Running head: STUDENT ASSESSMENT

Student Assessment Project

Theresa Moore

EDU 325
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
1

Introduction

Z is a first-grade student from an Urban environment who attends East Garfield

Elementary School. Z’s teacher mentioned that he has an IEP, although what it is for specifically

is unknown. Through a student background interview, Z’s teacher stated that his academic

strengths are that he tries very hard, while the area that needs improvement is fluency. His level

of performance for reading, spelling, writing, and math are all on track for first grade. When it

comes to behavior, his teacher stated that he follows the rules and gets along with others the

majority of the time, but oftentimes, needs reminders to work hard and to behave.

Procedures

I have been tutoring Z in reading twice a week for three months. I asked his homeroom

teacher if I could have permission to perform a DIBELS assessment on Z. She willingly agreed

and asked to see the results for her own benefit as his teacher. I asked her to fill out the

background information and then performed the assessment one week later.

The day of the assessment, I got Z from his classroom and told him that we were going to

be doing activities that were different from the usual ones we do for tutoring. We began with the

first assessment, Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), followed by Phoneme Segmentation Fluency

(PSF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) and Retell Quantity. I

allowed Z to start the one-minute timer on my phone for each section which he enjoyed. He was

very energetic and I had to frequently remind him not to be silly while taking the test. Rather

than giving reinforcement throughout the assessment, I informed Z that if he behaved well, with

only a few reminders to stay on track, he would receive a sticker. If he behaved phenomenally
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
2

well, with no reminders to stay on track, then he could get a pencil. Before we began the

assessment, I asked him to remind me what it looks like to earn the pencil and he explained the

good behavior that we have gone over together before. When he would act out during the

assessment, I would remind him that he needs to earn the pencil and it helped him to refocus.

During the LNF assessment, he was not taking it seriously and started saying nonsense rather

than letter names. I stopped the timer and looked at him and told him that he can not be silly

while taking the test. I told him I would give him one more chance and we started the timer

over. He listened, began to take the test seriously, and performed well. After the timer went off,

he knew to stop, and we took a short break in between each assessment. I would ask him

questions and let him get some of his energy out before beginning the next task.

Assessments Given

The first assessment given was LNF. In this assessment, the student is given upper and

lowercase letters and is asked to give each individual name (Rolan & Ruth 2011). It assesses the

student’s ability to fluently define letter names rather than sounds (Roland & Ruth 2011). The

data from this assessment is important because letter naming fluency is a strong indicator of later

reading achievement (Roland & Ruth 2011). Since the letters are not given in alphabetical order,

but instead are ordered randomly, the purpose of LNF is for students to identify letter names

fluently rather than to simply distinguishing what the student does or does not know (Roland &

Ruth 2011). Although LNF is an important indicator of future reading achievement, it is not a

basic early literacy skill and therefore, does not have a benchmark goal (Roland & Ruth 2011).
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
3

The next assessment given was PSF which measures phonemic awareness (Clemens,

Shapiro, & Thoemmes 2011). The student is assessed in their fluency based on their ability to

sound out each segment in a word (Clemens, Shapiro, & Thoemmes 2011). Manipulating

phonemes is not a skill that is important in and of itself. Instead, it is important because it helps

students to understand that letters correspond to specific sounds and those sounds make up words

(Keesey, Konrad, & Joseph 2015). In this assessment, the student is given a word orally, and

they say each individual sound within the word. The assessor gives points for each individual

sounds that is said.

The next assessment given was NWF in which the student is given make-believe words

and must read them according the correct letter sounds. The words given are

consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) and vowel-consonant (VC). If the student is unable to read

the word, they are asked to sound out each sound individually. Students are scored for each

individual sound said correctly as well as whole words read. Students are assessed on their

ability to understand letter-sound correspondences with accuracy and rate (Clemens, Shapiro, &

Thoemmes 2011). NWF assesses a student’s ability to know basic letter sounds and to be able to

correctly blend them together. Students must have an understanding of letter-sounds

correspondences in order to blend them together to create a make-believe word.

ORF is an assessment that measures the fluency and accuracy of the reader by scoring the

amount of correct words read per minute (WCPM) (Goffreda, Diperna, & Pederson 2009). The

passage given is always at the appropriate reading level so as not to cause frustration in the

student (Mooris, Trathen, Perney, Gill, Schlagal, Ward, & Frye 2017). After students read the

passage, they are assessed on their Retell Quantity. Students are given one minute to retell as
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
4

many details about the story as they can. Students are scored based on their quality of retell and

the amount of relevant words given.

Results and Analysis

Since the LNF assessment does not have a benchmark goal, there is nothing to compare

Z’s results to. Z made few errors, only having three. However, two if those three mistakes were

consistent with one another; he identified both the lowercase and uppercase “J” as a “G”.

Z scored low in PSF. He scored 18 which places him “Well Below Benchmark” and

“Likely to Need Intensive Support.” Z’s mistake was completely consistent. He said the first

sound of the word, and then blended the rest of the sounds together. This is something that he

continues to struggle with as he is tutored. He is capable of doing it, but needs to be frequently

reminded.

In NWF, Z performed very well. He read every whole word correctly, scored “Above

Benchmark” and is “Likely to Need Core Support”. Reading the whole words correctly gave

him a high score for Correct Letter Sounds and he leveled “At Benchmark” and “Likely to Need

Core Support.”

ORF proved to be difficult for Z. Though the background information form stated that he

could read on grade level, Z was unable to read this passage. He could read a few of the words,

but quickly became discouraged when he unsuccessfully sounded out words. Z only read 7

words correctly, placing him “Well Below Benchmark” and “Likely to Need Intensive Support”.

Since he was unable to read the passage well, retell was not possible. This places him

“Well Below Benchmark” and “Likely to Need Intensive Support”. It is unknown whether he
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
5

would have been able retell adequately, had he been given a different passage to read that was at

a lower level.

Table 1

Scoring Results Per Assessment Category

DIBELS Next Measure Score Likely Need for Support

Letter Naming Fluency 34

Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 18 Intensive

Nonsense Word Fluency 23 Core

DORF Words Correct 7 Intensive

Retell 0 Intensive

Areas Targeted for Improvement

One specific area that Z needs improvement in is PSF. The National Reading Panel

states that phonemic awareness needs to be taught intensively throughout the primary grades

(Keesey, Konrad, & Joseph 2015). One strategy that teaches this is Word Boxes, an extension of

the more well know, Elkonin boxes (Keesey, Konrad, & Joseph 2015). This strategy is

research-based and studies have been conducted to show the positive effects it has on phoneme

segmentation (Keesey, Konrad, & Joseph 2015). Word boxes help students to understand the

letter-sound correspondences in words (Alber-Morgan, Joseph, Kanotz, Rouse, & Sawyer, 2016).
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
6

Students will be given a drawn box on a sheet of paper along with some form of manipulative.

The students are given a word by the instructor which they will then repeat. As they say each

individual sound, they place a manipulative in one of the boxes provided (Keesey, Konrad, &

Joseph 2015). For example, if the instructor was to give the word “mop”, the student would

repeat, “mop” and then would sound it out saying /m/ as he places a manipulative in one box, /o/

as he places another manipulative in the next box, and /p/ as he places another manipulative in

the final box.

Z only broke up the first sound in each word when assessed in this area. Word Boxes

would help Z because he would have to segment the whole word rather than only the first sound.

Since a phoneme is the smallest unit of sound, word boxes help to break up these small sounds

that can easily be blurred together by students (Keesey, Konrad, & Joseph 2015). This strategy

would be helpful for Z because being able to understand letter-sound correspondences will aid in

the understanding that written words are represented by individual sounds (Alber-Morgan et. al.

2016).

Z’s progress would be monitored through data collection (what is this called??? Running

records?) of whether he mastered the activity. The instructor would keep a running record of

whether or not the student mastered the strategy, and if so, increase the amount of phonemes in

the words given.

Another targeted area for Z to work on is ORF. A strategy that increases oral reading

fluency is Read Naturally (RN) (Morgan, McLaughlin, Webe, & Bolich). RN combines three

strategies that are empirically supported: reading from a model, repeated readings, and

progress-monitoring (Morgan, McLaughlin, Webe, & Bolich). This strategy is primarily student
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
7

directed. The first step of this strategy is to assess the student’s reading fluency using

Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) (Hasbrouck, Ihnot & Rogers 1999). Next, the teacher

works with each student to set a personal fluency goal (Hasbrouck, Ihnot & Rogers 1999).

Students will then read a self-selected passage in which they time themselves for one minute and

mark any words that they have trouble with or do not know. The students will count their errors,

subtract it from their total amount of words read, and chart this score on a graph. Graphing their

progress helps to enhance the student’s self-esteem (Hasbrouck et. al.). Next, the student will

read along with a model and will do this repeatedly (Hasbrouck, Ihnot & Rogers 1999). Once

they become comfortable, they read the passage independently. The student reads the passage

repeatedly with a timer until they reach the goal that they had previously set. The final step is for

the student to read the passage, except this time, with the teacher keeping track of the errors.

The total number of errors is subtracted from the total number of words read and the teacher

determines if the student has reached their fluency goal. If the goal was not met, they continue to

practice the same story. If it was met, they move on to another passage (Hasbrouck, Ihnot &

Rogers 1999).

ORF was targeted for Z because he performed poorly in this section. The RN strategy

was chosen because it is a simple, yet effective strategy to improve fluency. Z would receive

lots of practice which will give him many opportunities to practice his fluency. Z would benefit

from this strategy because his fluency would be developed through repeatedly reading the same

passage.

Conclusion
STUDENT ASSESSMENT
8

Though Z was labeled as performing on grade level, this form of Curriculum Based

Measurement (CBM) has shown what his strengths and weaknesses are. The score on this

assessment provided an in depth summary of his literacy skills, providing the educator with

information for future lessons planned. The teacher now has the ability to use informed

instruction which will lead to the success of the child.

STUDENT ASSESSMENT
9

Bibliography

Alber-Morgan, S.R., Joseph, L.M., Kanotz, B., Rouse, C. A., Sawyer, M.R., (2016). The effects

of word box instruction on acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of decoding and

spelling skills for first graders. ​Education and Treatment of Children. 39(​ 1). 21-43.

Clemens, N.H., Shapiro, E.S., Thoemmes, F., (2011). Improving the efficacy of first grade

reading

screening: An investigation of word identification fluency with other early literacy

indicators. ​American Psychological Association 26(​ 3). 231-244. ​DOI: 10.1037/a0025173

Good III, Roland H., Kaminski, Ruth. (2011).​ DIBELS next assessment manual​. Dynamic

Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills.

Hasbrouck, Jan E., Ihnot, Candyce, Rogers, Ginger H. (1999). “Read naturally”: A strategy to

increase oral reading fluency. ​Reading Research and Instruction. 39(​ 1), 27-37.

Hoffman, Amy, Jenkins E., Jeanne, Dunlap, Kay. (2009). Using dibels: a survey of purposes and

practices. ​Reading Psychology. 3​ 0(1), 1-16. doi: 10.1080/02702710802274820

STUDENT ASSESSMENT
10

Keesey, S., Konrad, M., Joseph, L. M. (2015). Word boxes improve phonemic awareness,

letter-sound correspondences, and spelling skills of at-risk kindergarteners. ​Hamilton

Institute on Disabilities. 36(​ 3).​ ​167-180.

Morgan, S. V., McLaughlin, T. F., Webe, K., Bolich, B., (2016). Increasing reading fluency

using

read naturally with two third grade students with specific learning disabilities: A

replication

of erickson et. al., 2015. ​Educational Research Quarterly.​ ​40(​ 1), 37-50.

Morris, D., Trathen, W., Perney, J., Gill, T., Schlagal, R., Ward, D., & Frye, E.M., (2017). Three

DIBELS tasks: A comparison of predictive validity.​ Reading Psychology.​ ​38. ​289-320.

DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2016.1263700.

Munger, Kristen A., Murray, Maria S. (2017). First-grade spelling scores within the dynamic

indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS) screening: an exploratory study.