Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.
PM Interpretation 1
Progress Monitoring Interpretation
Math
By: Madison Hopkins
SED 372
Fall 2015
University of Texas
PM Interpretation 2
Student Information
Student Z is a 5th
grade Latino, male student, 10 years 5 months of age. He lives ...
PM Interpretation 3
• Goal A: Given Supplemental Aids, oral administration, and special education
support, Student Z will ...
PM Interpretation 4
recorded. An example of this probe is provided in the appendix.
Twice per week (if opportunity is avai...
PM Interpretation 5
gives an indication of how a student is performing relative to the performance of other
students on th...
PM Interpretation 6
assessment, and ends at the raw score of 9.33, the mean of the three most recent data
points. This aim...
PM Interpretation 7
Discussion
When preparing for, administrating, and interpreting the progress monitoring
assessment, I ...
PM Interpretation 8
cookies equally among the children and their guests. Although the story is not age
appropriate for fif...
PM Interpretation 9
Progress Monitoring Interpretation
Reading
By: Madison Hopkins
SED 372
Fall 2015
University of Texas
PM Interpretation 10
Student Information
Student P is a 4th
grade Caucasian, male student, 9 years 9 months of age. He liv...
PM Interpretation 11
ADHD medication. Similar to previous trials, negative side effects returned however
instead of ceasin...
PM Interpretation 12
Student P shows difficulty in areas affected by his ADHD. According to the
resource teacher, “[Studen...
PM Interpretation 13
resource classroom for assessment. The sessions were administered over a period of six
weeks includin...
PM Interpretation 14
DIBELS was chosen as the progress-monitoring probe per Cooperating Resource
Teacher request. The Coop...
PM Interpretation 15
Results
As shown in the graph above, Student P’s performance varied and he did not
reach the goal. Th...
PM Interpretation 16
One instructional recommendation to be made is for Student P to receive more
intervention in Basic La...
PM Interpretation 17
REFERENCES
Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A., & Dill, S. (2007). DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency. In R H. Good...
PM Interpretation 18
APPENDIX
PM Interpretation 19
PM Interpretation 20
PM Interpretation 21
PM Interpretation 22
Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …5
×

Progress Monitoring Interpretation

194 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Progress Monitoring Interpretation

  1. 1. PM Interpretation 1 Progress Monitoring Interpretation Math By: Madison Hopkins SED 372 Fall 2015 University of Texas
  2. 2. PM Interpretation 2 Student Information Student Z is a 5th grade Latino, male student, 10 years 5 months of age. He lives with his parents where have not been any reports of important events or trauma within the family. It has been reported that it does not appear that his educational difficulties are a result of a cultural bias or lack of educational opportunity. The student has attended H Elementary School since kindergarten and was initially referred for special education services in of 2012 by his first grade teacher. The determinant for referral was initiated after observed significant deficits throughout kindergarten indicated a possible learning disability. His first grade teacher and the resource teacher informally assessed his difficulty in phonological awareness affecting his achievement in fluency and comprehension. Additionally, Student Z “fell behind his classmates” during math instruction. Concluding eligibility screening for special education, Student Z was labeled with a Learning Disability (LD) in reading and Math under IDEA 2004. According to the IEP Team, Student Z can solve three digit addition and subtraction problems with regrouping with 80% accuracy. Student Z is also able to multiply two digits by two digits problems with the use of a multiplication chart including products of factors 1-12. Student Z is able to divide a one digit into a three digit with a multiplication chart and verbal prompt(s). It has been noted that Student Z struggles interpreting word problems and place value. Student Z is receiving special education services with a label of LD in reading and math. In math, the student’s goal is as follows:
  3. 3. PM Interpretation 3 • Goal A: Given Supplemental Aids, oral administration, and special education support, Student Z will master the concepts presented in the inclusion math class with at least 70% mastery Significant considerations contributed to deciding the measures of math to assess. Because Student Z’s has an LD in reading, it is important that the chosen probe contains little to no reading components to ensure the results truly reflect the progress of the skill being assessed. Additionally, Student Z requires the accommodation of the use of a multiplication chart for computing purposes. It would be inappropriate to administer a probe that required the knowledge of fluent multiplication facts since it is expected that he will use the accommodation in academic settings. As a result of these considerations, it was decided that Numbers & Operations, found at EasyCBM.com, is the most appropriate measure of math to assess. When deciding the appropriate grade level probe to monitor the progress of Student Z’s Math Fluency, a third grade Numbers & Operations probe, the grade level below the student’s expected grade-appropriate level, found at EasyCBM.com was administered. The results of this trial probe proved that third grade is the student’s grade- appropriate level probe for assessing Numbers & Operations of Math, with a score equivalent to 50%. Administration The math probe assessed the student’s skills in Numbers & Operations of third grade. Each probe contains 16 questions that require the student to choose of the three provided answer choices. This probe did not require a time limit as the student is expected to respond to all 16 questions. The number of correct responses per session was
  4. 4. PM Interpretation 4 recorded. An example of this probe is provided in the appendix. Twice per week (if opportunity is available), Student Z was pulled out of the resource classroom for assessment. The sessions were administered over a period of six weeks including thanksgiving break when opportunity to assess was unavailable. I explained the purpose of this assessment and the student’s role in participating. Assessment sessions varied from five to 10 minutes in length and conducted in an empty classroom with minimal distractions. Administration Procedures are as follows: 1. Student is given the directions, “You are going to answer 16 multiple choice math questions. When I say, ‘go,’ you will flip over the paper and begin. Do your best quietly and independently. When you are finished, you will flip the paper back over and raise your hand.” 2. Student is given the probe face down. 3. Administrator says, “Go.” 4. Student completes probe, flips it back over, and raises his hand. 5. Administrator collects completed probe. When scoring this assessment, the number of correct responses is recorded. That is, the raw score is recorded for progress monitoring purposes. If the student omits an answer choice, it is considered incorrect. If the student selects more than one answer choice, it is considered incorrect. Scoring procedures provided by EasyCBM.com are related to a percentile rank associated with the student’s raw score (EasyCBM Norm- Referenced Interpretations, 2014). According to this site, “In all cases, this information
  5. 5. PM Interpretation 5 gives an indication of how a student is performing relative to the performance of other students on that measure at that point in time,” (2014). Measurement Graph The graph below reflects the results of Student Z’s progress monitoring for the measures of Numbers & Operations. The line shown in red, labeled Actual represents the raw data points of each assessment session. The line shown in pink, labeled Trendline represents the student’s current performance trajectory based on the baseline data and the mean of the three most recent data points. The baseline assessment occurred over the first three sessions as indicated in the graph below. The purple line labeled Aimline represents the goal trajectory. Results As shown in the graph above, Student Z’s performance varied and he did not reach the goal. The trendline begins at the raw score of 7.66, the mean of the baseline 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 10/27/15 10/29/15 10/31/15 11/2/15 11/4/15 11/6/15 11/8/15 11/10/15 11/12/15 11/14/15 11/16/15 11/18/15 11/20/15 11/22/15 11/24/15 11/26/15 11/28/15 11/30/15 12/2/15 # of Correct Responses Assessment Session Third Grade Numbers & Operations Probe Actual Trendline Aimline Baseline
  6. 6. PM Interpretation 6 assessment, and ends at the raw score of 9.33, the mean of the three most recent data points. This aimline begins at the raw score of 7.66, the mean of the baseline assessments, and follows trajectory to the raw score considered to reflect proficiency, 12. Although EasyCBM provides norm-referenced percentile ranks, it was decided that the aimline would be based on the student’s IEP goal stated above. Mastery of his math goal in the instruction of fifth grade content is considered 70% therefore proficiency in any math probe is to be considered 70%. It is believed that an achievement of 70% correct responses suggests that the student’s appropriate grade-level probe would the following grade level. In relation to the performance goal of 70%, Student Z raw data points are converted to percentage correct and rounded to the nearest one percent: 44%, 50%, 50%, 44%, 56%, 50%, 63%, 56%, 56%. The trendline indicates progress of 10% from the baseline score to the mean scores of the three most recent sessions. It should be noted that the last two assessment sessions that took place on December 1, 2015 and December 2, 2015 occurred following administration of the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading Practice Test. Due to potential fatigue from the STAAR test, Student Z’s results in this probe may have been affected, providing a regression of performance. Student Z always participated willingly and appeared interested in the results of the assessment. During the baseline assessment, the student frequently requested support. As the administrator, I repeated the portion of the administration procedure stating, “Do your best quietly and independently.” The remaining sessions were completed without verbal requests for support.
  7. 7. PM Interpretation 7 Discussion When preparing for, administrating, and interpreting the progress monitoring assessment, I learned the importance of planning. It would have proved beneficial if I had started monitoring progress earlier in the semester. If I started earlier, the last two data points would have been more reliable because the student would not have been testing for two hours prior to this assessment. Also, if I began assessing earlier in the semester, there would be a more consistent schedule of sessions because we would not have been interrupted by student holidays. After interpreting the collected data, it is recommended that Student Z continue receiving math intervention. One instructional suggestion is to provide concrete fraction instruction using math manipulatives such as fraction tiles and/or two-colored counters. This could prove to be beneficial as the current grade level probe assesses knowledge of fraction concepts and the fifth grade curriculum focuses on “representing and solving the addition and subtraction of fractions with unequal denominators referring to the same whole using objects and pictorial models and properties of operations,” (§111.7. Grade 5, 2012). It is also recommended that the student receive intervention of fractions through the use of instructional games. The student could participate in the interactive read aloud inspired by the book The Doorbell Rang by Pat Hutchins. In this book, the story follows two children in the kitchen of their grandmother’s house. Grandma made cookies and the children must divide them equally between each other. However, before the children can dive in, the doorbell rings and in walks a various number of friends. The student listening to the story participates in the guided practice and/or independent practice of sharing the
  8. 8. PM Interpretation 8 cookies equally among the children and their guests. Although the story is not age appropriate for fifth grader Student Z, the story line can be easily modified to appeal to the interests of the student. Lastly, it is recommended that the student receive representational models of fractions to use in his inclusion classroom. In order to transition from the concrete model of fraction to the abstract concept, Student Z needs exposure to the representational model. This includes pictures of the fraction tiles and/or prompts for the student to draw the two-colored counters when appropriate. Access to this accommodation will provide support to the student expectantly preventing missed content due to lack of prerequisite skills such as fraction concepts.
  9. 9. PM Interpretation 9 Progress Monitoring Interpretation Reading By: Madison Hopkins SED 372 Fall 2015 University of Texas
  10. 10. PM Interpretation 10 Student Information Student P is a 4th grade Caucasian, male student, 9 years 9 months of age. He lives with his parents, his older sister, and older brother. There have not been any reports of important events or trauma within the family. It has been reported that it does not appear that his educational difficulties are a result of a cultural bias or lack of educational opportunity. The student has attended H Elementary School since kindergarten and was initially referred for special education services in March of 2014 by his second grade teacher. The determinant for referral was initiated after Section 504 accommodations for Dyslexia proved insufficient. The student’s second grade teacher believed his unexpected, low academic performance was due to the student’s, “difficulty with focus.” Student P’s mother contributed to this idea reporting, “[Student P] has difficulty concentrating and can act in an impulsive manner.” Concluding eligibility screening for special education, Student P was labeled with a Learning Disability (LD) in reading under IDEA 2004. Upon entering the fall semester of the third grade, Student P was diagnosed by a physician with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and prescribed a daily dose of related medication, Vyvanse. While his teachers reported an immediate positive correlation between the consumption of medication and academic performance, his mother decided to cease the treatment due to negative side effects including loss of appetite and trouble sleeping. Following a decrease in behavior and academic performance at the start the fourth grade, student P resumed said medication in October of 2015. His teachers unanimously observed that Student P’s performance across domains increased after resuming the
  11. 11. PM Interpretation 11 ADHD medication. Similar to previous trials, negative side effects returned however instead of ceasing medication altogether, the student’s mother and physician adjusted the dosage to a more balanced outcome. Student P is receiving special education services with a label of LD in reading. In Language Arts, the student’s goals are as follows: • Goal A: Given passages and novels in the resource classroom, Student P will answer comprehension questions on the 3rd grade level with at least 70% mastery. o STO A: Given passages and novels in the resource classroom, Student P will answer comprehension question on the 2nd grade level with at least 70% mastery. • Goal B: Student P will read a story or passage on a 4th grade level at 100 words per minute. o STO B: Paris will read a story on a 3rd grade level at 100 words per minutes. Student P is a curious and creative student. When motivated, he often shows effort in inquiry and will openly relate content to personal experiences and previously learned information. He seems to be like by his peers and makes friends easily. It was reported that the student, “makes good use of picture clues to derive meaning from text.” Student P shows strengths in language and oral communication. It was also reported that the student’s mother expressed that the student is a sweet child and has a very strong personality. In the areas of cognitive processing according to WJ-III, the student shows strengths in crystalized intelligence, visual processing, long-term storage & retrieval, auditory processing, and fluid reasoning skills.
  12. 12. PM Interpretation 12 Student P shows difficulty in areas affected by his ADHD. According to the resource teacher, “[Student P is] extremely immature [and has] severe academic issues due to attention problems.” It has been observed that when the student is confused or does not know what to do/how to do something, he often “acts silly” instead of asking for help. In skills related to reading, Student P shows deficits. It has been summarized that he does not read beyond words that he is unable to decode in order to use context clues. It was also noted that the student often leaves off the suffix of words and loses his place while reading. Student P was assessed for oral reading fluency using the measures and procedures of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Student P fluently reads at a rate of 93 words per minute (WPM) when provided administration of a 2nd grade DIBELS passage at the end of his 3rd grade year. For progress monitoring purposes, DIBELS was chosen because it assesses the skill deficit, reading fluency. Administration The reading probe DIBELS assessed the student’s oral reading fluency skills with passages appropriate for the student’s appropriate grade-level, the third grade. Each probe consists of a reading passage where the student is expected to orally read with accuracy at their best pace/rate for one minute. The score is derived from the number of correct words read per minute. Correct words read per minute is calculated by subtracting the incorrect words from the total number of words read in the allotted minute. According to An example of this probe is provided in the appendix. Twice per week (if opportunity is available), Student P was pulled out of the
  13. 13. PM Interpretation 13 resource classroom for assessment. The sessions were administered over a period of six weeks including thanksgiving break when opportunity to assess was unavailable. I explained the purpose of this assessment and the student’s role in participating. Assessment sessions lasted approximately 1 minute in length as this was a timed probed and administration procedures are quick by design. Assessments were conducted in an empty classroom with minimal distractions. According to Good, Kaminski, & Dill (2007), administration procedures are as follows: 1. Student is given a passage with the directions, “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.” 2. Administrator starts stopwatch when the student says the first word of the passage. 3. At the end of one minute, place bracket (]) after the last word provided by the student, stop and reset stopwatch, and say, “Stop.” 4. Administrator removes passage and calculates CWPM. When scoring this assessment, the number of correct responses is recorded. If the student omits a word while reading, it is considered incorrect. If the student reads a word incorrectly, it is considered incorrect. If the student does not read a word within three seconds, the administrator gives the word to the student and the word is considered incorrect. If the student self-corrects, the word is considered correct. If the student pronounces a word differently than expected due to a different in dialect, the word is considered correct.
  14. 14. PM Interpretation 14 DIBELS was chosen as the progress-monitoring probe per Cooperating Resource Teacher request. The Cooperating Resource Teacher provided the assessment materials for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF). This specific probe is believed to be appropriate for Student P because his prior data was collected using DIBELS. Due to the Cooperating Resource Teacher insistence, the third grade level passages are considered to be the student’s appropriate grade level. Measurement Graph The graph below reflects the results of Student P’s progress monitoring for the measures of Oral Reading Fluency. The line shown in red, labeled Actual represents the raw data points, Correct Words per Minute, of each assessment session. The line shown in pink, labeled Trendline represents the student’s current performance trajectory based on the baseline data and the mean of the three most recent data points. The baseline assessment occurred over the first three sessions as indicated in the graph below. The purple line labeled Aimline represents the goal trajectory. 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 10/27/15 10/29/15 10/31/15 11/2/15 11/4/15 11/6/15 11/8/15 11/10/15 11/12/15 11/14/15 11/16/15 11/18/15 11/20/15 11/22/15 11/24/15 11/26/15 11/28/15 11/30/15 12/2/15 Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM) Assessment Session 3rd Grade DIBELS Reading Fluency Probe Actual Trendline Aimline Baseline
  15. 15. PM Interpretation 15 Results As shown in the graph above, Student P’s performance varied and he did not reach the goal. The trendline begins at the raw score of 91 CWPM, the mean of the baseline assessment, and ends at the raw score of 95 CWPM, the mean of the three most recent data points. This aimline begins at the raw score of 91 CWPM, the mean of the baseline assessments, and follows trajectory to the raw score considered to reflect proficiency, 100 CWPM. It was decided that the aimline would be based on the student’s Short Term Objective stated above with mastery considered to be 100 CWPM. It is believed that an achievement of 100 CWPM in a third grade level DIBELS passage suggests that the student’s appropriate grade-level probe would the following grade level, fourth grade. It should be noted that the second to last assessment session that took place on December 1, 2015 occurred following administration of the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading Practice Test. Due to potential fatigue from the STAAR test and the student’s limited attentional resources, the results of this session may have been affected. Discussion When preparing for, administrating, and interpreting the progress monitoring assessment, I learned the importance of planning. It would have proved beneficial if I had started monitoring progress earlier in the semester. If I started earlier, the second to last data point would have been more reliable because the student would not have been testing for two hours prior to this assessment. Also, if I began assessing earlier in the semester, there would be a more consistent schedule of sessions because we would not have been interrupted by student holidays.
  16. 16. PM Interpretation 16 One instructional recommendation to be made is for Student P to receive more intervention in Basic Language Skills (BLS). BLS is the intervention of choice by the Cooperating Resource Teacher and is provided when time allows. Further, the administration of this intervention is not consistent and the duration does not seem to be long enough. I think if the student received BLS as intended by the creators, the student’s performance in oral reading fluency skills would show progress. Another instructional recommendation consists of practicing sight words. It would benefit the student’s automaticity to practice Tier II words in a game format. When presented with an unfamiliar word, the instructor will provide the correct pronunciation and the meaning. Then, the student will repeat the word and assign a physical shape/position for the word related to its meaning using his body. After the student assigns a shape/position for at least three words, the instructor will call out a word and the student is expected to fall into the assigned position. This activity would be appropriate for 1:1, small group, or whole group instruction. By associating the word with audial and physical attributes, the student is more likely to recognize it upon reading. Lastly, repeated reading will likely improve Student P’s oral reading fluency skills. Often times it has been observed that the student is “skipped” when reading aloud due to his frequent hesitations and slow pace. More opportunities for repeated oral reading will build the student’s self esteem and provide exposure to unfamiliar words through guided practice. Given that his language arts resource class consists of six students, the small group setting provides ample opportunity for corrective feedback and individualized guided practice.
  17. 17. PM Interpretation 17 REFERENCES Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A., & Dill, S. (2007). DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency. In R H. Good & R. A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills (6th Ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Available: http://dibels.uoregon.edu/ Interpreting EasyCBM Test Results. (2014, August 5). Retrieved November 28, 2015, from https://app.easycbm.com/static/files/pdfs/info/ProgMonScoreInterpretation.pdf
  18. 18. PM Interpretation 18 APPENDIX
  19. 19. PM Interpretation 19
  20. 20. PM Interpretation 20
  21. 21. PM Interpretation 21
  22. 22. PM Interpretation 22

×