Academic Data for
Instructional Decisions:
Elementary Level
Dr. Amy Lingo, Dr. Nicole Fenty, and Regina Hirn
Project 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
ABRI Process
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
Data Examples per Tier
Ongoing
Progress
Monitoring
Targeted:
CBM
Ongoing
Progress
Monitoring
Universal:
Screening Results
State testing results
Classroom 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
Critical to the ABRI Process
What are the
data?
How will we
assess the goal?
What do the
data tell us?
What goals can
be set using the
data?
What are
questions about
the data?
Project ABRI 2009
Academic Data
Reading and Mathematics
Reading
•Collection
•Analysis
Mathematics
•Collection
•Analysis
Project ABRI 2009
Reading
• Collection
• Compilation
– Reformatting
– Charts
– Graphs
– Questioning
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 Inventory
Subtests
• 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
Second Grade Class
Fall 04
Comments
StudentName ORF RTF NWF
Accurate reading; few errors with multi-syllable words
54
19
44
Tiffany
Reading some NWs sound by sound first
37
18
26
Allison
Few HF words read accurately, reading S x S
22
25
15
Amber
Few HF words read accurately, reading S x S
25
15
23
Erin B
Accurate and fluent reading, good skills with MS words
69
41
49
Sheri
Accurate and fluent reading, good skills with MS words
81
45
56
Carson
Difficulty with MS words and HF words
63
23
33
Tavia
Few HF words read accurately, difficulty with MS words
61
38
41
Haleigh
Many cvc words read with long vowel sounds
42
28
53
Jacqueline
Distracted; multiple errors with MS and HF words
59
14
39
Shane
Long for short vowels, confuses nonsense for real words
45
36
47
Matt
Used initial consonants to guess; NWF confusion
32
8
30
Meagan
70 Slight difficulty with MS words and confusion with some HF words
11
40
Amanda
Accurate reading; few errors with multi-syllable words
57
25
49
Cheryl
Fluent, accurate; good prosody; good CVC automaticity
94
35
72
Alex
48 Fluent and accurate, but hesitant; long vowel sounds in cvc words
22
51
Erin T
Few errors with multi-syllable words, long for short vowels
51
34
58
Jennifer
Accurate and fluent reading, good skills with MS words
78
49
73
Tessa
Good reading, not able to retell; shy?
55
0
57
Marissa
Right at the benchmark; some hesitancies, but accurate
53
25
44
Ashley
Slow, labored reading; word by word; poor blending,
20
*
12
Katie
25 Few HF words read accurately, reading S x S
15
23
Stacy
53.1
43.4
Mean
31.5
28.0
Median
8
9
No. ss below BM
21
Total students tested 21
38%
% ss below BM 43%
15
Group 1
Group 2
Fall 04
Student ORF RTF NWF
Allison 26 18 37
Meagan 30 8 32
Matt 47 36 45
Fall 04
Student ORF RTF NWF
Tavia 33 23 63
Haleigh 41 38 61
Shane 39 14 59
Amanda 40 11 70
Marissa 57 0 55
Group 4
Fall 04
Group 5
Student ORF RTF NWF
Fall 04
Amber 15 25 22 Student
ORF RTFNWF
Erin B 23 15 25 Jacqueline 53
28 42
Katie 12 * 20 Ashley
44
25 53
Stacy 23 15 25
Erin T
51
22 48
Jennifer
58
34 51
Tiffany
44
19 54
Group 3
Student
Sheri
Tessa
Cheryl
Alex
Carson
Fall 04
ORF RTF NWF
49 41 69
73 49 78
49 25 57
72 35 94
56 25 81
16
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,
Forming Groups Based on
Assessment Data
• 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
Group 1
Student
ORF
NWF
Allison
26
37
Meagan
30
32
Matt
47
45
Central Foci Should Be: Phonics and reading fluency
Rationale?
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)
70
Elementary
Grade 1
% Students per
Intervention
Category
60
Percent of Students
50
40
30
20
Benchmk
Strategic
10
Intensive
0
1
2
Assessment Time: Fall, Winter, Spring
Project ABRI 2009
3
Available Data: Academic
Year in Review (Reading)
60
50
Percent of Students
40
Benchmark
30
Strategic/Targeted
Intensive
20
10
0
K
1
2
Grade Level
Project ABRI 2009
3
Fall Reading Assessment:
Kindergarten
n=69
10
9
8
Number of Students
7
6
KA
5
KB
4
KC
3
2
1
0
Fall Benchmk
Fall Strategic
Result of Fall Assessment
Project ABRI 2009
Fall Intensive
Spring Reading Assessment:
Kindergarten
n=66
18
16
Number of Students
14
12
10
Series1
Series2
8
Series3
6
4
2
0
Spring Benchmk
Spring Strategic
Spring Assessment Results
Project ABRI 2009
Spring Intensive
Fall Reading Assessment: Grade 3
n=55
10
9
8
Number of Students
7
6
3A
5
3B
4
3C
3
2
1
0
Fall Benchmk
Fall Strategic
Fall Reading Assessment
Project ABRI 2009
Fall Intensive
Spring Reading Assessment: Grade 3
n=57
12
Number of Students
10
8
Series1
6
Series2
Series3
4
2
0
Spring Benchmk
Spring Strategic
Spring Assessment Results
Project ABRI 2009
Spring Intensive
Mathematics
• Collection
• Compilation
– Reformatting
– Charts
– Graphs
– Questioning
Project ABRI 2009
Common Assessments
•
•
•
•
Fluency Assessments – One Minute Timings
Diagnostic Interviews
Error Analysis
Benchmarking software programs
Fluency Assessments
• One minute timings of basic math facts
• Screening tool
Project ABRI 2009
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
4/5 met benchmark 80%
• 2 days per week
4/28
4/4 met benchmark 100%
Project ABRI 2009
Probe 10
Probe 10
Sample Intervention with Results
Great Leaps Math
• 2 days per week
4/4 met benchmark
• 3 days per week
6/7 met benchmark
4/28
100%
7/28
86%
Project ABRI 2009
Pro be 10
Probe 10
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
Fall Assessment Results
1st Grade Mathematics
3
3
2
12
1
46
0
5
10
15
20
25
Project ABRI 2009
30
35
40
45
50
Fall Assessment Results
2nd Grade Mathematics
3
7
2
8
1
52
0
10
20
30
Project ABRI 2009
40
50
60
Fall Assessment Results
3rd Grade Mathematics
3
5
2
5
1
54
0
10
20
30
Project ABRI 2009
40
50
60
ABRI Process Decision making
What are the
data?
How will we
assess the goal?
What do the
data tell us?
What goals can
be set using the
data?
What are our
questions about
the data?
Project ABRI 2009
Amy Lingo
Assistant Professor, Special Education
College of Education and Human Development
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY 40292
Amy.Lingo@louisville.edu
(502) 852-0563