Academic Data for Instructional Decisions:
Elementary Level
Dr. Amy Lingo, Dr. Nicole Fenty, and Regina HirnProject ABRI
University of Louisville
Project ABRI 2009
ABRI Defined• ABRI: Academic and Behavior Response to
Intervention• Pilot program involving 3 districts and
representing elementary, middle and high school levels
• In partnership with the Kentucky Department of Education
• To promote both academic and behavior responses in schools
Project ABRI 2009
Where can I find academic data at the elementary school level?
• State wide assessment results
• Screening results• District administered
standardized assessment• Grade level equivalents• Teacher administered
formative assessment• Teacher administered
summative assessment
Project ABRI 2009
Webinar Offerings
• 3 Tier Model: Academic and Behavior Interventions• Analysis of Behavior Data• Using Academic Data to Make Decisions
(elementary and secondary)• Classroom Management • Reading and Math Instruction (Universal Strategies)• Targeted Interventions: Behavior, Reading and Math
Project ABRI 2009
Common Assessments (examples)
• Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
• Reading Inventory• Developmental Reading Assessment• AimsWeb• PAS• MAP• GRADE
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
Subtests• Initial Sound Fluency
– Skill(s) measured: phonological/phonemic awareness
• Phoneme Segmentation Fluency– Skill(s) measured: phonological/phonemic awareness
• Nonsense Word Fluency– Skill(s) measured: phonics
• Oral Reading Fluency– Skill(s) measured: reading fluency
Eckwall/Shanker Reading InventorySubtests
• Phonemic Awareness– Skill(s) measured: Phonemic awareness
• Sight Vocabulary; Word List– Skill(s) measured: Word recognition
• Phonics; Structural Analysis– Skill(s) measured: Phonics
• Oral and Silent Reading– Skill(s) measured: Reading connected text
• Listening and Reading Comprehension– Skill(s) measured: Understanding connected text
Qualitative Reading Inventory
• Word List– Skill(s) measured: Word recognition
• Oral and Silent Reading– Skill(s) measured: Reading connected text
• Listening and Reading Comprehension– Skill(s) measured: Understanding connected text
Developmental Reading Assessment
• Oral Reading– Skill(s) measured: reading fluency
• Oral Retell, Prompts, and Questions– Skill(s) measured: Understanding connected text
15
StudentName ORF RTF NWFTiffany 44 19 54Allison 26 18 37Amber 15 25 22Erin B 23 15 25Sheri 49 41 69
Carson 56 45 81Tavia 33 23 63
Haleigh 41 38 61Jacqueline 53 28 42
Shane 39 14 59Matt 47 36 45
Meagan 30 8 32Amanda 40 11 70Cheryl 49 25 57Alex 72 35 94
Erin T 51 22 48Jennifer 58 34 51Tessa 73 49 78
Marissa 57 0 55Ashley 44 25 53Katie 12 * 20Stacy 23 15 25 Few HF words read accurately, reading S x SMean 43.4 53.1
Median 28.0 31.5No. ss below BM 9 8
Total students tested 21 21% ss below BM 43% 38%
Fall 04Comments
Accurate reading; few errors with multi-syllable words
Accurate and fluent reading, good skills with MS words
Reading some NWs sound by sound firstFew HF words read accurately, reading S x SFew HF words read accurately, reading S x S
Accurate and fluent reading, good skills with MS words
Long for short vowels, confuses nonsense for real wordsUsed initial consonants to guess; NWF confusion
Slight difficulty with MS words and confusion with some HF wordsAccurate reading; few errors with multi-syllable words
Difficulty with MS words and HF wordsFew HF words read accurately, difficulty with MS words
Many cvc words read with long vowel soundsDistracted; multiple errors with MS and HF words
Good reading, not able to retell; shy?Right at the benchmark; some hesitancies, but accurate
Slow, labored reading; word by word; poor blending,
Fluent, accurate; good prosody; good CVC automaticityFluent and accurate, but hesitant; long vowel sounds in cvc words
Few errors with multi-syllable words, long for short vowelsAccurate and fluent reading, good skills with MS words
Second Grade Class
16
Group 1 Group 2
Student ORF RTF NWF Student ORF RTF NWFAllison 26 18 37 Tavia 33 23 63Meagan 30 8 32 Haleigh 41 38 61
Matt 47 36 45 Shane 39 14 59Amanda 40 11 70Marissa 57 0 55
Group 3 Group 4 Group 5
Student ORF RTF NWF Student ORF RTF NWF Fall 04Sheri 49 41 69 Amber 15 25 22 Student ORF RTFNWFTessa 73 49 78 Erin B 23 15 25 Jacqueline 53 28 42Cheryl 49 25 57 Katie 12 * 20 Ashley 44 25 53Alex 72 35 94 Stacy 23 15 25 Erin T 51 22 48
Carson 56 25 81 Jennifer 58 34 51Tiffany 44 19 54
Fall 04
Fall 04
Fall 04
Fall 04
Students who Score Below Benchmark
• In phonemic awareness– practice with rhyming, discriminating, blending, and
segmenting• In phonics or word recognition
– practice with letter/sound correspondence, blending, word families, and multisyllabic words
• In reading fluency or reading connected text– practice with letter recognition, letter/sound
correspondence, high frequency words, oral reading• In comprehension
– practice with preparation, organization, elaboration, and metacognition, text structures,
• Review data sources – Standardized measures– Curriculum-based measures– Progress monitoring– Informal information (classroom data, observations)
• Identify at-risk students using data• Determine targeted areas for instruction• Students may have multiple areas of need
18
Forming Groups Based on Assessment Data
Student ORF NWF
Allison 26 37
Meagan 30 32
Matt 47 45
Group 1
Central Foci Should Be: Phonics and reading fluencyRationale?
Possible activity•Word work
•Manipulate words at the onset/rime and phoneme levels; incorporate nonsense words•E.g., pop-top-lop-lap-cap-tap-hap•Materials: manipulative letters, dry erase boards, letter tiles
Available Data: Academic Year in Review (Reading)
Project ABRI 2009
ElementaryGrade 1% Students per Intervention Category
Mathematics
• Collection • Compilation
– Reformatting– Charts– Graphs– Questioning
Project ABRI 2009
Common Assessments
• Fluency Assessments – One Minute Timings• Diagnostic Interviews• Error Analysis• Benchmarking software programs
Diagnostic Interviews in Mathematics
• Diagnostic interviews are a means of getting in-depth information about an individual student’s knowledge and mental strategies about the concept under investigation. A student is given a problem and asked to verbalize his or her thinking at points in the process for solving the problem.
Project ABRI 2009
Error Analysis of Student Work
• Problem completion analysis• Think Aloud with error analysis• Conceptual vs. procedural error analysis
Project ABRI 2009
Benchmarking Software Programs
• Computer software programs that identify specific goals based on student responses
Project ABRI 2009
Students who Score Below Benchmark
• In mathematics fluency• In conceptual understanding• In mathematics procedures within word
problems• In application of authentic problems
Sample Intervention with Results – Intervention with 28 Students
Computation Practice Only• One day per week 5/28 Probe
10 4/5 met benchmark 80%• 2 days per week 4/28 Probe
10 4/4 met benchmark 100%
Project ABRI 2009
Sample Intervention with Results
Great Leaps Math• 2 days per week 4/28 Pro be
10 4/4 met benchmark 100%• 3 days per week 7/28 Probe
10 6/7 met benchmark 86%
Project ABRI 2009
Sample Intervention with Results
Computation practice and Great Leaps Math• 3 days of intervention 2/28 Probe
10 2/2 met benchmark 100%• 4 days of intervention 5/28 Probe
10 4/5 met benchmark 80%• 5 days of intervention 2/28 Probe
10 2/2 met benchmark 100%• Students below Fall benchmark -- Probe 10 2/33 6%
Project ABRI 2009
Amy LingoAssistant Professor, Special EducationCollege of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of LouisvilleLouisville, KY [email protected](502) 852-0563