NASP Workshop Dallas, TX, March 31, 2004

Advances in the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS™)
NASP Workshop Dallas, TX, March 31, 2004 Roland H. Good III University of Oregon Ruth A. Kaminski Pacific Institutes for Research

Advances in DIBELS™ Overview
Introduction Core Components of Beginning Reading Review of DIBELS ™ Measures Use of DIBELS™ within an Outcomes Driven Model Assessing individual students and making instructional recommendations Providing individual consultation to teachers Providing systems-wide consultation to schools and districts March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Beginning Reading Core Components
#1. Phonemic Awareness: The ability to hear and manipulate sound in words. #2. Phonics: The ability to associate sounds with letters and use these sounds to read words. #3. Fluency : The effortless, automatic ability to read words in isolation (orthographic reading) and connected text. #4. Vocabulary Development: The ability to understand (receptive) and use (expressive) words to acquire and convey meaning. #5. Reading Comprehension: The complex cognitive process involving the intentional interaction between reader and text to extract meaning. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Available: March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Reading First: Four Kinds/Purposes of Reading Assessment
2002 Reading First: Four Kinds/Purposes of Reading Assessment An effective, comprehensive, reading program includes reading assessments to accomplish four purposes: Outcome - Assessments that provide a bottom-line evaluation of the effectiveness of the reading program. Screening - Assessments that are administered to determine which children are at risk for reading difficulty and who will need additional intervention. Diagnosis - Assessments that help teachers plan instruction by providing in-depth information about students’ skills and instructional needs. Progress Monitoring - Assessments that determine if students are making adequate progress or need more intervention to achieve grade level reading outcomes. In the Accountability section, we discussed the importance of accountability assessment to provide a clear goal and our year to year progress toward the goal. Accountability or outcome assessment provides the cornerstone for an assessment system that can support schools to change reading outcomes for our children. Screening assessment is used to identify children early in the school year who may experience difficulty meeting standards on the end of year accountability or outcome assessment. Diagnostic assessment informs a specific instructional plan for what we need to do to change the outcome and to ruin the prediction of difficulty. Progress monitoring assessment provides continuous, ongoing, formative information that is used to evaluate and modify the instructional plan. Source: Reading First Initiative: Secretary’s Leadership Academy March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Using an Outcomes Driven Model to Provide Decision Rules for Progress Monitoring
Outcomes Driven model: Decision making steps 1. Identifying Need for Support 2. Validating Need for Instructional Support 3. Planning and Implementing Instructional Support 4. Evaluating and Modifying Instructional Support 5. Reviewing Outcomes for Individuals and Systems Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best Practices in Using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an Outcomes-Driven Model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp ). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Using the Outcomes Driven Model
3 times per year progress monitoring Low Risk Frequent progress monitoring At Risk March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Progress Monitoring Model for Beginning Reading Core Areas
ISF 3 times per year progress monitoring - Low Risk Frequent progress monitoring - At Risk Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Progress Monitoring Repeated, formative assessment to evaluate progress toward important goals for the purpose of modifying instruction or intervention. Frequency of Progress Monitoring 3 times per year for students at low risk (All Students) Benchmark 1 per month for students with some risk Strategic 1 per week for students at risk Intensive March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Research on Progress Monitoring
Progress monitoring has been extensively researched in Special Education For example: Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, With Reading First, progress monitoring is not just for special education any more. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Effects of Progress Monitoring
Fuchs and Fuchs (1986) found the average effect size associated with progress monitoring was: +0.70 for monitoring progress +0.80 when graphing of progress was added +0.90 when decision rules were added A student at the 50th percentile would be expected to move to the 82nd percentile (i.e., a score of 100 would move to a score of 114) Perhaps more important, a student at the 6th percentile would be expected to move to the average range (25th percentile) (i.e., a score of 76 would move to a score of 90) March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Progress Monitoring Tools
Meaningful and important goals, waypoints, or benchmarks representing reading health or wellness. Meaningful and Important Public and Measurable Ambitious Brief, repeatable, formative assessment of progress toward benchmark goals that is sensitive to intervention. Brief and Efficient Repeatable - weekly or monthly Reliable and Valid indication of risk and growth March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Secretary’s Leadership Academy Assessment Committee
2002 Secretary’s Leadership Academy Assessment Committee Team Leader Edward J. Kame’enui, University of Oregon David Francis, University of Houston Lynn Fuchs, Vanderbilt University Roland Good, University of Oregon Rollanda O’Connor, University of Pittsburgh Deborah Simmons, University of Oregon Gerald Tindal, University of Oregon Joseph Torgesen, Florida State University Kameenui, E. J., Francis, D., Fuchs, L. Good, R. O’Connor, R. Simmons, D., Tindal, G., Torgesen, J. (2002). Secretary’s Leadership Academy, Reading First Initiative, Assessment Committee Presentation. US Dept. of Education: Washington, DC. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

idea.uoregon.edu/assessment
March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Progress Monitoring Model for Beginning Reading Core Areas
ISF 3 times per year progress monitoring - Low Risk Frequent progress monitoring - At Risk Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

DIBELS™ Assess the Big Ideas

DIBELS™ Initial Sound Fluency Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed. Directions for Administration and Scoring* Initial Sound Fluency is intended for most children from the last year of preschool through the middle of kindergarten. It may be appropriate for monitoring the progress of older children with very low skills in phonological awareness. The benchmark goal is 25 to 35 in the middle of kindergarten. Below 10 in the middle of kindergarten is indicates need for intensive instructional support. BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Phonemic Awareness

DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency
This is a mouse, flowers, pillow, letters (point to each picture while saying its name). Mouse begins with the sound /m/ (point to the mouse). Listen: /m/, mouse. Which one begins with the sounds /fl/? March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed. Directions for Administration and Scoring* Phoneme Segmentation Fluency works well for most children from winter of kindergarten through spring of first grade. It may be appropriate for monitoring the progress of older children with low phonological awareness skills. The benchmark goal is 35 to 45 correct phonemes per minute in the spring of kindergarten and fall of first grade. Students scoring below 10 in the spring of kindergarten and fall of first grade may need intensive instructional support to achieve benchmark goals. BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Phonemic Awareness

DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
I am going to say a word. After I say it, you tell me all the sounds in the word. So, if I say, “sam,” you would say /s/ /a/ /m/. Let’s try one. (one second pause). Tell me the sounds in “mop” Ok. Here is your first word. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

DIBELS™ Nonsense Word Fluency Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed. Directions for Administration and Scoring* Nonsense Word Fluency is intended for most children from spring of kindergarten through spring of first grade. It may be appropriate for monitoring the progress of older children with low skills in alphabetic principle. The benchmark goal for Nonsense Word Fluency is 50 correct letter sounds per minute by mid first grade. Students scoring below 30 in mid first grade may need intensive instructional support to achieve first grade reading goals. BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Alphabetic Principle

DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency
Here are some more make-believe words (point to the student probe). Start here (point to the first word) and go across the page (point across the page). When I say, “begin”, read the words the best you can. Point to each letter and tell me the sound or read the whole word. Read the words the best you can. Put your finger on the first word. Ready, begin. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

DIBELS™ Oral Reading Fluency Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed. Directions for Administration and Scoring* DIBELS™ Oral Reading Fluency is intended for most children from mid first grade through third grade. The benchmark goals are 40 in spring of kindergarten, 90 in spring of second grade, and 110 in the spring of third grade. Students may need intensive instructional support if they score below 10 in spring of first grade, 50 in spring of second grade, and below 70 in spring of third grade. BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
Please read this (point) out loud. If you get stuck, I will tell you the word so you can keep reading. When I say, “stop” I may ask you to tell me about what you read, so do your best reading. Start here (point to the first word of the passage). Begin. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

DIBELS™ Retell Fluency Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed. Directions for Administration and Scoring* DIBELS™ Retell Fluency is intended for most children from mid first grade through third grade who are reading at least 40 words per minute. It has been developed to provide a comprehension check for the DORF Assessment. BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Comprehension

DIBELS Retell Fluency Please tell me all about what you just read. Try to tell me everything you can. Begin. Start your stopwatch after you say “begin”. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Validity of ORF with RTF for Reading Comprehension
Desirable standards: r = .60 to .80 First grade: ORF with consistent retell correlates with Woodcock Johnson Broad Reading Cluster r = .81 (average of 2 probes) But, ORF with inconsistent retell correlates r = .42 Third grade: A single probe ORF and RTF correlates with Oregon State Assessment -- Reading and Literature Subtest: r = .73 RTF by itself generally correlates in the .20s, .30s, .40s and .50s with a variety of measures of comprehension. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Inconsistent Retell in First Grade
Students reading more than 40 words correct per minute, typical retell is about 50% of ORF score. Consistent retell is greater than or equal to 25% of ORF score. An inconsistent retell is less than 25% of the ORF score. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

ORF with inconsistent Retell has lower validity with Reading Outcomes
ORF with consistent retell r = .81 ORF with inconsistent retell r = .42 March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Inconsistent Retell in Third Grade
Students reading more than 40 words correct per minute, typical retell is about 50% of ORF score. Consistent retell is greater than or equal to 25% of ORF score. An inconsistent retell is less than 25% of the ORF score. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

DIBELS™ Word Use Fluency Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed. Directions for Administration and Scoring* Word Use Fluency Word Use Fluency (WUF) is intended for most children from fall of kindergarten through third grade. A benchmark goal is not provided for WUF because additional research is needed to establish its linkage to other big ideas of early literacy. Tentatively, students in the lowest 20 percent of a school district using local norms should be considered at risk for poor language and reading outcomes and those between the 20th and 40th percentile should be considered at some risk. BIG IDEA of Early Reading: Vocabulary and Oral Language

DIBELS™ Word Use Fluency
Format: Examiner orally presents word and asks child to tell a sentence using the word. “Listen to me use this word in a sentence. Jump. I like to jump rope. Your turn to use a word in a sentence. Pool.”

Word Use Fluency Total = 40 Bottom: Sit on your bottom (4)
Anyone: Anyone can go to my party (6) Dress: Dress yourself. I’m not gonna dress you.(7) Middle: Careful that’s middle (0) Total = 40 Street: Don’t go in the street (5) Today: Today have a fun day (5) Against: You’re against me (3) Snow: I like to play in the snow (7) Bats: Bats are scary (3)

WUF Distributions K 1st 2nd 3rd March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX
2002 WUF Distributions Picture of the distributions -- see the growth or lack thereof. Can see growth within grades and across grades. Within grade, these are the same children. Based on single probe at each data point. So, more difficult probe can effect how data looks. K 1st 2nd 3rd March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Statewide WUF Distributions Kindergarten 02-03/03-04
2002 Statewide WUF Distributions Kindergarten 02-03/03-04 Show pics of distributions. See low at beginning but growth across year Large SDs = = March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Statewide WUF Distributions First Grade 02-03/03-04
2002 Statewide WUF Distributions First Grade 02-03/03-04 See growth from beg to mid; looks like levels out from mid to end = = March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Statewide WUF Distributions Second Grade 02-03/03-04
2002 Statewide WUF Distributions Second Grade 02-03/03-04 See decreased variability -- also limited growth = = March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Statewide WUF Distributions Third Grade 02-03/03-04
2002 Statewide WUF Distributions Third Grade 02-03/03-04 Same thing is true for third grade, I.e., limited variability and growth. = = March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Word Use Fluency Summary
2002 Word Use Fluency Summary 1-month Alternate forms reliability = 1-week Alternate forms reliability = (4-5 probes for r = .90) Criterion-Related Validity PPVT = TOLD = EVT = WJ-LC = WRMT Reading Comprehension = Language Sample DWR = Sensitive to growth over time in K-1 (mean slope of 3.12 words per minute per month) Easy and practical to administer No Benchmark goals established -- Use local norms Implications for using WUF? Can be used to id children -- those who are in bottom 20%ile may be in need of support. Mon progress in grades K-1, use local norms. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

DIBELS™ Letter Naming Fluency Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills™ 6th Ed. Directions for Administration and Scoring* Letter Naming Fluency works well for most children from fall of kindergarten through fall of first grade. Students are considered at risk for difficulty achieving early literacy benchmark goals if they perform in the lowest 20% of students in their district. That is, below the 20th percentile using local district norms. Students are considered at some risk if they perform between the 20th and 40th percentile using local norms. Students are considered at low risk if they perform above the 40th percentile using local norms. BIG IDEA of Early Reading: NONE; indicator of risk

LNF Probes Each probe is a random sort of 2 lower case and 2 upper case alphabets. Lines help students to keep their place. Serial naming and fluency aspects of the task are important.

Using DIBELS™ Within an Outcomes Driven Model to Provide Decision Rules for Progress Monitoring
Outcomes Driven model: Decision making steps 1. Identifying Need for Support 2. Validating Need for Instructional Support 3. Planning and Implementing Instructional Support 4. Evaluating and Modifying Instructional Support 5. Reviewing Outcomes for Individuals and Systems Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best Practices in Using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an Outcomes-Driven Model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV (pp ). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Three Levels of Assessment
Benchmark Assessment Assess all children times/year (e.g., Fall, Winter, Spring) How is the program (e.g.,classroom, school, curriculum, instruction) doing overall? Are there children who may need additional support to achieve outcomes? Which children may need additional support to achieve outcomes? Strategic Monitoring Assess at risk children more frequently (e.g., monthly) Is current program sufficient to keep progress on track or are additional supports/intervention needed? Continuous or Intensive Care Monitoring Assess students needing more intensive, effective intervention weekly Are instructional supports/strategies effective or is a change in intervention needed? March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Benchmark Assessment - First Grade
Benchmark assessment – screening all children to identify need for support to achieve goals in Core Components of literacy: phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy and fluency with connected text, Vocabulary, and Reading Comprehension for all children. Beginning: September, October, or November Middle: December, January, or February End: March, April, May, or June March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

1. Identifying Need for Support
Key Decision for Screening Assessment: Which children may need additional instructional support to attain important reading outcomes? Data used to inform the decision: Compare individual student’s performance to benchmark goals or local normative context to evaluate need for additional instructional support. Benchmark Goals: A deficit in a foundation skill is a strong indicator that instructional support will be needed to attain later benchmark goals. Local normative context: First, choose a percentile cutoff. 20th percentile seems a good place to start, but a district could choose 15th percentile or 25th percentile or other cutoff depending on resources. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

2002 Several ways to access the materials on the website. Benchmark measures Progress monioring March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Beginning of Kindergarten

Identify Students who Need Support to Reach NEXT Benchmark Goal
In September of Kindergarten, Melissa has a deficit on initial sounds. She may need additional instructional support to achieve kindergarten benchmark goals in Phonemic Awareness. Tevin is on track with to achieve Phonemic Awareness goals with effective core curriculum and instruction. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Longitudinal Outcomes for DIBELS Benchmark Assessment
Odds of achieving subsequent early literacy goals for DIBELS Benchmark Assessments at the beginning, middle, and end of kindergarten, first, second, and third grades (12 screening points across K - 3) are available at dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf Students are at risk if the odds are against achieving subsequent early literacy goals. The purpose of screening is to provide additional instructional support -- strategic or intensive -- sufficient to thwart the prediction of difficulty achieving reading outcomes. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Sample Odds of Achieving Early Literacy Goals for Different Patterns of DIBELS Performance
dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment Percentile Rank for the pattern of performance. For example, a child with established ISF, some risk on LNF, and low risk on PSF is at the 54th percentile compared to other children in the middle of kindergarten. He or she achieved as well or better than 54% of children in participating schools on DIBELS. [Table Continues] Pattern of performance based on the DIBELS Benchmark Assessment dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment (continued) Average Percent achieving subsequent early literacy goals. For example, a student with a Deficit, Some Risk, At Risk pattern on DIBELS has 33% odds of achieving later literacy goals on average. [Table Continues] Odds of achieving specific early literacy goal. For example, 69% of students with Established, Some Risk, Low Risk pattern in the middle of kindergarten achieved the end of first grade DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency goal of 40 or more words read correct per minute. dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment (continued) Incidence or how often a pattern of performance occurs. For example, among students with a Deficit on ISF and Some Risk on LNF, achieving in the At Risk range on PSF would be a more common pattern, but achieving in the Some Risk range would be an unusual pattern. [Table Continues] Extremely rare patterns may indicate a need to retest. For example, it would be extremely rare for a student to have Established ISF, Low Risk on LNF, and At Risk status on PSF. Their PSF score may not be accurately estimating their phonemic awareness skill. dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Instructional Recommendations for Individual Patterns of Performance on Middle of Kindergarten DIBELS Benchmark Assessment (continued) [Table Continues] Instructional Support Recommendation. For students with odds in favor of achieving subsequent literacy goals, benchmark instruction is recommended. For students with odds against achieving subsequent literacy goals, intensive support is recommended. For about 50 – 50 odds, strategic support is recommended. dibels.uoregon.edu/techreports/decision_rule_summary.pdf March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Decision Utility of DIBELS
Pattern of performance on DIBELS measures determines overall risk status and instructional recommendation. In fall of first grade, for example, LNF >= 37, DIBELS PSF >= 35, DIBELS NWF >= 24 Instructional Recommendation: Benchmark - At grade level. Effective core curriculum and instruction recommended, Odds of reading 40 or more words correct per minute at the end of first grade: 84% Odds of reading less than 20 words correct per minute at the end of first grade: 2% LNF < 25, DIBELS PSF < 10, DIBELS NWF < 13 Instructional Rec: Intensive - Needs substantial intervention: Odds of reading 40 or more words correct per minute at the end of first grade: 18% (unless given intensive intervention) Odds of reading less than 20 words correct per minute at the end of first grade: 48% (unless given intensive intervention) Value of knowing the instructional recommendation and the goal early enough to change the outcome: Priceless. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Sample Cutoffs for Low Risk, Some Risk, At Risk for Kinder DIBELS Performance

Middle of Kindergarten

End of Kindergarten March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Identify Need for Support: Using Local Norms
X X X March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

2. Validate Need for Support
Key Decision: Are we reasonably confident the student needs instructional support? Rule out easy reasons for poor performance: Bad day, confused on directions or task, ill, shy, or similar. More reliable information is needed to validate need for support than for screening decisions. Data used to inform the decision: Repeated assessments on different days under different conditions Compare individual student’s performance to local normative context or expected performance to evaluate discrepancy. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Identify Need: Which children may need additional support
Identify Need: Which children may need additional support? Teacher’s list of children in class and DIBELS™ scores: January of K Initial Sound Fluency At risk Some risk Low risk In January of Kindergarten: Sandra, Matrix, Brandon, and Danielle have a deficit on Initial Sound Fluency. They may need additional instructional support to attain kindergarten benchmarks. Joseph and Tiffany are on track with established skills on ISF. Halley and Latisha have emerging skills and should be monitored strategically

Aggregating multiple, brief assessments increases reliability
When brief, 1-minute probes are used, it is important to consider error as one possible cause of poor performance. A pattern of low performance across probes is much more reliable. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Validating Need for Support
Verify need for instructional support by retesting with alternate forms until we are reasonably confident. Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Danielle Matrix Mid-year cutoff at risk Sandra Brandon March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

3. Planning and Implementing Instructional Support
Key Decisions for Diagnostic Assessment: What are the Goals of instruction? Where are we? Where do we need to be? By when? What course do we need to follow to get there? What skills should we teach to get there? Focus on the beginning reading core areas: Phonological Awareness, Alphabetic Principle, Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text Specific skills based on error analysis or additional diagnostic assessment (e.g., CTOPP). What kind of instructional support is needed? Intensive Instructional Support Strategic Instructional Support Benchmark Instruction March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Exploring Support - Aimline for Brandon
The aimline connects where we are to where we need to be by when, and shows the course to follow to get there. End-year Benchmark Goal Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Aimline End-year cutoff at risk March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Planning Support - Aimline for Sandra
The aimline connects where we are to where we need to be by when, and shows the course to follow to get there. End-year Benchmark Goal Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Aimline End-year cutoff at risk March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Instructional Goals for Core Components of Beginning Reading
Benchmark Goals to be On Grade Level Step 1: Phonological Awareness with on DIBELS Initial Sound Fluency by mid kindergarten (and 18 on PSF) Step 2: Phonemic Awareness with on DIBELS Phoneme Segmentation Fluency by end of kindergarten (and 25 on NWF) Step 3: Alphabetic principle on DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency by mid first grade (and 20 on DORF) Step 4: Fluency with on DIBELS Oral reading fluency by end of first grade. Step 5: Fluency with 90 + on DIBELS Oral reading fluency by end of second grade Step 6: Fluency with on DIBELS Oral reading fluency by end of third grade March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Instructional Steps from Kindergarten to Successful Reading Outcomes
The outcome of each step depends on (a) students beginning skills, (b) effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction, and (c) effectiveness of system of additional instructional support. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Planning Support: What skills should we teach?
Focus on the Big Ideas: Initial Sounds Fluency and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency - Phonemic Awareness Nonsense Word Fluency - Alphabetic Principle Oral Reading Fluency - Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text Retell Fluency - Comprehension Word Use Fluency - Vocabulary March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

What specific skills to teach?
For specific skill level use: Error analysis of DIBELS performance Knowledge of child performance in class Curriculum-linked assessment, e.g., mastery measures Use supplementary assessment as needed What can the child do/not do? March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Phonemic Awareness Is the child accurate but not fluent? Build fluency. Does the child have errors? What is the error rate? Few (5-10%), some (10-33%), many (33-90%), all? What is the pattern of errors? March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

ISF Response Patterns Produces multiple random errors
Substitutes name of letter for initial sound Repeats word when prompted for sound Recognizes but does not produce initial sounds consistently Recognizes and produces initial sounds confidently Difficulty with consonant sounds Difficulty with vowel sounds Pronunciation differences due to dialect or second language Frequent articulation difficulties, consider referral to language specialist Difficulty remembering picture names Frequent self corrections March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

PSF Response Patterns Stage 1: repeats entire word
Stage 2: produces initial sound or sounds only Stage 3: produces onset and rhyme Stage 4: produces initial and final sounds correctly; errors on middle sounds Stage 5: produces initial, middle and final sounds correctly; does not segment blends Stage 6: correctly segments all phonemes including phonemes in blends Produces consonant sounds correctly; misses vowel sounds Omits final sounds Pronunciation differences due to dialect or second language Frequent articulation difficulties, consider referral to language specialist Frequent phoneme additions Frequent phoneme omissions Frequent self corrections March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Sequence of Phonological Awareness Skills - K
1. Sound and Word Discrimination * Tells whether words or sounds are the same or different (cat/cat = same; cat/car=different). * Identifies which word is different (e.g., sun, fun, sun). * Tells the difference between single speech sounds (e.g., Which one is different? s, s, k). 2. Rhyming * Identifies whether words rhyme (e.g., cat/mat; ring/sing). * Produces a word that rhymes with another (e.g., "A word that rhymes with rose is nose. Tell me another word that rhymes with rose.) 3. Blending * Orally blends syllables (mon-key) or onset-rimes (m-ilk) into a whole word. * Orally blends 2-3 separately spoken phonemes into one-syllable words (e.g., m-e: me; u-p: up; f-u-n: fun). 4. Segmentation * Claps or counts the words in a 3-5 word sentence (e.g., Sue can jump far). * Claps or counts the syllables in 1-, 2-, and 3-syllable words. * Says each syllable in 2- and 3-syllable words (di-no-saur). * Identifies the first sound in a one-syllable word (e.g., /m/ in man). * Segments individual sounds in 2- and 3-phoneme, one-syllable words (e.g., run: /r/ /u/ /n/; feet: /f/ /ee/ /t/). March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Alphabetic Principle Nonsense Word Fluency
Is the child accurate but not fluent? Build fluency. Does the child have errors? What is the error rate? Does the child have errors? What is the pattern of errors? March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

NWF Response Patterns Stage 1: Has isolated letter-sound correspondences but lacks a systematic strategy for attacking unknown words. Stage 2: Produces correct consonant sounds; incorrect vowel sounds. Stage 3: Produces most sounds correctly sound-by-sound, but does not recode into complete word. Stage 4: Produces sounds correctly sound-by-sound and then recodes into complete word (e.g., /m/ /o/ /t/ “mot”) Stage 5: Fluently applies systematic trategy for attacking unknown words (i.e., reads mot as “mot”) Substitutes real words for nonsense words Produces sounds correctly sound-by-sound; recodes sounds out of order (e.g.,/b…i…s…/ “sib”) Consistent error for a specific consonant/vowel sound requiring review Pronunciation differences due to dialect or second language Frequent articulation difficulties, consider referral to language specialist Frequent sound additions Frequent sound omissions Frequent self corrections March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Critical Alphabetic Principle Skills
Letter-Sound Correspondences Example: (Teacher points to letter m on board). "The sound of this letter is /mmmmm/. Tell me the sound of this letter.” Sounding Out Words Example: (Teacher points to the word map on the board, touches under each sound as the students sound it out, and slashes finger under the word as students say it fast.) "Sound it out." (/mmmmmmmmaaaaaaap/) "Say it fast." (map) Reading Words Reading Words in connected text March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text
Oral Reading Fluency Is the child accurate but not fluent? Build fluency. Does the child have errors? What is the pattern of errors? Correctly decodes easy, phonetically correct words, misses long and/or irregular words Consistently makes errors on words with specific blends, digraphs, etc. Only reads simple and common words correctly consistently (e.g., “the” “and”) March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Vocabulary WUF Response Patterns
Stereotypical response pattern, e.g., “I like to ____” Word use is sparse and employs minimum utterances Word use is fluent and confident employing elaborated sentences Response often unrelated to target word Student appears shy and reticent to talk Student uses similar sounding word, may have difficulty hearing target word Student frequently asks for the word to be repeated, may have difficulty hearing target word March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

What Curriculum and/or program? Good News - Bad News - Good News
Good News: All but small number of children can learn to read. Bad News: No Magical Curriculum or program that is effective for all students. Good News: The Magic is in the system of support that matches each child with the support that is effective for her/him. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Planning Support: What curriculum/program to use?
Three levels of instructional support Benchmark -- Core Curriculum Strategic -- Supplemental Curriculum Intensive -- Intervention Curriculum March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Benchmark Instruction - Core Comprehensive Reading Programs
2002 Benchmark Instruction - Core Comprehensive Reading Programs Purpose: to provide complete instruction in the core components of reading Examples: Open Court Reading, SRA/McGraw Hill Houghton Mifflin Reading Mastery Notes: March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Strategic Support - Supplemental Reading Programs
2002 Strategic Support - Supplemental Reading Programs Purpose: to provide additional instruction in one or more areas of reading for students who require strategic instructional support to reach benchmark goals. Examples: phonemic awareness programs Phonemic Awareness in Young Children: A Classroom Curriculum, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc. fluency building programs Read Naturally, Read Naturally, Inc. Read Well, Sopris West comprehension strategy programs Soar to Success, Houghton Mifflin Co. Collaborative Strategic Reading Notes: March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Intensive Support - Intervention Reading Programs
2002 Intensive Support - Intervention Reading Programs Purpose: to provide additional instruction to students who have skill deficits and need intensive support to reach benchmark goals. Examples: Corrective Reading, SRA/McGraw-Hill Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention (Optimize), Scott Foresman Phonological Awareness Training for Reading, AGS Publishing Notes: The term “intervention” can be used in many ways. For example, a reading intervention could involve providing summer school for struggling readers. The term intervention as used here refers to specific programs designed to provide additional assistance for those students performing below grade level. Stand-alone intervention programs are remedial programs that can be used by themselves or in conjunction with other reading programs. They are designed to address one or more reading skills. In-program intervention programs are components of comprehensive reading programs. The in-program intervention programs contain lessons that are coordinated with comprehensive programs. In their most recent reading curriculum adoption, California required all comprehensive reading programs to include an intervention component. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Instructional Strategies
Grouping Small group instruction Flexible instructional grouping Effective Instruction Focused and systematic Explicit Direct explanation Modeling High student engagement Lots of opportunities to respond Lots of Guided Practice with immediate feedback Scaffolding to support learning Integration of skills Review March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

4. Evaluating and Modifying Instructional Support
Key Decision for Progress Monitoring Assessment: Is the intervention effective in improving the child’s early literacy skills? How much instructional support is needed? Enough to get the child on trajectory for Benchmark Goal. When is increased support needed? Monitor child’s progress during intervention by comparing their performance and progress to past performance and their aimline. Three consecutive assessments below the aimline indicates a need to increase instructional support. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Evaluating Support Sandra: Is the intervention working?
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Aimline March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Evaluating Support Brandon: Is the intervention working?
Whoops! Time to make a change! Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Aimline March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Evaluating Support - Brandon:Is Instructional Support Sufficient Now?
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency Aimline March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

What course should we follow? How are we doing?
Where are we? 2002 What is our goal? What course should we follow? How are we doing? Our Goal Desired Course Notes: For example, in the Northwest boating is an important recreation and livelihood. Whether you are on a whale watching tour or fishing, sometimes finding your way back to your port is easy. The sky is clear, the ocean blue, and you can clearly see your home port and the course you should follow to reach a safe harbor. [click] But sometimes the fog roles in and our journey to our goal becomes much more difficult and challenging. It is hard to tell where we are, where we want to be, what course to follow, and whether we are getting closer to safety or need to make a course adjustment. [click] So we turn on the GPS and ask where we are. [click] Of course, knowing where we are is only of limited help. The great philosopher Buckaroo Bonzai once commented, “No matter where you go, there you are!” [click] We also need to know where the port, our safe harbor, is. [click] [click] We also need to know what course to follow to get there. [click] The GPS can tell us to point the boat at 117 degrees and progress for 20 minutes at 10 knots to reach our goal. Now we have a good plan about how to get to our goal, our safe harbor, and avoid the rocks and cliffs on either side. But, sometimes our plans go awry…. [click] We also need to check up on our progress in time to make course corrections. [click] If we are off course, the time to modify our plan is early, in time to still reach our safe harbor and not end up on the rocks. [click] We are Here Actual Course March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Progress Monitoring: The Teacher’s Map The GPS for Educators
2002 A change in intervention Aimline Notes: This is exactly the role of progress monitoring toward important reading outcomes. Progress monitoring provides a GPS system for educators. In this figure, the first 3 X’s represent the child’s initial level of skills with respect to the accountability goal for the grade. Across the bottom is month of the school year. The bulls eye represents the accountability outcome for the child’s grade in school. If the child achieves that level of skill (or higher) then the child is on grade level and on track to meet standards for state accountability assessments in later grades. The green line represents the course the child will need to follow to achieve the desired outcome. The purple line represents a change or modification in the intervention plan. Sometimes the change may be a different intervention, sometimes the change may be additional time or practice opportunities within the same intervention. Sometimes you need a major course correction, sometimes a minor course correction will do. But, the child must stay on course to achieve the outcome. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX Reading First Initiative, Assessment System

Dynamic Interventions Build in an Assessment  Intervention Feedback Loop
Good interventions are identified by their outcomes - not our philosophy, or beliefs, or the quality of their packaging. Good interventions are individual – an effective intervention for one child may not be effective for another. Integrating assessment and intervention driven by outcomes is a key aspect of an effective intervention. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 1: Initial Sound Fluency in First Half of Kindergarten
Mid year goal: 25 on ISF Beginning K Low risk: >= 8 At risk: < 4 Middle K Low risk: >= 25 At risk: < 10 Additional Goal PSF >= 18 March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 2: Phoneme Segmentation Fluency in Second Half of Kinder
End K goal: 35 on PSF Middle K Low risk: >= 18 At risk: < 7 End K PSF Established: PSF >= 35 Deficit: < 10 Additional Goal NWF >= 25 March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 3: Nonsense Word Fluency in First Half of First Grade
Middle first goal: 50 on NWF Beginning first Low risk: >= 24 At risk: < 13 Mid first NWF: Established: NWF >= 50 Deficit: < 30 Additional Goal: ORF >= 20 March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 4: Oral Reading Fluency in Second Half of First Grade
End first goal: 40 on ORF Middle first ORF: Low risk: >= 20 At risk: < 8 End first ORF: Low risk: >= 40 At risk: < 20 Additional Goal: Retell > ORF/4 March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 5: Oral Reading Fluency in Second Grade
End second goal: 90 on ORF Beg second ORF: Low risk: >= 44 At risk: < 26 End second ORF: Low Risk: >= 90 At Risk: < 70 Additional Goal: Retell > ORF/4 March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 6: Oral Reading Fluency in Third Grade
End third goal: 110 on ORF Beg third ORF: Low risk: >= 77 At risk: < 53 End third ORF: Low Risk: >= 110 At Risk: < 80 Additional Goal: Retell > ORF/4 March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Is Progress is Related to Outcomes?
The logic of the Evaluating and Modifying Support step relies on evidence that amount of progress toward goals is related to important reading outcomes. Is slope of progress on NWF in the Fall of first grade related to first grade reading outcomes? This questions was recently examined by Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., and Compton, D. L. (in press). Monitoring early reading development in first grade: Word Identification Fluency versus Nonsense Word Fluency. Exceptional Children. Fuchs et al. also examined the validity of spring slope, whole year slope, and the validity of fall level, all of which will not be addressed here. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Validity of Slope on NWF in Fall of First Grade for Oral Reading Fluency Outcomes
Based on 151 “at risk” children, Fuchs et al. correlated slope of progress in fall of first grade with spring of first grade reading outcomes: Note. WIF is Word Identification Fluency March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Conclusions: Validity of NWF Slope
“coefficients for the nonsense word fluency measure slopes were disappointingly low, ranging from -.04 to .16. Because nonsense word fluency is recommended for progress monitoring in the fall of first grade within the DIBELS system (Good et al., 2001), these findings raise serious concern. An increasing pattern of scores through the first semester of first grade on DIBELS nonsense word fluency appears to bear little relationship to students’ end-of-year reading status.” (p. 21) “practitioners can have confidence that increases in word identification fluency over time reflect improved performance on important end-of-year reading outcomes. As our results suggest, the same is not true for DIBELS nonsense word fluency, and findings are particularly compelling because data were collected on the same group of children using the same methods.” (p. 23) March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Concerns and Questions
Before accepting these conclusions, some concerns should be addressed. 1. The simple correlation between slope and reading outcome addresses the wrong question. There is no rational or logical reason why slope by itself should be related to reading outcomes without considering the students initial skills. The crucial question is, Given the student’s initial skills, does slope of progress add to the variance explained in reading outcomes? Nick has NWF slope of while Nora has NWF slope of Who would you expect to have higher reading outcomes in the spring? March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Answer: It depends on initial skills.
Nora has a slope twice that of Nick, but substantially lower reading outcome because her initial skills are so much lower. Spring DORF = 51 Spring DORF = 27 Slope, by itself without considering initial skills is not enough to predict outcomes. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Now Consider Nora and Nell
Nora and Nell have similar initial skills – Nell’s higher slope predicts higher skills in middle of first grade and higher reading outcomes. Spring DORF = 37 Spring DORF = 27 March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Given Initial Skills, Does Slope Add to Predictions of Outcomes?
Students with complete data from in the DIBELS Data System were examined for level of risk, slope of progress, and reading outcomes. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Fuchs et al. “At Risk” Sample
Mean DIBELS NWF score is in the low risk range. An estimated 70% of the sample would be above the NWF cutoff of 23 for low risk. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Utility of Initial NWF Risk Categories
Initial skills on NWF are a very strong predictor of reading outcomes. 0 -12 March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Does Slope Add to the Prediction of Reading Outcomes After Risk Level and Initial Skills?
Rules for evaluating effects: Significance. With N > 20,000 everything is significant. Percent of variance explained. More than 10% of variance explained is a good indication of a strong effect. Greater percent is stronger. Educationally meaningful effects. Analysis of outcomes to see if the predicted differences would be educationally important to teachers, students, parents. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Does Slope Add to the Prediction of Reading Outcomes After Risk Level and Initial Skills?
Sequential model predicting first grade DORF reading outcomes from (1) risk category, (2) initial NWF skill given risk, and (3) slope given risk and initial skill. Risk category, initial skills, and slope combined explain 59% of reading outcomes. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Variance Explained by Slope for Each Risk Category
A separate analysis was conducted for each risk category. But, is the variance explained by slope (given risk and initial skills) educationally important? Rate of progress is especially important for students who are at risk for low reading outcomes. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Variability in Slope for At Risk Students
About 68% of student’s trajectories are between the low slope and the high slope. Hi Slope Lo Slope March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Are Differences in Slope Educationally Meaningful for At Risk Students?
Yes. Predicted reading outcomes are substantially different. Hi Slope Lo Slope March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Conclusions: Validity of DIBELS NWF Slope
Initial risk status and initial skills on DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency are very important in predicting reading outcomes in first grade, explaining 48% of variance in outcomes. An increasing pattern of scores through the first semester of first grade on DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency appears to be a very important predictor of reading outcomes for students who are at risk and for each risk category. We can be confident that increases in DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency reflect improved performance on essential skills that contribute to important end-of-year reading outcomes. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

5. Reviewing Outcomes Key Decisions for Outcome/Accountability Assessment: Does the child have the early literacy skills predictive of successful reading outcomes? Does the school have core curriculum and instruction as well as a system of effective instructional support so their students achieve literacy outcomes? Data used to inform the decision: Evaluate individual student’s performance with respect to benchmark goals that with the odds in favor of achieving subsequent literacy goals. Compare school/district outcomes to goals and outcomes from previous year. Evaluate core curriculum and system of additional support for each step to identify strengths and areas for improvement. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Reviewing Outcomes - School Level 1998 – 99 First Grade Reading
28% Established Readers 57% Emerging Readers 15% Non-Readers March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Reviewing Outcomes - School Level 1999 – 00 First Grade Reading
57% Established Readers 36% Emerging Readers 6% Non-Readers March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Heartland Early Literacy Project Across Year First Grade Oral Reading Fluency Outcomes
Beginning: Middle: 4229 End: 4414 Beginning: Middle: 4037 End: 4152 Beginning: Middle: 1595 End: 1879 March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Reviewing Outcomes: Effectiveness of Benchmark Instruction (Core Curriculum)
For each step toward literacy outcomes, a school with an effective core curriculum and instruction supports students who are on track (i.e., low risk or benchmark) to achieve the goal. For students with the odds in favor of achieving literacy goals, it is the job of the core to teach the core components so that all students (100%) achieve the goals. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Reviewing Outcomes: Effectiveness of Strategic and Intensive Intervention
For each step toward literacy outcomes, a school with an effective system of effective interventions supports students who are not on track (i.e., at some risk or at risk of difficulty achieving literacy goals) to achieve the goal. For students with the odds against achieving literacy goals unless we provide an effective intervention, it is the job of the system of additional support to augment the core curriculum so that all students (100%) achieve the same benchmark goals. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

The outcome of each step depends on (a) students beginning skills, (b) effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction, and (c) effectiveness of system of additional instructional support. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step by Step, Core and Intervention
A B Effectiveness of Benchmark (core) for School A A S Effectiveness of Strategic support for School A A I Effectiveness of Intensive support for School A March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Core Curriculum and Instruction
1. Is the core curriculum and instruction getting at least 95% of Benchmark students to the next early literacy goal? If children are on track, the core should keep them on track. What would it take to achieve 100%? 2. Is the core curriculum and instruction as effective as other schools in getting Benchmark students to the goal? If typical schools are not getting 100% of Benchmark students to the goal, then supplementing the core in this area can improve reading outcomes. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 1: Beginning K to Middle K
Middle kindergarten outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the beginning of kindergarten Intensive Median School Note. Graph based on all schools participating in the DIBELS Data System in the 2001 – 2002 academic year. Benchmark Median School A S A I A B A typical (middle) school had 62% of children with a beginning kindergarten benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of kindergarten goal, and 2% of children with intensive support recommendation. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 2: Middle K to End K End of kindergarten outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations in the middle of kindergarten A B A S A I Benchmark Median School Intensive Median School A typical (middle) school had 90% of children with a middle kindergarten benchmark recommendation achieve the end of kindergarten goal, and 26% of children with intensive support recommendation. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 3: Beginning First to Middle First
Middle of first grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations in the beginning of first grade A I Intensive Median School Benchmark Median School A S A B A typical (middle) school had 68% of children with a beginning first grade benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of first grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 4: Middle First to End First
End of first grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations in the middle of first grade A B Benchmark Median School A I Intensive Median School A S A typical (middle) school had 96% of children with a middle first grade benchmark recommendation achieve the end of first grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 5a: Beginning Second to Middle Second
Middle of second grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the beginning of second grade A I Intensive Median School Benchmark Median School A B A S A typical (middle) school had 90% of children with a beginning second grade benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of second grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 5b: Middle Second to End Second
End of second grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the middle of second grade Intensive Median School Benchmark Median School A B A I A S A typical (middle) school had 92% of children with a middle second grade benchmark recommendation achieve the end of second grade goal, and 4% of children with intensive support recommendation. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 6a: Beginning Third to Middle Third
Middle of third grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the beginning of third grade Intensive Median School A B Benchmark Median School A S A I A typical (middle) school had 90% of children with a beginning third grade benchmark recommendation achieve the middle of third grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step 6b: Middle Third to End Third
End of third grade outcomes for students with benchmark, strategic, and intensive instructional recommendations at the middle of third grade A I Intensive Median School Benchmark Median School A S A B A typical (middle) school had 91% of children with a middle third grade benchmark recommendation achieve the end of third grade goal, and 0% of children with intensive support recommendation. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal. Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools. Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Outcomes Driven Model Repeat for Each Step
3 time per year progress monitoring Low Risk Frequent progress monitoring At Risk March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Step by step to important reading goals and outcomes. Implicit in this logic is a linkage to High Stakes Reading Outcomes. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Third Grade Oral Reading Fluency to Oregon Statewide Assessment Test
53% of Variance Exceeds Meets Does not meet Expectations Odds of “meets expectation” on OSAT given 3rd grade TORF of 110 : 90 of 91 or 99%. Odds of “meets expectation” on OSAT given 3rd grade TORF below 70: 4 of 23 or 17%. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Linkage of Third-Grade TORF to Illinois State Assessment Test (ISAT)
Variance Odds of “meets standards” on ISAT given Third-Grade TORF of 110 or above: 73 of 74 or 99%. Odds of “meets standards” on ISAT given Third-Grade TORF of 70 or below: 1 of 8 or 12%. Sibley, D., Biwer, D., & Hesch, A. (2001). Unpublished Data. Arlington Heights, IL: Arlington Heights School District 25. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Alaska State Benchmark in Reading
Above 110, the odds are strong the student will rank “proficient” on the AK State Benchmark. Proficient Alaska State Benchmark in Reading Below Proficient Below 70, the odds are low the student will rank “proficient” on the AK State Benchmark. 3rd Grade Benchmark in Reading - CBM Linner, S. (2001, January). Curriculum Based Assessment in reading used as a predictor for the Alaska Benchmark Test. Paper presented at the Alaska Special Education Conference, Anchorage, AK. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Linkage of Oral Reading Fluency to State Reading Outcome Assessments
Above 110, the odds are 91% the student will rank “adequate” on the FL State Assessment. Below 80, the odds are 19% the student will rank “adequate” on the FL State Assessment. Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (Technical Report 1). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research,. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Themes Don’t loose track of the bottom line. Are we getting closer to important and meaningful outcomes? Monitor Progress on -- and teach -- what is important: Phonemic Awareness, Alphabetic Principle, Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text Oral Reading Fluency is an important instructional goal and target of progress monitoring. Use progress monitoring to make decisions that change outcomes for children. Progress monitoring should be efficient and purposeful. Start early! Trajectories of reading progress are very difficult to change. March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

End of Presentation

Support Strength Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal. Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools. Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Support Strength Support Strength Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal. Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools. Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Support Strength Support Strength Typical Strength Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal. Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools. Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Support Strength Support Strength Typical Strength Support Typical Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal. Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools. Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Support Strength Support Strength Typical Strength Support Typical Typical Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal. Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools. Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Support Strength Support Strength Typical Strength Support Typical Typical Support Strength Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal. Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools. Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Support Strength Support Strength Typical Strength Support Typical Typical Support Strength Strength Typical Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal. Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools. Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

Support Strength Support Strength Typical Strength Support Typical Typical Support Strength Strength Typical Support Typical Support – Effectiveness is less than a typical school and less than goal. Typical – Effectiveness is less than goal, but typical of other schools. Strength – Effectiveness is at goal or greater than typical of other schools March 31, 2004 Dallas, TX

NASP Workshop Dallas, TX, March 31, 2004

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NASP Workshop Dallas, TX, March 31, 2004"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

NASP Workshop Dallas, TX, March 31, 2004

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NASP Workshop Dallas, TX, March 31, 2004"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback