Running head: STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 1

Student Assessment Project

Harry Olenick

EDU 325
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 2

Student Assessment Project

Brandon Jones is an imaginative and energetic homeschooled fourth grade student who

loves magic tricks, dinosaurs, Jurassic Park, super heroes, pirates, Lord of the Rings, baseball,

and basketball which he plays in his neighborhood and in a church league. At ten years old, he is

the youngest sibling and only brother to four sisters. The oldest sister is a junior in college who

commutes daily, two are in high school, and one is in the eighth grade. His parents are married

and the entire family lives in a single-family home. While his mother indicated that he is very

sociable, easy going, curious, and eager to please others, she stated that he often prefers to have

others do things for him and does not always apply himself or try as hard as he could. She

believes that this is a result of being the baby of the family. Brandon also becomes easily

distracted and tends to be impulsive and rambunctious especially when it comes to school work

and cleaning his room. He frequently tries to talk his way out of tasks he sees as undesirable or

attempts to start an alternative activity.

Brandon completes his daily schoolwork and lessons within his home that is located in a

rural/suburban neighborhood in eastern Ohio. Brandon does not have or need a Behavior

Intervention Plan (BIP) or special accommodations for taking assessments. He does receive

private reading tutoring on a regular basis and has previously participated in private math

tutoring. Academically, Brandon loves history and science. He regularly states that he wants to

become a paleontologist when he grows up. Brandons mother shared that his performances in

math, reading, and writing are good and show consistent growth. He is developing in his

appreciation for reading and finds motivation in being able to read a book and then watch a

movie based on it. However, his mother indicated that his performance in spelling is fair and

could improve. He often rushes through his assignments and makes simple mistakes because he
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 3

does not check his work. For this school year, Brandons parents want to focus on improving his

reading, spelling, and composition skills.

Procedures

When I reviewed the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)

assessment process and was trying to decide who to assess, Brandon immediately came to mind.

I have known Brandons mother, Caroline, for close to four years; she worked in the same office

where I was a student employee for a nontraditional masters program. In one of my previous

education courses, I was required to tutor a school-aged student in elementary math concepts and

skills. When Caroline heard about this, she asked if I would be willing to work with her son. I

tutored Brandon for the class and then became his private math tutor for an additional two

semesters. I have a strong friendship and rapport with Brandon and his family. Brandon and I

share many of the same interests and like to make tutoring fun and interactive. I can tell he looks

up to me; he has even claimed that I am a superhero. It was an obvious choice to work with

Brandon. I knew he would willingly and eagerly complete the assessments.

I briefly explained the assessments and my courses requirements before I asked

Caroline for permission to work with Brandon. She readily agreed. Although I was willing to

work with Brandon at the university on a day that fit their schedule, Caroline insisted I come

over to their new home to administer the assessment and stay for dinner and a visit. I graciously

accepted and we picked a date and time. Prior to the date, I sent Caroline a form to complete

with Brandons background information, present levels of performance, and academic strengths

and weaknesses. I also printed and familiarized myself with all the DIBELS assessment materials

that corresponded with his age and grade level in order to be organized and prepared. Although
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 4

the assessment was given in February, it should be noted that I printed and used the materials for

the beginning of the academic school year.

I drove to their house in the late afternoon on the chosen day. When I arrived, I chatted

with Caroline, Brandon, and a couple of his sisters for a few minutes. As his mother excused

herself to start making dinner, I asked for a quiet place to work where I could clearly hear

Brandon read and answer my prompts. Caroline suggested that Brandon and I work in his

bedroom where he has a desk directly inside his door. Brandon was excited to show me the

posters on his wall, his fish tank, and some of the toys and collectibles he had lying about the

room. I sat in a chair beside Brandon and chatted with him for a few minutes as I pulled out the

DIBELS material. I explained that we were going to do a few activities that would help me with

one of my classes. I also told him that this was not a grade but he should try his absolute best.

According to the fourth-grade benchmark assessments for the beginning of the year, I

administered three DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) probes including the retell fluency

(RF) measurements and one DAZE probe. I began with the DORF probes. I first asked Brandon

if he was ever timed for a minute as he read a passage. He said no. I slowly read the directions to

Brandon and asked if he had any questions or concerns before we began. He again said no. I used

my phone to set a timer for one minute and administered the assessment. I then read the

instructions for the RF measurement, set the timer for another minute, asked Brandon if he was

ready, and marked the assessment booklet accordingly. I repeated this process for the other two

DORF probes and RF measures. We were interrupted one time when Brandons father, who was

in their basement working on a project when I arrived, stepped into the room between the second

and third sets to say hello and see if we needed anything and how he was doing.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 5

Following the three DORF assessments, I pulled out the DAZE probe material, read the

instructions aloud, prompted Brandon to complete the two examples, and provided immediate

feedback. Brandon correctly answered the two examples and automatically elaborated as to why

the other choices for each sample were incorrect. I set the timer for three minutes and told

Brandon to begin. He silently completed the probe as I sat back and monitored the time. I did not

want to distract him by shuffling papers or writing in the assessment booklet. Including the

breaks and interruption, it took about thirty minutes to administer and complete the DIBELS

assessments.

Throughout the entire process, I encouraged Brandon to continue doing his best and

provided motivation in the form of high fives and short breaks in between probes to talk about

shared interests, movies, and jokes. After the assessments, I sat down for dinner and a visit with

Brandon and his family. I scored the probes the following day, recorded the information on the

front of the assessment booklet, and compared his results to the established grade level

benchmarks for the beginning of the year provided by the DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and

Composite Scores (2016) guide.

Assessments Given

DIBELS is a series of curriculum based, formative assessments designed to identify

students at risk of reading failure by evaluating each students early literacy and reading skills in

relation to the corresponding grade-level benchmark goals or minimum levels of achievement

needed to become a proficient reader (Kaminski, Cummings, Powell-Smith, & Good, 2008).

DIBELS specifically measures phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principle including the

ability to blend phonemes, fluency, vocabulary acquisition and application, comprehension, and

letter naming fluency. In conjunction with the benchmark goals, the scores from these probes are
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 6

used to inform instruction including the selection and implementation of evidence-based

practices (EBPs), prevent future reading challenges, and provide meaningful intervention and an

appropriate placement within the Response to Instruction and Intervention (RTII) framework.

Following the initial assessment, educators should use multiple progress monitoring tools and

regularly reassess using DIBELS and other relevant curriculum based measurements (CBMs)

according to each individuals needs (Deno, 2003). This ongoing formative data can be used to

establish goal lines, track growth and development over time, evaluate the effectiveness of a

certain instructional strategy, and indicate the overall responsiveness to intervention and future

RTII placements.

The DORF, RF, and DAZE probes were administered for the fourth-grade

DIBELS assessment. DORF is an oral reading fluency measure in which the student reads three

different grade-level passages aloud for one minute each (Vander Meer, Lentz, & Stollar, 2005).

The goal is to measure the students reading speed and accuracy by calculating the number of

words correctly read in a minute. Hesitations lasting longer than three seconds, skipped or

substituted words, and significant mispronunciations are considered errors. If the student inserts

an additional word into the text or makes an error but self-corrects within three seconds, he is not

scored as incorrect. The oral reading fluency rate (i.e., the median score of the three probes) is

compared to established benchmarks and used to identify at-risk students and inform instruction

and intervention. Goffreda, Diperna, and Pedersen (2009) suggest using DORF because research

indicates that it has strong validity for predicting future reading proficiency and achievement on

standardized reading tests. Oral reading fluency probes have also been shown to be effective

indicators of reading competence or comprehension (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001).
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 7

Three RF measures- one for each DORF probe- were also administered. RF is not a

separate screening assessment; rather, it acts in tandem with DORF as a comprehension check

(Good, Kaminski, & Dill, 2002). After a one-minute reading assessment, the student is instructed

to tell the assessor as many details about the selected passage that he can remember within a

minute. As the student speaks, the assessor should count as many of the words in the students

response as possible. The assessor also evaluates the quality of the response by indicating the

number of details the student provided. The median score from the three RF measures is then

compared to the appropriate benchmark indicators. Atkins and Cummings (2011) explain that the

ultimate goal is to account for the discrepancies between reading comprehension and fluency.

Many children misinterpret the purpose of the DORF probe and reading practice with adults to

mean that speed alone (i.e., reading as much of the passage as quickly as possible without

focusing on meaning) is the desired outcome. Therefore, RF attempts to account for and prevent

speed reading, increase the validity of the DORF measure, and act as a more direct indicator of

reading comprehension. Moreover, some children can read fluently but struggle to comprehend

the material (Good et al., 2002). Data gathered from DORF and RF can help eliminate poor

fluency as the cause of comprehension difficulties.

Finally, one DAZE assessment was given. DAZE is the DIBELS version of a maze probe

which is designed to measure reading comprehension and the reasoning process (Good &

Kaminski, 2011). DAZE evaluates a students ability to utilize background information, prior

knowledge, word recognition skills, reasoning skills, and linguistic concepts (i.e., syntax and

morphology) to produce meaning from a reading passage. In a DAZE passage, many words are

omitted and replaced by a box containing three word choices; one of the words correctly fits the

text while the other two are unrelated and designed to distract. The student has three minutes to
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 8

silently read as much of the passage as he can while selecting the word in each box that makes

the most sense in the sentence. After the number of correct and incorrect responses are counted,

the assessor needs to calculate the adjusted score, which compensates for guessing. To determine

the adjusted score, the assessor must subtract half the number of incorrect responses from the

total number of correct answers. This adjusted score is compared to the benchmark goals in order

to make instructional decisions and ascertain the level of support the student is likely to need.

Hale et al. (2011) propose that there may be a distinct difference between silent reading fluency

and read aloud fluency because different sets of cognitive resources are needed for each. When

reading aloud, a student must make a conscious effort to decode, properly pronounce, and

emphasize words and read with intonation and expression thus lowering the ability to focus on

meaning. Therefore, while DORF and RF help ensure that the student reads the entire passage

(i.e., does not skim or purposefully skip words or lines), identify areas of concern regarding

decoding and fluency skills, and measure read aloud comprehension, it is important to assess

comprehension of silent, independent reading. This can provide more direct information

regarding reading comprehension and account for the effects of poor oral reading fluency and

pressure.

Results and Analysis

The DORF, RF, and DAZE probe scores were compared to the beginning of the year

benchmarks provided in the DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and Composite Scores (2016)

guide. This information can be used to establish goal lines, inform instruction including the

selection of appropriate evidence-based practices, and monitor Brandons progress over time.

DORF and RF. In the first DORF measure, Brandon read a total of 73 words but made

six errors. Therefore, he read 67 words correctly in one minute. In the RF probe for this passage,
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 9

Brandon provided three details about the story using only 14 words. In the second probe,

Brandon reached 104 words but he made 30 errors; he omitted an entire line of text in addition to

pronunciation errors and other skipped words. He read 74 words correctly in one minute. In RF,

Brandon struggled to remember the main ideas from the story. He used 12 words to share two

details. In the final DORF measure, Brandon read a total of 91 words with eight errors. He read

83 words correctly in one minute. In RF, Brandon shared three story elements using 17 words.

Overall, Brandons words correct per minute median score was 75 with an 84.6% accuracy.

Brandon used an average of 14 words and scored an overall retell quality score of 1 (i.e.,

provided 2 or fewer details) in the RF measures. Table 1 summarizes Brandons scores and

averages for the DORF probes and RF measures.

Total Words RF Word RF Quality

Measurement Errors
Words Correct Count Response
DORF Probe 1 73 6 67 14 2 (3 details)
DORF Probe 2 104 30 74 12 1 (2 details)
DORF Probe 3 91 8 83 17 2 (3 details)

Average Words Correct 75 RF Word Count Average 14

DORF Accuracy 84.6% RF Quality Response Average 1

Table 1. Brandons performance on the DORF and RF assessments.

The DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and Composite Scores (2016) guide distinguishes

the DORF Words Correct from DORF Accuracy and RF from Retell Quality of Response; there

is an associated benchmark status and likely level of needed support for the beginning, middle,

and end of the year for each of these categories. Using the beginning of the year benchmark

goals for DORF Words Correct, Brandons median score indicates that he is below benchmark

and likely to need strategic support. Similarly, Brandon is well below benchmark and likely to
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 10

need intensive support according to his DORF Accuracy. Both Brandons RF and Retell Quality

of Response scores place him at below benchmark status and likely to need strategic support.

In all three fluency probes, Brandon read at an even pace with appropriate phrasing,

intonation, and expression. He observed punctuation and changed the tone and volume of his

voice to match the tone of the passage and to distinguish questions and exclamations from

declarative statements. However, Brandon made consistent errors. Although he occasionally

paused before reading a difficult word, Brandons pace remained even and smooth; he made

errors as if they were correct and read without stopping. Brandon regularly mispronounced

words. For instance, in the second probe, Brandon consistently mispronounced skis as skies.

Brandon did not use effective decoding strategies; he did not try to segment and then blend the

individual sounds in unfamiliar words. Brandon also omitted words including a whole line in the

second DORF passage. Brandon self-corrected only a few times and inserted a total of three

additional words in the three probes. Moreover, Brandons retell fluency was limited. He

provided very few details and failed to adequately summarize the passages. Brandon often

seemed unsure of his responses as if he did not know if he was correct. He also repeated many of

the same elements and did not relate the information to his own life. Brandon did not provide any

additional information after receiving a prompt. He simply stated that he did not remember

anything else.

DAZE. Finally, in the DAZE measure, Brandon finished approximately one-fourth of the

passage in the allotted three minutes. He did not speed read or skim the passage. Brandon silently

read each sentence in its entirety and paused to consider all the choices within each box. He

appeared to re-read each sentence with each of the choices before making a decision. Brandon

mostly appeared confident when circling an answer but he hesitated once or twice as if he was
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 11

making a guess. He completed 14 of the prompts but answered only 11 correctly. Brandons

adjusted score is a nine which indicates that he is well below benchmark and likely to need

intensive support. However, it should be noted that a nine is the highest score in this benchmark

status and likely level of needed support; Brandon is close to reaching below benchmark status

and the strategic level of support.

Summary of performance. Graph 1 illustrates all of Brandons scores compared to the

minimum score needed to be considered at benchmark for the beginning of the year. This shows

Brandons present level of performance compared to the level he needs to reach to be proficient.

Table 2 also summarizes Brandons benchmark statuses and likely levels of needed support. This

table shows the levels of support that will help Brandon reach the at benchmark levels indicated

in Graph 1.
120

96
100 90
84.6
80 75

60

40
27

20 14 15
9
1 2
0
DORF Words Correct DORF Accuracy % Retell Retell Quality of DAZE Adjusted Score
Response

Brandon's Average Minimum At Benchmark Averages for Beginning of the Year

Graph 1. Comparison of Brandon's scores to at-benchmark goals

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 12

DIBELS Measure Benchmark Status Likely Level of Needed Support

DORF Words Correct Below Strategic

DORF Accuracy Well Below Intensive
Retell Below Strategic
Retell Quality of Response Below Strategic
DAZE Below/Well Below Intensive/Strategic
Table 2. Summary of Brandons benchmark statuses and likely levels of needed support

While Brandon is an energetic, imaginative, and talkative boy, he attentively listened to

the directions and took each assessment seriously. He remained seated, did not misbehave, and

only engaged in unrelated conversations in the time intervals between the probes. There were no

identifiable interruptions, behavior concerns, environmental factors, or problems with effort that

would have affected the results of these assessments. Although, it is important to note that

Brandon may have been excited by the presence of the assessor and the visit in general; thus,

while there were no observable attention difficulties, Brandon may have struggled to focus and

completely apply himself. Overall, Brandons results suggest that he is in need of strategic and

intensive support in fluency and comprehension.

Areas Targeted for Improvement

Fluency. Fluency is primarily characterized as reading speed, accuracy, expression, and

intonation although automatic word recognition and simultaneous reading comprehension

arguably remain essential components (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012). Hudson, Lane, and Pullen

(2005) suggest that fluency is important because each component is directly correlated to overall

text comprehension including the students ability to identify the authors message and

accurately interpret the meaning of the text. Research indicates that strong fluency skills (i.e.

speed, accuracy, appropriate expression, and word automaticity) allow the brain to focus more of

its limited working memory or cognitive resources on comprehension.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 13

According to his DORF assessment results, Brandons words correct per minute (i.e.

reading speed) and accuracy are below and well below benchmark status respectively. Further,

while he read with expression and at an even pace, Brandon regularly mispronounced or

substituted words. Finally, his RF for the DORF passages was limited and contained few

comprehensive story details. Therefore, it is proposed that improving his reading speed,

accuracy, and ability to automatically recognize words will allow him to focus more on text

meaning thus strengthening his retell fluency and comprehension. Two strategies that may help

Brandon are repeated reading with recorded models and readers theatre.

Repeated Reading with Recorded Models. Repeated reading is a strategy in

which the student rereads a passage multiple times in order to receive corrective feedback and

incrementally improve reading speed and accuracy (Hawkins, Marsicano, Schmitt, McCallum, &

Musti-Rao, 2015). Repeated reading can take many different forms including timed repeated

readings and repeated readings with recorded models. The traditional timed repeated reading

method involves choosing brief reading passages within the students instructional level, creating

a goal for speed and accuracy, and guiding the student as he repeatedly rereads the passage until

he meets the established goal (Hudson et al., 2005). In repeated readings with recorded models,

the student reads a text multiple times as he listens to an audio recording of a fluent reader who

reads accurately, at an appropriate rate, and with expression. The teacher and student can

monitor progress by graphing the initial goal and charting the subsequent changes in reading

speed and accuracy. This information can be gathered through the administration of weekly

fluency CBMs such as DORF. Overall, research indicates that repeated reading improves both

reading fluency and comprehension (Hawkins et al., 2015). It is also found that continuous

exposure to the text and abundant modeling of fluency strengthens word recognition accuracy,
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 14

expressive and meaningful reading, comprehension, and confidence with both practiced and

never-before-seen passages (Rasinski, Rupley, Pagie, & Nichols, 2016). Brandon may benefit

from repeated reading with recorded models because he is homeschooled; there may not always

be an adult reader available to model fluent reading and provide corrective feedback.

Readers Theatre. Readers theatre is an activity in which the student practices

reading a passage or a play multiple times over a week in order to perform it in front of others

(Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz, 2014). While there are typically no props or costumes and lines do not

have to be memorized, the student should read fluently and with appropriate expression.

Although numerous publishers and online resources offer readers theatre passages for all

reading levels and genres of text, the student may adapt a self-selected work to the readers

theatre format by writing his own script. This promotes critical thinking skills, text and word

exploration, and decision making. Moreover, Mraz et. al (2013) argue that difficulties with

decoding and word recognition (i.e. automaticity of high-frequency sight words and reading

accuracy) negatively affect a students ability to understand the meaning of a passage, achieve

the appropriate age-level reading rate, and ultimately enjoy reading. Readers theatre helps to

strengthen word automaticity and increase accuracy (i.e. words read correctly per minute) by

presenting and repeatedly exposing students to previously unknown words, encouraging reading

practice in non-threatening environments, providing corrective feedback, offering situational

context for written language, and infusing creativity and fun. Overall, readers theatre has been

show to improve reading fluency and comprehension (Carrick, 2006).

In conjunction with repeated reading with recorded models, progress can be monitored

using one-minute reading probes such as DORF. The teacher may also progress monitor by

maintaining anecdotal records and informal observations of Brandons reading habits, patterns,
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 15

improvements, and continued challenges across multiple readers theatre practices and

performances. Brandon may benefit from this strategy because it will allow him to use his

energy, creativity, and imagination to explore, repeatedly practice, and perform a variety of texts.

Brandon could write his own scripts, create parts for himself and his sisters, and perform them

for his parents and friends. This strategy corresponds to his outgoing personality and will likely

become an intrinsic motivation for reading.

Comprehension. Comprehension can be defined as intentional thinking or the complex

process of extracting and creating meaning from ones interactions with a text (Reutzel &

Cooter, 2012). While decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and other reading domains are

indispensable, it is arguable that the main goal of reading is comprehension (i.e. the ability to

obtain and understand the authors message and the meaning of a passage). Wallach and Ocampo

(2017) further explain reading comprehension instruction will not be the same for all students

and situations; one approach may work for one student while a different strategy may be more

beneficial for another. Therefore, reading comprehension strategies should reflect the needs of

the student and focus on activating background knowledge, interacting with and using a wide

variety of text types and genres, and facilitating independent learning. Finally, research shows

that explicit reading comprehension strategy instruction significantly improves reading

comprehension (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009).

According to his RF and DAZE results, Brandon struggles with reading comprehension.

His RF scores are below benchmark status and indicate a need for strategic intervention.

Brandon used few words in the RF probe, gave minimal details, appeared hesitant, did not relate

the material to his life, and stated that he could not remember anything else after receiving a

prompt. His DAZE scores also indicate that he is well below benchmark status and in need of
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 16

intensive support. It is proposed that explicit instruction of reading comprehension strategies will

enhance Brandons RF and DAZE scores and overall ability to construct meaning while reading.

Two strategies that may help Brandon are paragraph shrinking and click or clunk.

Paragraph Shrinking. Paragraph shrinking is a during-reading summarizing

strategy in which the student reads a paragraph and immediately states or writes a brief summary

that includes the main idea and two supporting details (Alber-Morgan, 2010). This process is

repeated for each paragraph in the given passage. Once the student finishes reading, he can

reexamine and combine all his sentences in order to write one brief summary for the complete

reading selection. Brown, Day, and Jones (1983) suggest that numerous readers do not

instinctively summarize as they read. As a result, reading comprehension is negatively affected

due to poor understanding and an inability to recall key information and main ideas. Brown et al.

(1983) conclude that explicit instruction of summarizing strategies is needed in order to teach

students the process and importance of summarizing. Graham and Perin (2007) found that

summarization strategies are effective in improving reading and writing skills, comprehension,

and overall reading achievement. Teachers can monitor student progress by reviewing each

summarizing sentence before the student continues to read in order to determine if he

successfully identified the main idea and if support and corrective feedback is necessary. The

teacher can do this more frequently when the strategy is first introduced and gradually fade

support and monitor on a less regular basis (i.e. every other sentence rather than each sentence).

Brandon may benefit from this strategy and improve his immediate retell fluency because it will

introduce him to the importance of summarizing as he reads.

Click or Clunk. Click or clunk is a metacognitive reading comprehension

strategy in which the student monitors his own thinking and identifies the gaps in his own
STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 17

understanding of a text (Klingner & Vaughn,1998). Clicks occur when a student smoothly reads

through a passage and understands the material as he progresses. In contrast, clunks are the

words, phrases, sentences, or ideas that do not make sense to the reader. When he identifies a

clunk or struggles to understand a certain aspect of reading, the student utilizes a variety of fix-

up strategies that are designed to clarify meaning. These fix-up strategies may include rereading

the sentence without a difficult word, using context clues in surrounding sentences, identifying

prefixes and suffixes, and analyzing for root words. Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta-

Hampston, and Echevarria (1998) contend that students need to do more than merely read an

abundance of texts in order to make significant improvements in reading comprehension.

Research further indicates that metacognitive reading comprehension strategies produce positive

effectives in reading comprehension and vocabulary (Boulware-Gooden, Carreker, Thornhill, &

Joshi, 2007).

Metacognitive reading comprehension strategies such as click or clunk are progress

monitoring tools in and of themselves. However, teachers can more directly monitor student

progress by using a tally record. As the student reads a passage, he can mark a chart for each

click and clunk he encounters. Alternatively, the student can hold two stacks of cards as he

reads- one for clicks and one for clunks. When he encounters them, he places the appropriate

card in a stack. The teacher can then monitor the frequency of the students clicks or clunks in

relation to the assigned passage. The click or clunk strategy may help Brandon consider his own

thinking and how to use fix-up strategies to improve his comprehension. It is hypothesized that

this strategy will help improve Brandons DAZE score.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 18

Conclusion

The results gathered from the DORF, RF, and DAZE probes indicate that Brandon

struggles with reading fluency and comprehension. While he reads with expression and at an

even pace, Brandons words correct per minute and accuracy are in need of immediate

intervention. In addition, his ability to recall and summarize main ideas from the DORF passages

was limited; he was hesitant, struggled to share more than three story details, and repeated

himself. Brandon also appeared uncertain during the DAZE measurement, completed only a

small portion, and made mistakes. Four learning strategies- repeated reading with recorded

models, readers theatre, paragraph shrinking, and click or clunk- were recommend as tools for

Brandon to use to improve his fluency, word recognition, and comprehension.

I greatly enjoyed this project and found it to be extremely beneficial for my future career.

One important aspect that I learned about CBMs is that initial screening assessments are critical

for student learning and success. CBMs are a quick way to assess a students current level of

performance compared to grade-level benchmark statuses. This information is critical for

determining the students strengths, weaknesses, and areas in need of support and intervention.

This data can be used to establish goal lines and monitor progress. If we do not intervene early,

the student will potentially fall further behind, continue to struggle, lose motivation and

confidence, and develop more areas of weakness. CBMs can help prevent this cycle. More

importantly, I realized that these assessments provide valuable qualitative data and insight into

the personality of the student. Through simple observation during the DIBELS administration, I

was able to identify patterns in Brandons reading and make more informed suggestions for

recommend instructional strategies.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 19

Bibliography

Alber-Morgan, S. R. (2010). Using RTI to teach literacy to diverse learners, K-8: Strategies for

the inclusive classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Atkins, T. L., & Cummings, K. D. (2011). Utility of oral reading and retell fluency in predicting

proficiency on the Montana Comprehensive Assessment System. Rural Special

Education Quarterly, 30(2), 3-12.

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

metacognitive strategies enhances reading comprehension and vocabulary achievement of

third-grade students. The Reading Teacher, 61(1), 70-77.

Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing

texts. Child Development, 54, 968-979.

Carrick, L. (2006). Reading theatre across the curriculum. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K.

Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 209-228). New

York, NY: Guildford Press. Retrieved from http://writing1stiba.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/

8/9/17893965/fluency_instruction_rasinski_blachowicz__lems.pdf.

Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum based measurement. The Journal of Special

Education, 37(3), 184-192.

DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and Composite Scores (2016). Dynamic Measurement Group.

Retrieved from https://dibels.org/papers/DIBELSNextBenchmarkGoals.pdf.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an

indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.

Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 20

Goffreda, C. T., Diperna, J. C., & Pedersen, J. A. (2009). Preventive screening for early readers:

Predictive validity of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

(DIBELS). Psychology in the Schools, 46(6), 539-552.

Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2011). DIBELS Next assessment manual. Dynamic

Measurement Group. Retrieved from http://www.d11.org/edss/assessment/DIBELS

%20Next Amplify%20Resources/DIBELSNext_AssessmentManual.pdf.

Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., & Dill, S. (2002). DIBELS oral reading fluency. In R. H. Good

& R. A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (6th ed.).

Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved from

https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/materials/admin_and_scoring_6th_ed.pdf.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of

adolescents in middle and high schools. Washington, D.C.: Alliance for Excellent

Education. Retrieved from https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/3c/f5/3cf58727

34f4-4140-a014-723a00ac56f7/ccny_report_2007_writing.pdf.

Hale, A. D., Hawkins, R. O., Sheeley, W., Reynolds, J. R., Jenkins, S., Schmitt, A. J., & Martin,

D. A. (2011). An investigation of silent versus aloud reading comprehension of

elementary students using maze assessment procedures. Psychology in the

Schools, 48(1), 4-13.

Hawkins, R. O., Marsicano, R., Schmitt, A. J., McCallum, E., & Musti-Rao, S. (2015).

Comparing the efficiency of repeated reading and listening-while-reading to improve

fluency and comprehension. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(1), 49-70.

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

What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 21

Kaminski, R., Cummings, K. D., Powell-Smith, K. A., & Good, R. H. (2008). Best practices

in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills for formative assessment and

evaluation. Best Practices in School Psychology, 73(4), 1181-1204.

Klingner, J. K. & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using Collaborative Strategic Reading. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 30(6), 32-37. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article

/using-collaborative-strategic-reading.

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension

instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading

Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218-253.

Mraz, M., Nichols, W., Caldwell, S., Beisley, R., Sargent, S., & Rupley, W. (2013). Improving

oral reading fluency through readers theatre. Reading Horizons, 52(2), 163-180.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). The

nature of literacy instruction in ten grade-4/5 classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific

Studies of Reading, 2, 159194.

Rasinski, T. V., Rupley, W. H., Pagie, D. D., & Nichols, W. D. (2016). Alternative text types to

improve reading fluency for competent to struggling readers. International Journal of

Instruction, 9(1), 163-178.

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (2012). Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the

difference. Boston: Pearson.

Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A., & Mraz, M. (2014). Content area reading: Literacy and learning

across the curriculum. Boston: Pearson Education.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT PROJECT 22

Vander Meer, C. D., Lentz, F. E., & Stollar, S. (2005). The relationship between oral reading

fluency and Ohio proficiency testing in reading (technical report). Eugene, OR:

University of Oregon. Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/techreports/ohio.

pdf.

Wallach, G. P., & Ocampo, A. (2017). Comprehending comprehension: Selected possibilities for

clinical practice within a multidimensional model. Language, Speech & Hearing Services

in Schools, 48(2), 98-103.