of trial and error solving.

Results & Analysis

For the ORF tests, Zoe’s median score for the “beginning” was 38, her median for the

“middle” was 57, and her median for the “end” was 60. Each of these scores fell under the

category of “well below benchmark” and placed Zoe in the 3rd to 8th percentile.

Conversely for the RF tests, Zoe scored “above average” for each trial. Her median score

for the beginning was 49, 71 for the middle, and 64 for the end. This placed her in the 76th to

90th percentile.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 7

In addition, the retell quality also exceeded the average benchmark score as her median

for each beginning, middle, and end was a perfect 4.

For the Daze probes, Zoe scored well below benchmark by attaining the lowest score of -

5 and the highest being 5. Here, Zoe scored “well below benchmark” and was ranked in the 2nd

percentile and below.

Areas Targeted for Improvement

Vocabulary. There were many simple words that Zoe mispronounced, along with other

commonly used words that she misread through either the addition or subtraction of sounds.

Although Zoe immediately attempted to sound out any words she did not recognize, there were

many popular vocabulary terms that would not have typically been mistaken by a fourth grader.

A strategy that would aid in Zoe’s vocabulary development would be list-group-label.

Through list-group-label, the instructor would provide a vocabulary word and the student would

make a list connecting the word to vocabulary from prior knowledge (Pavri, 2011). This would
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 8

help Zoe because it is an easy strategy that could be used with multiple vocabulary words.

Instead of learning groups of words in unison, she would focus on one at a time. However, it

would not be time consuming and therefore she could build her vocabulary rather quickly.

An additional strategy that would prove to be beneficial would be utilizing Zoe’s

metacognitive abilities. Having the students think about their thinking before reading, during

reading, and after reading increases their retention of the learned material; strategies include a)

capturing the student’s attention before the reading with visuals or personal stories, b)

introducing and defining all the new vocabulary before reading, c) reading the story, d)

summarizing the story, and e) asking the student discussion questions (Boulware-Gooden,

Carreker, Thornhill, & Joshi, 2007). This would help Zoe retain the vocabulary in a meaningful

and memorable way.

Fluency. Zoe’s slow reading speed was the biggest hindering factor that affected her

overall score so poorly. A consistently slow pace consumed almost all of her allotted time for

each passage.

A strategy that would work to Zoe’s benefit with oral reading fluency would be using

repeated readings with recorded models. Repeated readings with recorded models hones in on

and improves every aspect of oral reading fluency: accuracy, rate, and prosody (Hudson, Lane, &

Pullen, 2005). In addition, it is flexible and simple. Zoe could use this strategy with a simple

audio recording and the text. Doing so would build her own fluency, especially by providing a

proper speed and pronunciation accuracy. Zoe could definitely benefit from the use of reading

along with audio recordings. While reading more often in general would also be suggested, it is

necessary that she becomes more familiar with unfamiliar vocabulary and easily recalling its

pronunciation.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 9

An additional strategy that would be helpful for improving Zoe’s oral reading fluency

would be choral reading. Choral reading consists of a group reading the same textual material

together aloud at the same time. Specifically for Zoe’s personal interests, Zoe could practice

choral reading with her family. .

Conclusion

Overall, through the use of each of these CBM’s, I found that Zoe needed serious

adjusted instruction in both the areas of reading fluency and in vocabulary. I additionally found

that CBM’s are more important to a student’s success than I had previously thought them to be.

By simply changing a few minor details in her traditional learning experiences, Zoe’s parents can

make a tremendous difference for her benefit. As assessed, she is extremely bright and curious.

Through the addition of a few simple learning activities, her reading ability has the potential to

not only meet the standard levels presented for fourth graders, but moreover has the full ability to

exceed them. Secondly, CBM’s also taught me that not all testing is negative. Usinug a testing

format that guides instruction instead of purely labeling them is a form of testing that needs to be

much more prevalent in our educational society.

I enjoyed administering the DIBELS assessment a lot more than I had expected I would.

Although I had been very nervous for the tests and questioned my own abilities, I thoroughly

enjoyed this more than any other data observation assignment I have ever had. I felt very

professional and even enjoyed collecting and scoring the data. Additionally, through this

assignment, I found that I enjoy the seemingly mundane research activities, the data collection,

and the filing of paperwork even more than I enjoy teaching. Perhaps I have a vocation to

teaching that is less direct and more statistical. Lastly, it was a very rewarding experience to

undergo. I feel much more prepared to administer DIBELS assessments on future students now.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 10

Bibliography

Bellinger, J. M., & Diperna, J. C. (2011). Is fluency-based story retell a good indicator of reading

comprehension? Psychology in the Schools,48(4), 416-426. doi:10.1002/pits.20563

Boulware-Gooden, R., Carreker, S., Thornhill, A., & Joshi, R. M. (2007). Instruction of

metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary

achievement of third-grade students. The Reading Teacher,61(1), 70-77.doi:10.1598/

rt.61.1.7

Dewey, E. N., Latimer, R. J., Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H. (2012). DIBELS next

development: findings from beta 2 validation study (technical report no. 10). Eugene,

OR: Dynamic Measurement Group.

Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction:

what, why, and how? The Reading Teacher,58(8), 702-714. doi:10.1598/rt.58.8.1

Pavri, S. (2010). Effective assessment of students: Determining responsiveness to instruction.

Boston, MA: Pearson.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 11

Rasinski, T. V. (2011). The fluent reader in action. a close-up look into 15 diverse classrooms.

New York, NY: Scholastic.

Roberts, G., Good, R., & Corcoran, S. (2005). Story retell: a fluency-based indicator of reading

comprehension. School Psychology Quarterly,20(3), 304-317. doi:10.1521/scpq.2005.

20.3.304