Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Assessing the Instructional Level for Writing David Parker, Kristen McMaster, and Matthew Burns.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Assessing the Instructional Level for Writing David Parker, Kristen McMaster, and Matthew Burns."— Presentation transcript:

1 Assessing the Instructional Level for Writing David Parker, Kristen McMaster, and Matthew Burns

2 Activity 1.Topic: –White: Describe why nuclear fission has been easier to do than nuclear fusion. –Peach: Describe why this conference will be useful for your practice. –Pink: Describe the events of your last family vacation. 2.Pencils down: Think for 30 seconds 3.Write!!!

3 Activity Count # Words Written Results: SampleWhitePeachPink Average

4 Activity The Findings: –Did the Peach and Pink writers write more? –Who was more on-task? Whyd we do it? –Simulate the right amount of challenge Think of the kids!!!

5 Overview 1.Introduction –Why writing? –Why instructional level? –Purpose of this study 2.Method –Who, what, how? 3.Results –What was found 4.Discussion –Why it matters, limitations, what next?

6 Introduction Why Writing?? National Report Cards on Writing, 2003; 2008

7 Introduction Why does writing proficiency matter? –Enhances learning in content area courses (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004). –College Entrance, Job Obtainment/Performance (National Commission on Writing, 2004; 2005).

8 Introduction Problem: Detecting writing problems in late elementary or middle school, makes it more difficult to remediate (Baker, Gersten, & Graham, 2003) Solution: Start Intervening Early!!!!

9 Introduction Enter the Instructional Level!!! First, some background knowledge

10 Introduction What is the Instructional Level? Instructional Level Theoretical Foundation Measurement Tools Assessment

11 Introduction Theoretical Foundation –Vykotsky (1978) –Betts (1946) –Gravois & Gickling (BP-V; 2008) Measurement Tools –Curriculum-based Measurement ( CBM; Deno, 1985; Marston, 1989 ) For early writers (Coker & Ritchey, 2009; McMaster, Du, Yeo, Deno, Parker, & Ellis, 2009) Assessment –Curriculum-based Assessment (Gickling & Havertape, 1981; Gickling, Shane, & Croskery, 1989) Instructional Level Theoretical Foundation Measurement Tools Assessment

12 Introduction Empirical Findings Reading: –93-97% correctly read words (Treptow, McComas, & Burns, 2007; Gickling & Armstrong, 1978) Improved on-task behavior, task completion, and reading comprehension 4x Faster growth rates (Burns, 2007) Math: –14-31 Correct Digits (2/3 rd Graders); Correct Digits (4/5 th Graders) Highest growth slopes (Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Jiban, 2006). Instructional Level Theoretical Foundation Measurement Tools Assessment

13 Introduction There is NO Instructional Level for writing! Purpose: To identify potential estimates of the instructional level for writing.

14 Method Participants –5 classrooms from 2 urban schools –85 1 st grade students 51% male 41% White; 28% Black; 26% Hispanic 57% Free/Reduced Lunch 17% special education services Setting –Classrooms

15 Method Measures 1.Curriculum-based Measurements –Two Types 1.Picture-Word 2.Sentence Copy –Scoring Procedures 1.Words Written 2.Words Spelled Correctly 3.Correct Word Sequences 2.Test of Written Language

16 Method Picture-Word Prompt (McMaster, Du, & Petursdottir, 2009)

17 Method Sentence-Copy Prompt (McMaster, Du, & Petursdottir, 2009)

18 Method Procedure –Weekly progress monitoring data 12 weeks Teacher-administered Students practiced then completed prompts for 3 minutes Fidelity and Agreement –Collected for teacher administration as well as prompt scoring –Teacher administration fidelity: 100% –Agreement: generally > 90%

19 Method Data Analysis (an 8-step plan) 1.Establish Reliability of Accuracy/Fluency Metrics 2.Establish Validity of Promising Metrics 3.Compute Growth Slopes 4. Identify top 1/3 rd Slopes 5.Compute Mean Start for top 1/3 rd Slops 6.Create Categories 7.Establish Reliability of Categories 8.Establish Validity of Categories Part 1: Find promising measures and scoring procedures

20 Method Data Analysis (an 8-step plan) 1.Establish Reliability of Accuracy/Fluency Metrics 2.Establish Validity of Promising Metrics 3.Compute Growth Slopes 4. Identify top 1/3 rd Slopes 5.Compute Mean Start for top 1/3 rd Slopes 6.Create Categories 7.Establish Reliability of Categories 8.Establish Validity of Categories Part 2: Find Instructional Levels

21 Method Data Analysis (a 8-step plan) 1.Establish Reliability of Accuracy/Fluency Metrics 2.Establish Validity of Promising Metrics 3.Compute Growth Slopes 4. Identify top 1/3 rd Slopes 5.Compute Mean Start for top 1/3 rd Slops 6.Create Categories 7.Establish Reliability of Categories 8.Establish Validity of Categories Part 3: Examine promise of instructional levels

22 Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients for Fluency and Accuracy Scores for Sentence Copy and Picture-Word Prompts and Accompanying Scoring Procedures. FluencyAccuracy Probe 2Probe 3Probe 2Probe 3 Prompt Procedure MSDM rM M r Picture-Word Words Written * Words Spelled Correctly * * Correct Word Sequences * * Sentence Copy Words Written * Words Spelled Correctly * * Correct Word Sequences * *

23 Correlation with TOWL-3 Total Prompt Procedure Fluency Raw r 1 Category ρ 1 Picture-Word Words Written.32*.36* Words Spelled Correctly.48*.46* Correct Word Sequences.52*.50* Sentence Copy Words Written Words Spelled Correctly.42*.46* Correct Word Sequences.46*.48* Table 2. Criterion-related Validity Coefficients between Scoring Procedures for Each Prompt and the Test of Written Language-3 (TOWL-3) Total Score.

24 Prompt ProcedureMeanSDSE Fluency Criteria (3 minute probe) Picture-Word Words Written Words Spelled Correctly Correct Word Sequences Sentence Copy Words Written Words Spelled Correctly Correct Word Sequences Table 3. Derivation of and Estimates for Fluency Instructional Level Criteria for Scoring Procedures within Prompt Types.

25 Probe 2Probe 3 FrustrationInstructionalIndependentFrustrationInstructionalIndependent. κ Prompt-Procedure N%N%N%N%N%N% Picture-Word Words Written * Words Spelled Correctly * Correct Word Sequences * Sentence Copy Words Written * Words Spelled Correctly * Correct Word Sequences * Table 4. Number and Percentage of Fluency Scores Categorized as Frustration, Instructional, and Independent and Kappa Coefficients.

26 Correlation with TOWL-3 Total Prompt Procedure Fluency Raw r 1 Category ρ 1 Picture-Word Words Written.32*.36* Words Spelled Correctly.48*.46* Correct Word Sequences.52*.50* Sentence Copy Words Written Words Spelled Correctly.42*.46* Correct Word Sequences.46*.48* Table 2. Criterion-related Validity Coefficients between Scoring Procedures for Each Prompt and the Test of Written Language-3 (TOWL-3) Total Score.

27 Discussion Conclusion: –Consistent with previous research for reading (Burns, 2007; Gickling & Armstrong, 1978) and math (Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Jiban, 2006), criteria are plausible that indicate a student will make optimal growth in writing skill. Implications: –MORE research! –Instructional decision-making

28 Discussion Limitations –Conceptual issues CBM (General Outcome Measure) vs. CBA (Specific Subskill Measure)? Material difficulty? –Generalizability?? (only 1 st graders?) –Criterion for high-responders –Ongoing research with early CBM-Ws Future Research –Investigate effects of instructional level prospectively (vis. Intervention)? –Which measure is most informative? –Appropriate criteria?

29 Questions?

30 Thank you!


Download ppt "Assessing the Instructional Level for Writing David Parker, Kristen McMaster, and Matthew Burns."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google