Assessment for Instruction in
Reading in Grades 3-12
Joseph Torgesen and Yaacov Petscher
Florida Center for Reading Research
International Dyslexia Association, November, 2009
Purpose of this presentation:
To describe Florida’s new 3-12 assessments for
instruction in the context larger issues about
formative assessments
Three questions/issues will be discussed
What are the purposes of each of the assessments within
the FAIR system?
What is the nature of each of the assessments?
How does the Fair system fit within the larger context of a
comprehensive formative assessment plan to improve
outcomes in adolescent literacy?
Torgesen, J. K., & Miller, D.
H. (2009). Assessments to
guide adolescent literacy
instruction. Portsmouth, NH:
RMC Research Corporation,
Center on Instruction.
www.
centeroninstruction
.org
Click on Reading
Section
Three important purposes for assessment in
reading with adolescents
1. How successful are schools in helping all
students meet grade level standards in literacy?
2. Monitor student growth during the year to help
guide instructional adjustments within
classrooms or instructional groups
3. Identify students who may need special
interventions to accelerate growth toward grade
level standards
Three important purposes for assessment in
reading with adolescents
1. How successful are schools in helping all
students meet grade level standards in literacy?
2. Monitor student growth during the year to help
guide instructional adjustments within
classrooms or instructional groups
3. Identify students who may need special
interventions to accelerate growth toward grade
level standards
The FAIR system for grades 3-12
Broad Screen/Progress Monitoring Tool
Reading Comprehension Task
3 times a year
If Necessary
Targeted Diagnostic Inventory
Maze and Word Analysis Tasks
Diagnostic
Toolkit
As needed
Ongoing
Progress
Monitoring
As needed
Brief Description of tests in the FAIR system
Broad Screen/Progress monitoring tool. Is a computeradaptive, multiple choice test of reading comprehension
designed to assess grade level literacy skills in a manner
similar to the FCAT.
Maze test – a computer administered maze test to
assess reading efficiency and low level comprehension
Word analysis test – a computer-adaptive measure of
student knowledge of the phonemic, orthographic, and
morphological knowledge necessary for reading words
accurately in text
Informal assessment toolkit- Informal diagnostic
instruments
Instructional questions the FAIR can answer
Which students may require additional reading instruction
(i.e. some type of intervention) because they currently have a
low probability of success on the FCAT at their grade
level? – Reading comprehension test
Of students needing some type of intervention, which have
relatively serious or pervasive problems with fundamental
reading skills? Maze and WA test
Of students needing some type of intervention, which might
profit from relatively less intensive interventions that focus
primarily on comprehension skills (strategies, knowledge,
vocabulary) Maze and WA test
Instructional questions the FAIR can answer
What specific aspects of basic reading skills or comprehension
are students struggling with? Informal assessment toolkit
Are students who receive intensive interventions in basic
reading skills making acceptable progress in those skills in
response to the instruction they are receiving? Maze and WA
tests
Are interventions that focus exclusively on improving higher
level reading skills effective in increasing students’ reading
skills and their probability of success on the FCAT at the
end of the year? Reading comprehension test
Are students who do not receive interventions making
acceptable progress toward grade level standards in reading
throughout the year? Reading comprehension test
The FAIR system for grades 3-12
Broad Screen/Progress Monitoring Tool
Reading Comprehension Task
3 times a year
If Necessary
Targeted Diagnostic Inventory
Maze and Word Analysis Tasks
Diagnostic
Toolkit
As needed
Ongoing
Progress
Monitoring
As needed
The Broad Screen/Progress Monitoring
Tool: The RC Task
• 10-30 minute computer-adaptive task of reading
comprehension
• A student receives a minimum of one passage and
a maximum of three passages-7 to 9 questions per
• Predicts student’s FCAT success probability (FSP)
• Administered to students performing below grade
level on FCAT in previous year (levels 1 and 2)
• Administered to 3rd grade students identified with a
reading deficiency by their districts
• Other students may take the assessment at the
discretion of their districts
• In addition to FSP, provides standard scores based
on Florida norms
The Maze Task
• Two 3-minute (grade-level) passages
• Administered 3 times a year
• Student responds to embedded cloze
items within text
• Assesses text reading efficiency (i.e.,
reading accuracy and speed, and gist level comprehension)
• Provides raw scores and standard scores
based on Florida norms
TDI: The Word Analysis Task
• A 5-15 minute computer-adaptive spelling task
that assesses a student’s understanding of
letter/sound correspondence, orthographic
conventions, and morphology
• A student receives a minimum of 5 words and a
maximum of 30 words
• Results indicate whether probability of success in
reading is hampered by difficulties with wordlevel skills.
• Provides raw score and standard scores based
on Florida norms
All FAIR assessments are intended to be
formative (help guide instructional
decisions), rather than summative (evaluate
instructional and learning success)
A definition from Black and William (2007)
“An assessment is formative to the extent that information
from the assessment is fed back within the system and
actually used to improve the performance of the system in
some way.” (p. 31)
What is assessment for instruction?
There is a lot of confusion in the literature about what
types of assessments can be called formative,
because there are many different kinds of
instructional decisions to be made
Does this student need to be in an intervention class?
What kind of intervention class should be provided?
Is this student’s current intervention placement strong
enough to help him close the gap in reading?
Does this student need more instruction/practice in using
the prediction strategy to improve comprehension?
What specific aspects of writing does this study need
more instruction in?
What is assessment for instruction?
There is a lot of confusion in the literature about what
types of assessments can be called formative,
because there are many different kinds of
instructional decisions to be made
Does this student need to be in an intervention class?
What kind of intervention class should be provided?
Is this student’s current intervention placement strong
enough to help him close the gap in reading?
Does this student need more instruction/practice in using
the prediction strategy to improve comprehension?
What specific aspects of writing does this study need
more instruction in?
What types of formative assessments are
currently in use?
Screening tests– what are initial student abilities in critical
areas related to the outcome of interest– intervention or no
intervention, initial placement, etc. RC, Maze, WA
General outcome progress monitoring/benchmark – is student
making acceptable progress in critical outcomes? – change
class, change teacher, more time, etc. – typically no details
about why student is having problems, RC, Maze, WA
Formal diagnostic assessments –in depth and reliable
information about skill and knowledge levels in critical areas
– similar to screening tests in types of decisions they inform
What types of formative assessments are
currently in use?
Informal diagnostic assessments – what specific phonics
skills has the student mastered, what kind of questions
can they answer from grade level text? – can be used for
initial lesson planning. Informal assessment toolkit
Classroom based formative assessments – what strategies is
the student using? What are the problems with making
correct inferences? What parts of current objectives has the
student mastered? – information to guide ongoing lesson
planning and instructional adjustments by the teacher
Mastery assessments within CBM are a more
formalized subset of classroom based
assessments. Typically provided within well
specified curriculum, and assess mastery of steps
in complex tasks
Evidence/rationale for investment in
formative assessments
“The need for accurate assessments arises because of
the enorrmous diversity in the rate of learning and
level of literacy skills among adolescents.” (Torgesen &
Miller, 2009)
When there is great diversity among students in their
rate of learning and level of literacy… “little variation in
teaching will always result in great variation in student
learning.”
Formative assessments are necessary to help teachers
provide instruction that is targeted and paced
appropriately
Evidence/rationale for investment in
formative assessments – how can you tell
when you have a good system of
formative assessment?
Traditional ways of evaluating tests include examinations
of their reliability and validity
Can you have a reliable and valid test of reading
comprehension that does not provide information useful
for guiding instruction?
It depends on the instructional question you want to
answer–not all tests provide information relevant to all
important instructional decisions
Evidence/rationale for investment in
formative assessments
The critical questions for “formative” tests are: 1) what
kind of information do they provide, and 2) what is that
information useful for?
The most important outcome from formative
assessments is improvement in student performance –
thus, the ultimate test of their utility can only be made
as they are integrated within a system of instructional
response.
Evidence/rationale for investment in
formative assessments
“It is impossible to disentangle the impact of formative
assessment from the instruction that follows it. When
improved student outcomes are used as the criterion for
effective practices, evaluations of classroom-based
formative assessment are as much an evaluation of the
instructional adjustments resulting from the assessments
as they are of the assessments themselves.” (Torgesen &
Miller, 2009)
Evidence/rationale for investment in
formative assessments
Two research summaries of interest
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom
learning. Educational Assessment: Principals, Policy and
Practice, 5, 7–74.
A comprehensive review of classroom-based formative
assessment. Effect sizes from .4 to .7
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic
formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children,
53, 199–208.
A look at very frequent (2-5 times a week) progress
monitoring. ES of .92 when teachers required to follow up in
specific ways, .42 when follow-up actions left to teacher
judgement
The FAIR system in this context:
Screening/PM tool (reading comprehension test)–
screening and general outcome progress monitoring no
more frequent than once a month
Maze test – screening and general outcome progress
monitoring no more frequent than once a month
Word analysis test – screening and general outcome
progress monitoring no more frequent than three times a
year– also can be used diagnostically through error
analysis
Informal assessment toolkit- Informal diagnostic
instruments
Screening and
informal
diagnostics
Progress
Assessments
End of year
Beginning of year
1. General Screening
2. Targeted Screening
3. informal diagnostics
Standards based
accountability
measures
Throughout the year
1. Classroom Based
Formative Assessment
including CBA Mastery
assessment
2. General Outcome CBM
End of year “high
stakes” test
At this time, the only evidence to support formative assessments with older
students concern classroom based formative assessments and very
frequent general outcome progress monitoring with special needs students.
Questions/
Discussion