Running head: STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 1

Student Assessment Project Paper

Harper LaFond

EDU 325
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 2

Student Assessment Project Paper

Hayden is a first-grade student at East Garfield Elementary School in Steubenville, Ohio.

He lives in an urban environment with his mom, dad, and siblings. Hayden’s teacher identified

him as one of the struggling readers in her class. Hayden is currently participating in Success for

All (SFA) tutoring for help in reading, writing, and spelling with a preservice teacher from

Franciscan University. The information about his present levels of performance, strengths and

weaknesses, and interests were obtained from his tutor.

Hayden’s academic strengths include being very efficient at blending phonemes into

words and knowing his letters and sounds. Hayden’s academic areas for improvement include

segmenting words into phonemes and writing certain letters backwards. For example, he

frequently writes the letters “b” and “d” backwards. In terms of behavioral strengths, when

Hayden is motivated to do something, he does it well. In terms of behavioral areas for

improvement, Hayden engages in off-task behavior such as thinking or talking about things that

are off-topic. His tutor mentioned that he is easily distracted and often appears to be off in his

own little world. With that said, Hayden is very a very social student and is aware of those

around him. He has friends and says “hi” to everyone he knows during tutoring. He enjoys

helping to clean up after his tutoring sessions and is motivated by the stickers and pencils he

earns during tutoring. He enjoys sports such as baseball and basketball.

Procedures

I chose to administer the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

Next Assessment to a student from East Garfield Elementary School because I am currently

involved in SFA tutoring with two first grade students and I am familiar with their teachers. I
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 3

first approached Hayden’s teacher and asked if she had any low-achieving readers in her class

whom I could use for the DIBELS Assessment. She identified Hayden as a struggling reader and

gave me permission to come and test him any day of the week in the afternoon. When I

administered Part 1 of the DIBELS Assessment, I picked Hayden up from computer class,

introduced myself, and briefly explained what we were going to be doing. I took Hayden to the

area where I do SFA tutoring with my first graders which is in a little hall between two

classrooms. I had Hayden sit at the table with his back facing the main hall to limit distractions.

East Garfield is very limited in quiet areas for tutoring or testing and unfortunately, the test

environment was less than ideal on this day—it was very loud and distracting. I briefly reviewed

what we were going to be doing and then used the DIBELS Assessment materials for first grade

to administer the probes, using my phone as a stopwatch. Throughout the testing, Hayden was

quiet and reserved. With that said, he did seem distracted which was probably due to the testing

environment. Overall, Hayden cooperated well for me and I let him choose a sticker at the end of

our time together for working so hard. I walked him back to his classroom. The next day, I met

with Hayden’s SFA tutor. I invited her over to my apartment to answer a few questions about

Hayden. She was more than willing to help and stayed for a short time to provide her insights on

Hayden’s performance, strengths and weaknesses, and interests from her perspective as his tutor.

The day after that, I administered Part 2 of the DIBELS assessment. I picked Hayden up from

gym class, reintroduced myself, and again briefly explained what we were going to be doing.

The testing took place in the same place as the initial testing. Thankfully, the testing environment

was much quieter and less distracting. Again, I briefly reviewed what we were going to be doing

and then used the DIBELS Assessment materials for first grade to administer the probes. Hayden

was more talkative today, but he was still distracted while he was being tested. Overall, Hayden
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 4

cooperated well for me despite getting distracted. I walked him back to his classroom. Later, I

calculated and scored Hayden’s results and compared them to the first-grade Beginning of Year

Benchmarks and Middle of Year Benchmarks. I chose to focus on phonics and fluency.

Assessments Given

Hayden completed all the probes for Parts 1 and 2 of the DIBELS assessment. He

completed probes for Letter Naming Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word

Fluency, and DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency to determine his competency in a variety of areas

including phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

Each of the probes in the first grade DIBELS assessment are one minute long. In the

Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) measure, the student is given a list of letters and he or she must

say the correct letter name for each letter. The assessor assigns a score based on the number of

letters the student is able to name correctly. The LNF measure assesses a student’s ability to

name letters quickly and accurately (Good et al., 2011). The data received from the LNF measure

is important because it is a predictor of later success with reading (Good et al., 2011). In the

Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) measure, the student is given a list of words and he or she

must segment the words by saying each individual sound within the word. The assessor assigns a

score based on the number of sounds the student is able to say correctly. The PSF measure

assesses a student’s phonemic awareness (Good et al., 2011). The data received from the PSF

measure is important because phonemic awareness is an important basic early literacy skill

(Good et al., 2011). In the Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) measure, the student is given a list of

made-up words and he or she must read each word. If the student is unable to read certain words,

he or she can say the individual sounds within the word. The assessor assigns two scores: a score

based on the number of sounds the student is able to say correctly and a score based on the
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 5

number of words the student is able to read correctly without segmenting and blending. The

NWF measure assesses a student’s knowledge of the alphabetic principle and basic phonics

(Good et al., 2011). In other words, the NWF measure assesses student’s decoding skills

(O’Keeffe, Bundock, Kladis, Yan, & Nelson, 2017). The data received from the NWF measure is

important because both alphabetic principle and basic phonics knowledge are important basic

literacy skills (Good et al., 2011). In the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) measure, the

student is given a story and he or she must read the words accurately and with a proper rate. The

assessor assigns a score for words correct per minute. Then, the student must recount what the

story was about both accurately and with as much detail as possible. The assessor assigns a score

based on a rubric which reflects the quality of the response. The DORF measure assesses

students in a variety of different areas. As a whole, the DORF measure assesses a student’s

knowledge of advanced phonics and word attack skills (Good et al., 2011). The reading portion

assesses a student’s fluency abilities and the retell portion assesses a student’s comprehension

abilities (Good et al., 2011). In short, the DORF measure can be said to measure general reading

skills (O’Keeffe et al., 2017). The data received from the DORF measure is important because

advanced phonics, word attack skills, fluency, and comprehension are all important basic literacy

skills and it can tell the assessor a lot about the student’s abilities (Good et al., 2011).

Results & Analysis

Since Hayden completed Parts 1 and 2 of the DIBELS Assessment for first grade

students, his results were compared to the Beginning of Year Benchmarks and Middle of Year

Benchmarks, respectively. Based on his results for Part 1 of the assessment, Hayden performed

well in relation to the Beginning of Year Benchmarks and would mostly need core support. For

Part 1 of the assessment, Hayden completed probes for LNF, PSF, and NWF. Kayden’s
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 6

composite score was 124 as compared to a benchmark score of 113. For the LNF measure,

Hayden received a score of 35 which means that he was able to correctly name 35 words in one

minute. There is no benchmark for the LNF measure. For the PSF measure, Hayden received a

score of 55 which means that he was able to correctly identify 55 sounds in one minute as

compared to a benchmark score of 40. For the NWF measure, Hayden received a score of 34 for

correct letter sounds (CLS) and a score of 0 for whole words read (WWR) which means that he

was able to correctly identify 34 sounds in one minute but was unable to read any words without

segmenting and blending. The benchmark for CLS is 27 and the benchmark for WWR is 1.

Overall, Hayden performed well in relation to the Beginning of Year Benchmarks.

Table 1
Hayden’s Scores Compared to Beginning of Year Benchmarks
Assessment Hayden’s Score Benchmark Level of Support
LNF 35 N/A N/A
PSF 55 40 Core Support
NWF CLS: 34 CLS: 27 Core Support
WWR: 0 WWR: 1 Strategic Support
Table 1

However, since Hayden completed Parts 1 and 2 in February, it is more accurate to

compare Hayden’s results to the Middle of Year Benchmarks. Based on his results for Part 2 of

the assessment, Hayden performed poorly in relation to the Middle of Year Benchmarks and

would mostly need intensive support. For Part 2 of the assessment, Kayden completed probes for

NWF and DORF. Kayden’s composite score was 54 as compared to a benchmark score of 130.

For the NWF measure, Kayden received a score of 40 for correct letter sounds (CLS) and a score

of 0 for whole words read (WWR) which means that he was able to correctly identify 40 sounds

in one minute but was unable to read any words without segmenting and blending. The

benchmark for CLS is 43 and the benchmark for WWR is 8. For the DORF measure, Kayden

received a median score of 14 for words correct and a median score of 25 for errors which means
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 7

that he was able to read a passage at 36% accuracy with 14 words correct per minute. The

benchmark for words correct is 23 and the benchmark for accuracy is 78%. Kayden received a

median score of 0 for retell and a median score of 1 for retell quality which means that he was

unable to provide any relevant main points or details about the passage he just read. Based on

Hayden’s results and performance on the assessment, he needs to improve in several areas and

demonstrate significant growth in order to meet the End of Year Benchmarks for first grade.

Table 2
Hayden’s Scores Compared to Middle of Year Benchmarks
Assessment Hayden’s Score Benchmark Level of Support
NWF CLS: 40 CLS: 43 Strategic Support
WWR: 0 WWR: 8 Intensive Support
DORF Words Correct: 14 Words Correct: 23 Intensive Support
Accuracy: 36% Accuracy: 78% Intensive Support
Table 2

Hayden’s main struggle during the assessment was staying on task as he tended to get

distracted due to attention difficulties and, on the first day of assessment, the testing

environment. However, Kayden continued to try his best despite getting off-track. Hayden

demonstrated a few common error patterns during Parts 1 and 2 of the assessment. For example,

he frequently had problems with tracking both with the NWF and DORF reading probes. He also

frequently skipped over words he did not know during the DORF reading probe. Finally, he was

unable to provide any pertinent information for the DORF retell probe, repeating the same made-

up story. Overall, Hayden demonstrated competency with the LNF measure (letter naming) and

PSF measure (phoneme segmentation), despite the lack of Middle of Year Benchmarks for these

measures. He also demonstrated some competency with the NWF measure even though he was

below benchmark for Part 2 of the assessment. His greatest area of need, however, became

apparent after he completed the DORF reading probes. Hayden needs significant help with

decoding (phonics) and fluency in order to become a proficient reader by the end of first grade.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 8

Targeted Area for Improvement: Phonics

Phonics refers to the connection between oral language and written language and includes

skills such as decoding and sight word recognition. Hayden demonstrated limited competency

with the NWF measure (as compared to the Middle of Year Benchmarks) which assesses phonics

skills (Good et al., 2011). Hayden’s deficiencies with phonics became even more apparent after

he completed the DORF reading probes which assess advanced phonics skills (Good et al.,

2011). He struggled to sound out words he did not know and frequently skipped unknown words

altogether. He missed several sight words while reading the passages. While it is important that

Hayden receives interventions to help strengthen his decoding skills, it is equally as important

that he be able to recognize high frequency sight words while reading. One strategy for

increasing recognition of high frequency sight words is to create flashcards for practice. This

strategy is very straightforward and can be adapted in a variety of ways. The SFA Tutoring

Manual outlines one way for students to practice sight word recognition. In this approach, the

teacher creates flashcards for high frequency sight words and the student draws a picture to go

with each word (Slavin et al., 2005). Since students need repeated exposure to sight words in

order to recognize them, the student will then practice reading the words, using the picture clues

as necessary (Slavin, et al., 2005). In a study conducted by January, Lovelace, Foster, and Ardoin

(2017), the researchers compared the effects of two different flashcard interventions and found

that both interventions were successful in helping students learn new words. Therefore, contrary

to some beliefs, flashcard practice can be beneficial in helping students with sight word

recognition. Student progress could be monitored very simply by recording how many sight

words the student is able to master over a period of time. In addition, it would be important to
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 9

keep track of how many mastered sight words the student is able to read within the context of a

story to determine if their memorization of the words transferred over to reading.

Targeted Area for Improvement: Fluency

Fluency refers to a student’s ability to read with automaticity, phrasing, and expression

all at a proper rate. Hayden scored well below benchmark for the DORF measures which assess

fluency (Good et al., 2011). Hayden especially struggled with automaticity when reading the

passages. He was unable to provide any pertinent information for the DORF retell probe because

he did not read fluently and was unable to remember anything about the passages he just read.

Fluency is imperative for successful reading and reading comprehensions. Therefore, it is

imperative that Hayden be given strategies to help improve his reading fluency skills. One

strategy for fluency is partner reading. In partner reading, also known as paired reading, a less

fluent reader is paired with a more fluent reader and the more fluent reader reads the assigned

passage first (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012). The partners then take turns reading the assigned passage

until the less fluent reader is able to read the passage fluently (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012). In the

case of partner reading, the more fluent reader takes on the role of teacher in helping the less

fluent reader Reutzel & Cooter, 2012). Marr and Dugan (2011) outline a similar process for

partner reading in which the students actually keep track of the progress. The authors state that in

prior studies they conducted, the less fluent students demonstrated great success with this

strategy and significantly increased their ORF scores from pretest to posttest (Marr & Dugan,

2011). Student progress could be monitored by periodically having the student read a passage,

determining words correct per minute, and comparing the score to the grade benchmark. Or, as

described in the article by Marr and Dugan (2011), students could record and chart their own
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 10

progress. Either way, the teacher should use the data to determine if the partner reading is

effective and should make changes as necessary.

Conclusion

Overall, I was able to learn a lot about Hayden’s reading abilities, strengths, and

weaknesses by interviewing his tutor, having him complete the DIBELS Assessment, and

analyzing his results. Based on the Beginning of Year Benchmarks, Hayden would most likely

need core support, but compared to the Middle of Year Benchmarks, Hayden would most likely

need intensive support in order to be on target with the End of Year Benchmarks for first grade.

Thus, as initially identified by his teacher, Hayden is in fact a struggling reader who needs

serious interventions. Hayden would greatly benefit from extra instruction and practice,

especially in the areas of phonics and fluency, to help him become a successful reader in the

future. All in all, I personally learned quite a bit about Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)

and the DIBELS Assessment through my experience with Hayden. First, I learned that the

DIBELS Assessment requires a certain level of preparedness and practice from the assessor.

Because the DIBELS Assessment is so fast paced, it demands a lot of concentration and

automaticity from the assessor. If I were to give a DIBELS Assessment again in the future, I

would make sure to practice multiple times beforehand. Second, I learned that the CBM is a

great form of assessment because it provides teachers with a wealth of specific information with

which they can make targeted instructional decisions. Going forward, I would recommend the

DIBELS Assessment to any teachers or administrators who are considering using it.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT PAPER 11

Bibliography

Good, R. H., III, Kaminski, R. A., Cummings, K., Dufour-Martel, C., Petersen, K., Powell-

Smith, K., . . . Wallin, J. (2011). DIBELS Next assessment manual. Eugene, OR:

Dynamic Measurement Group.

January, S. A., Lovelace, M. E., Foster, T. E., & Ardoin, S. P. (2017). A comparison of two

flashcard interventions for teaching sight words to early readers. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 26(2), 151-168. doi: 10.1007/s10864-016-9263-2

Marr, M. B., & Dugan, K. K. (2011). Building oral reading fluency with peer coaching.

Remedial and Special Education, 32(3), 256-264.

O’Keeffe, B. V., Bundock, K., Kladis, K. L., Yan, R., & Nelson, K. (2017). Variability in

"DIBELS Next" progress monitoring measures for students at risk for reading difficulties.

Remedial and Special Education, 38(5), 272-283. doi: 10.1007/s10864-016-9263-2

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2012). Reading fluency. Ramos, A. M., Chuck, M. E., &

Grelak, E. K. L. (Eds.), Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the difference (pp.

180-211). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Chambers, B., Tucker, B., Gifford, R., Olson, L., . . . Fitchett, W.

(2005). Tutoring manual 3rd edition. Baltimore, MD: Success for All Foundation.