Category: Assessment

Key Components to Diagnosing Dyslexia

Diagnosing Dyslexia is usually tricky! There are common deficits of individuals who have developmental dyslexia that give educators a better idea of who may be dyslexic. These clues may be used to better meet the instructional needs of these types of students. All students benefit from the same type of instruction-structured literacy. Students of inclusion classes or classes that encompass students of different first languages benefit from the same type of instruction, as well.

Not every dyslexic student will show the same outward signs. Students will often develop ways to mask their lack of processing skills for literacy and/or math. Student personalities and their environment effect the amount of outward masking students will develop to hide their lack adequate processing connections.

Many states are now conducting dyslexic screenings 1-3 times a year (often included in universal screenings) to assist in identifying students who are struggling to acquire reading skills and/or may be dyslexic. Teachers also play a vital role in unmasking dyslexic students through their observations. Teachers usually work with students in a small group setting during the primary and elementary grades. Small instruction groups make it easier to observe key flags that usually identify students with dyslexia. Writing tasks or data will assist in exposing current student spelling abilities. Students with dyslexia will often spell the same word different within the same sample of writing.

Students of “classic/heritable” dyslexia usually have orthography and phonology deficits. Some of the characteristics of these deficits include:

“Phonological Issues

  • Sequencing of sound (bran for barn)
  • Omission of addition of sounds (jup for jump)
  • Confusion with similar sounds phonemes (f and th)
  • Limited knowledge of spelling rules (chik for chick)

Orthographic Issues

  • Sequencing of nonphonetic patterns (cloud for could)
  • Confusion with graphemes that look similar (e.g., b/d, p/q)
  • Transposition of letters (e.g., gril instead of girl)
  • Overgeneralization of rules
  • Overreliance on auditory features (e.g., becuz for because)” (Redding, 2023, slide 38)

The earlier a student with the characteristics of dyslexia receives intervention services or structured literacy instruction, the more likely they are to be at their expected level for reading.

Gathering and Using Student and Instructional Data

Giving assessments, tests, exams, quizzes, etc of any kind is a WASTE OF TIME if educators do not analyze and use the outcome or data to improve student instruction and learning. Students usually have no want to take tests of any kind, as taking assessments usually leads to unnecessary anxiety and stress. There should be a valid reason for gathering the data—not so that it looks nice on paper or sits in a drawer. Each educator may rely on particular type of assessment more than others. Some types of assessment are mandated by law at state or federal levels. Some types of assessments are established by the district, others by an individual school, and others by the classroom teacher. Each piece of data helps to develop a “picture” of a student learning and achievement abilities and of teaching instructional practices. Multiple forms of data should be gathered over 5-to-6-week period to develop a solid picture of student ability. Time should be spent to ponder the outcomes and how this data may improve student mastery of information.

There are different types of data that may be gathered to assist educators in developing and delivering worthy lessons.

  • Observation data is usually gathered and recorded as anecdotal notes. Teachers might use charts to ensure information is gathered about a certain topic or action. Some teachers may also use a notebook to record on-going notes. These observations may be used to increase the validity of assessment data, to make changes to instruction, or to make a diagnostic diagnosis.
  • Curriculum-based measurements (CBM) are assessments that are derived from adopted or classroom curriculum. CBMs are written in different formats to gather different types of data related to the topic studied. CBMs often have a variety of questions, such as multiply choice, true/false, essay, or matching questions. CBMs might be written by non-educators, classroom teachers, or educators.
  • Summative assessments measure the amount of information that a student has retained in relation to the information taught in a lesson or group of lessons about a particular subject. Summative assessments are often used at the end of a unit.
  • A portfolio assessment is a group of specified assignments, usually related to a certain topic, study or skill focus. This type of assessment has the ability to show different types of skills that may not be visible on other types of assessments that may need to be measured for student success.
  • Formative assessments provide on-going feedback to instructors about how they might improve their instruction of information. This type of assessment also informs teachers of student learning abilities and achievement. Formative assessments are also used to show students weaknesses and strengths in relation to topic assessed.
  • Diagnostic assessments are used to evaluate individual student abilities in order to identify strengths and deficits of a particular academic domain (Ray, 2017, p.13). These types of assessments are used more to determine student deficits that may lead to a learning diagnosis, like processing of information issues.
  • Progress monitoring verifies how much a student has grown in relation to a particular topic or skill. The monitoring also gives instructors knowledge about the effectiveness of this particular instruction and possible directions for future instructional lessons of this nature. Progress monitoring typically takes place every two weeks. Progress monitoring is used primarily for students receiving intervention instruction.
  • Standardized assessments or measurements assess student academic level in relation to other students of the same age or grade level. Often these measurements are developed using a “bank” of questions that are randomly chosen for a particular test. There are different types of standardized assessments that are used for different purposes, such as diagnostic and teacher or district accountability. These measurements are norm or criterion-referenced.

Each type of assessment provides clues about student academic success and teacher instruction. The assessment outcomes should be analyzed through the lens of the intended outcome or purpose of assessment.

References

Ray, J. (2017). Tiered 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

 

The Benefits of Determining and Addressing Students Literacy Needs – Early

Students of all economic and cultural backgrounds arrive at institutions of formal education assuming that educators will be able to teach them how to effectively read and write. Some will have the knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, some will have knowledge of how to hold a pencil and write. Some will know how to read. Some will have good oral language skills. Some will have good social emotional skills. Some will show up without any of the previous skills. They will be all put into the same classroom. The teacher is expected to meet the learning needs of all students throughout the day.

There are tools that teachers should have available to ease the “craziness” of having 20-25 students that are all at different levels of learning and social behavior. One tool is universal screening of early or foundational literacy knowledge and skills. Universal screenings are very short probes to determine which students may lack the necessary skills to be successful in their current grade. These screenings usually assist in determining which students may need additional small group or one-on-one instruction to learn foundational learning skills. These screenings also assist in determining students who might need further diagnostic assessment and different instruction for various learning disabilities, such as dyslexia. These short probes are usually used in partnership of teacher observation and completed assignments to increase the validity of the universal screening outcomes.

These probes should begin in kindergarten, and the findings a focus of instruction during Grades K-3. The earlier a student(s) learning needs or lack of knowledge and skills are address the less the student(s) will struggle. Students who receive earlier intervention instruction usually skip the deep emotional scars. Left unmeet these students usually spend their time clawing their way through their day, trying to avoid the shame of not be able to fully participate. Often students just need a few weeks of intense instruction in kindergarten. I have yet to meet a student who didn’t want to function at grade-level with their peers.

The types of probes are dependent on student age and ability. A student in kindergarten should be assessed in phonemic awareness and rapid automatic naming skills. A student in Grade 2 should be assessed in some of the previous probes along with word reading of both regular and pseudonym words. These are usually given three times a year within an instructional response to intervention (RTI) model* that focuses on academics-literacy and math. The probes and intervention instruction begin to separate students with true learning disabilities from those who didn’t gain or learn the foundational skills necessary before entering the formal educational setting. This also ensures that students with true disabilities receive more accurate instruction and assistance earlier than later for their disability.

Students who receive explicit, direct instruction in Grades K-2 for the lacking foundational literacy skills usually “catch-up” to grade level expectation and maintain their intervention gains. Some students will need assistance throughout their formal academic instruction. Students who receive the right academic intervention instruction will avoid many latter social emotional issues. The cost to society and formal education escalates, as students maturate and cannot effectively participate at their grade-level. The earlier students’ lack of foundational skills is addressed; the less funding is needed to bring up them up to grade-level. Students’ brains are more malleable during their younger years.

* Each RTI model should be different, but similar in nature to reflect the students’ academic learning needs and the resources available. All RTI models will have tiers or levels of instruction. Most RTI models in Grades K-4 focus on developing reading skills. Some RTI models may focus on behavior. Behavior focused RTI models may assist in determining the learning levels of students, as behavior often signals a lack of academic skills necessary to function at grade-level. Once the academic needs are meet the behavior issues usually melt away.

In my next blog, I will describe the necessary components and teacher education of a successful RTI program.

References

Moll, K., Georgii, B. J., Tunder, R., & Schulte-Kӧrne (2022). Economic evaluation of dyslexia intervention. Dyslexia, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1728

Ray, J. S. (2017). Tier 2 intervention for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826

Grade or Objective-Based Student Report Card

The educational field in general is a challenging work setting. Most of challenge comes from the expansive variety of individuals that need to learn the same concepts. Each individual is unique and may need different tools to learn the same concept. Every classroom is different based on the variety of individuals present in that classroom. Every instructor is unique and brings different tools to their classroom in how to teach the particular concepts needed to be learned.  Every classroom usually has similar assignments and similar forms of instruction. How each of those tasks are evaluated maybe different. This makes the task of producing valid, fair report cards a challenging task. Fair meaning the student in question is being evaluated the same as every other student in your district or your state or across the United States. The discussion and struggles of how to produce valid evaluations will be debated till the end of time.

There are different types of student report cards, each are derived from different types of data.  One type is grade-based that uses the data of daily tasks or assignments related to the subject(s) being taught. This might include daily assignments or longer projects. A second piece of data that is usually included in a grade-based report card is assessments that were given based on current subject(s) within that scope of instruction. In some cases, the assessment outcomes may be curved to match the learning abilities of students in the class, which will be different for each class taking the same subject. In some cases, there might be extra credit added to the assessment that might be related or unrelated to the subject of assessment. In some cases, the assessments may include information that has not been taught or unrelated to the current focus of the exam. A third piece of data that might be included in a grade-based report card is student work ethic. This might be added in different ways. Points might be given for turning in the assignment no matter how its completed. Points might be given for being on task. Points might be given for extra credit, such as completing additional related tasks. Points might be given for writing your name and date correctly. Points might be given for turning in your signed paperwork or returned report card. Some of the same components are used to report objectives mastered on an objective-based report card.

A student report card based on objectives or ability may include some of the following components. One component might be teacher observation. A teacher uses his or her expert opinion to determine if a student is able to complete a task. A teacher might include student work ethic in their equation of determining student ability. Teachers often take anecdotal notes during the course of the day that may be used to assess student ability for reporting purposes. Anecdotal data might include personal traits, parts of tasks, knowledge of a particular skill, or possible scaffolds. A second component of objectives-based report cards might be instructional assignments. Assignments usually present a variety data that can be used to assess student ability. Is the student following directions? Can the student write a sentence or paragraph using the correct grammar and punctuation? Can the student comprehend what the task is asking them to do? Are they able to write legibly? Is the student able to summarize or reformulate information?  A third component might be formative data. Formative data includes any measurement that provides information to instructors on how to improve their teaching to increase student achievement. This might include a simple thumbs up, thumbs down or a deeper probe of how a student builds a sentence.

Grades based reporting shows an overall grade, but does not necessarily reveal student ability of a particular skill. Both types of reporting can be a valid source of student ability. Educators tend to focus on student objectives during the earlier years of education, PreK-Grade 5, when grade-based reporting begins. This is not a rigid timeline as each state, district, and school may use a different timeline of transition.

Evaluating Assessment—Why Are We Assessing?

Education will resemble a new normal, when we begin a new school year in the fall.  This may be a good time to take a deep breath and evaluate how we assess students and use the gathered data. What are the current assessments at the school, district, state, and national levels? Can we combined some of those assessments to serve for multiple items? Can the data from some items be used for other items, but read differently? Does the time spent testing vs the number of hours spent learning make sense? Are we using the data gained from this assessment? There is a high possibility that more students may need extra time to learn and practice new skills this upcoming year. Students’ achievement rates will (mostly) remain a mystery until students return to in-class instruction. Some students may have thrived in their “new” learning environment and be on grade-level. Some students may be a grade or more below the grade-level standard. Some students might have struggled no matter the format or crazy interruptions. Many will need the instruction and practice time to catch-up.

One measurement that should remain is universal screening* of elementary school students (Grades K-8) for grade-level achievement. This battery of short probes gives a good first look at student achievement levels and may be used to progress monitor students as they move through the school year. The probes should be based on grade-level** benchmarks, such as Grade K, phonological awareness and letter-sound correspondences and Grade 1, phonological awareness, sound-letter correspondences, oral reading, etc. Universal screenings also provide a first look at students who may be need instructional supports or deeper assessing. Response to Intervention (RTI) tiers can be developed using universal screening data. Curriculum based assessments and observations can be used to increase the validity of universal screenings and to find students testing false-positive.

Students may test false-positive, meaning the student failed to show his true achievement level on test day—usually very few students. Some students will assess positive for signs of reading disabilities, but not have a reading disability. This may be due to: (a) lack of instruction, (b) lack of practice, (c) another illness-cold, (d) bad test taker, and or (e) their pet died. These students will become apparent as a false-positive during future instruction and observations and or through data of past assessments and observations. A short follow-up assessment may also resolve the false-positive score. Treat each student that tests positive for low-academic achievement and learning disabilities, as if they were until you determine the false-positive. Treating them as a positive for a short amount of time, one to four weeks, is better than ignoring the possibility. Student self-esteem is at stake. Some students will test at the borderline or right above the cut score and should be placed in a “watch” and observe mode to monitor their progression of grade-level instruction. Some students may have parental support to assist in working with them. Some students may have classmate or friend that can help them.

Kindergarteners usually arrive at all different levels. Some will need small group instruction, while others will need more intense instruction to bring them up to grade-level achievement. Students should leave Kindergarten with good foundational skills for learning how to read and write. Every kindergarten student should be able to write a sentence, know their letters-sound correspondences and be able to read a simple sentence before moving on to Grade 1. Many will be able to read short stories and write fluid sentences. Students not at grade-level will likely be in a catch-up mode throughout their academic career.

*Universal Screening: A series of short, easy-to-administer probes of 1-3 minutes used to determine those students who are at-risk for reading acquisition. Universal screening is usually administered school or district-wide three times a year. The screening should identify 90% of the students who may be at-risk for reading acquisition. Universal screening is often used to monitor student progress and as a diagnostic assessment to determine students’ individual learning needs.

**Universal Screening Grade Level Timeline (Ray, J., 2017).

 

Reading Skill

 Column A

Gersten et al., 2009

 Column B

Kashima et al., 2009

 Column C

Lam & McMaster, 2014

 Column D

NJCLD, 2011
Letter naming & fluency  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

 
Phoneme segmentation Grade K-1 Grade K-1    
Phonemic awareness

Nonsense fluency

  

Grade 1

   Grade K-3  
Word identification Grade 1-2   Grade K-3  
Oral reading fluency Grade 1-2 Grade 1 Grade K-3 Grade K-3
Sound repetition   Grade K-1    
Vocabulary   Grade 1    
Reading comprehension   Grade 2-3   Grade K-3
Listening comprehension   Grade 2-3   Grade K-3
Written expression       Grade K-3
Basic reading skills       Grade K-3
Oral expression       Grade K-3

References

Ray, J. S. (2017). Tier 2 intervention for students in grades 1-3 identified as as-risk in reading. (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).  Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

Zone of Proximal Development and Scaffolding

Student optimum learning level or zone of proximal development (ZPD) was first introduced in Vygotsky’s 1929 cultural-historical theory of psychological development. Vygotsky’s theory maintains that cognitive development includes (a) the processes of mastering the external means of cultural development and thinking in relation to language, writing, counting, and drawing, and (b) the processes of higher mental functions, which include the concepts of logical memory, categorical perception, voluntary attention, and conceptual thinking. Vygotsky believed that each student has a unique learning level or ZPD that is based on past interactions with adults, peers, culture, and environment. He defined ZPD as “the distance between the level of actual development, determined with the help of independently solved tasks, and the level of possible development, defined with the help of tasks solved by the child under the guidance of adults or in cooperation with the more intelligent peers” (Vygotsky, 1935/2011, p. 204). ZPD is the bud or potential growth that can develop into ripened fruit or ownership of skill (Vygotsky, 1978), when feed the necessary nutrients. These are skills that are in the process of maturing and will need the assistance of an individual of higher cognitive processing level to complete. This is a student’s unique, ideal instructional or learning level that is constantly changing, as they work with individuals of higher cognitive processing levels and interact with their natural environment.

Student zone of proximal development (ZPD) is important to the scaffolding process, as student learning is most effective at this level. Instruction should begin just beyond what they already know or have mastered. Teachers use student ZPD to begin modeling how to complete a task not yet mastered. Teachers add scaffolds to assist the student(s) in learning new information and task completion. The scaffolds should be removed as student begins to show confidence or take ownership of unknown information. This may mean adding and subtracting the same or similar scaffolds before student becomes completely confident or has mastered the task. Student ZPD is most prevalent during the fading stage of the scaffolding process. Scaffolding is a process that includes three major stages—contingency, fading, and transfer of responsibility. The scaffolding process is described in further detail in my July 5th post—titled, Scaffolding Instruction.

Student ZPD can be located through assessment. Vygotsky suggested using assessments to measure student’s capabilities, that included (a) you demonstrate how to complete a task and observe the student mirror this demonstration, (b) you start a task and ask the student to complete the task, (c) ask the student to complete a task in collaboration with a higher functioning student, and (d) demonstrate metacognition in solving the task (Gredler, 2009). Teachers may also use formative, summative, and/or diagnostic assessments to help determine student’s approximate ZPD. Teachers can also use anecdotal notes or observations of student capabilities to help determine students ZPD. Teachers can also use student’s answer to questions about the current task posed by the teacher or person of higher cognitive ability to fine tune learner’s ZPD regarding a concept or task.

References
Gredler, M. (2009). Learning and Instruction Theory into Practice. Upper Saddle Creek, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Vygotsky, L. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the child II. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 36, 415-434. Vygotsky Reader, Blackwell. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1929/ cultural_development.htm
Vygotsky, L. S., & Kozulin, A. (1935/2011). The dynamics of the schoolchild’s mental development in relation to teaching and learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 10(2), 198-211. http://ia-cep.org/journal/jcep
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind and Society, 79-91. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Scaffolding Instruction

I enjoy the challenge of teaching students how to read and write.  Partly, because each student is unique in their instructional needs and this allows me to keep my mind active.  I was working with a student this past weekend, listening to him read and assisting him with words that were just beyond his ability to read independently.  Part of the challenge is that I am not sure what instruction he has received for the words just beyond his ability to read independently.  Some reading instruction teaches straight phonics, some teaches a blended or a combination of both phonics and whole word, and some teaches straight whole word.  And most teachers emphasize different parts or have different “tricks” from their past environmental interactions that they add to the curriculum to increase the absorption of the curriculum during instruction.  Which is part of the challenge that I enjoy. 

When he came upon a word that he couldn’t read, I listened to how he was “examining” or trying to figure the word out.  I learned that he does have some phonics training, in that he knows the sound of individual letters within the words.  I also learned that he probably does not know vowel blends.  I also learned that he probably does not know all of the different sounds that each letter can make depending on how the letters are placed within the word.  To confirm some of my observational notes, I asked him questions?  Some of the questions were related to the whole word, most were related to the individual letters and the possible sounds that each letter could make.  One question was, what sound does the letters “ow” make?  Another question was, what sound does this letter make?  To further confirm my analysis, I had him segment phonic words into individual letter sounds, like c / a / t.  This knowledge helped me to “scaffold” my instruction to meet his learning level needs. 

Scaffolding instruction means, “a supportive instructional structure that teachers use to provide the appropriate mechanisms for a student to complete a task that is beyond their unassisted abilities” (Ray, 2017, p.14).  I will further define this term in my next blog.

References

Ray, J. (2017). Tiered 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at risk in reading.  (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826

Diagnosing Dyslexia

The information in this blog is focused on developmental dyslexia, which is acquired through genetics.  Usually, students who acquire dyslexia through environmental causes can be flagged or diagnosed using the same information.

The definition of dyslexia is:

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurobiological in origin.  It is characterized by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and decoding abilities.  These difficulties typically result from a deficit in the phonological component of language that is often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and the provision of effective classroom instruction.  Secondary consequences may include problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience that can impede growth of vocabulary and background knowledge (International Dyslexia Association, 2002).

I am not big fan of labeling students for various reasons, but labeling must occur if the student is not getting the support and instruction that they need to acquire literacy skills.  Students will continue to struggle to acquire and use grade-level literacy skills, if they do not learn foundational literacy skills during their early elementary school days.  Most students can receive the support and instruction that they need to remain at grade-level through a response to intervention (RTI) or multitiered program.   RTI is a program that when implemented with fidelity can provide instructional lessons at student learning level, in addition to their regular classroom literacy instruction.  Some students will need more intense intervention that may include special education services, which requires the development of a 504 or IEP plan.  This will depend on your school’s literacy program and student learning needs.

Diagnosing dyslexia can be tricky and complex.  Dyslexia affects approximately 3 of every 20 students.  Dyslexia is blind to ethnicity and socioeconomic status.  Some students will “scream” dyslexia, many will not. Some students will never be diagnosed.  Children of parents diagnosed with developmental dyslexia have a 50% higher chance of having dyslexia.  It is also important to note that students can show traits of dyslexia, but not have developmental dyslexia.

Diagnosing dyslexia usually begins with a screening of student literacy skills.  A screening is a series of short probes or assessments used to learn student reading ability.   Most schools universally screen students three times a year.  Universal screenings can flag students who may have dyslexia, this will depend on the reading probes used to screen students.  Some probes have a stronger correlation to reading deficits normally found in individuals diagnosed with dyslexia.  Student knowledge of phonological awareness is a stronger flag until Grade 2, when rapid automatized naming tests (RAN) or reading fluency probes become a stronger flag (Ray, 2017).  Usually students that show a deficit in decoding nonsense words are dyslexic.  Teacher observations of student reading ability can strengthen the validity of a word decoding outcome.  There are also “private” on-line screenings.  Use on-line screening with caution, as not all screenings are valid.  The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreenTM was developed by Dr. Sally Shaywitz, a professor and researcher in Learning Development at Yale University. This screening can be used for students in kindergarten and Grade 1.  The screener can be found at https://dyslexia.yale.edu/, the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity.  Students who show signs of literary deficits or traits of dyslexia may be assessed deeper or more extensively by a trained educational professional.

Diagnosing Dyslexia

The Gillingham (1955) formula of diagnosing dyslexia was developed by Anne Gillingham while she was working for Dr. Samuel Orton in the early 1900s.  She believed that standardized achievement tests were not a valid method to diagnose students’ reading deficits or to place students in remediation.  Gillingham determined that the following seven assessments should be given to students one year before beginning reading instruction: (a) intelligence, (b) optical or vision, (c) family history, (d) motor pattern or skills, (e) visual sensory recall skills, (f) auditory sensory recall skills, and (g) kinesthetic sensory skills.  The data from each assessment should be compiled and analyzed for each child.  The child is then placed into a classroom setting, based on the analyzed outcome of these assessment.  Gillingham noted that when students were assessed correctly and place in the proper programs, many of the emotional issues disappeared.  Gillingham also noted that occasionally the analyzed placement needed to be revisited as the child progressed through their formal education.  Gillingham (1956) believed that teachers in the regular classroom were the first to identify students at-risk for reading acquisition.

Today, dyslexia can be diagnosed by a neuropsychologist who specializes in educational disabilities, in particular dyslexia.  The process includes three or four hours of testing that can be quit tiring for students.  Most public schools do not have licensed psychologists trained to administer the depth of assessment required to diagnose dyslexia.  Students can also be diagnosed using MRI imaging.  This method of diagnosis should be used with caution, as very few people know how to conduct or correctly read the MRI screening images for dyslexia traits.

Ray, J.S. (2017).  Tier 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading.  (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).  Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

Universal Screening

In my last post I defined universal screening as:  a series of short, easy-to-administer probes of 1-3 minutes used determine student learning level.  The data from universal screening is used to determine those students who are at-risk for reading acquisition and for student placement in the response to intervention model.  Universal screening is usually given three times a year.  This screening should identify 90% of the students who may be at-risk for reading acquisition.  Universal screening is often used to monitor student progress and as a diagnostic assessment to determine students’ individual learning needs.

Universal screening is a vital component of the response to intervention (RTI) model. Screening students with the right assessment probes at the right time is essential to an effective RTI model.  Students should be assessed for proficiency of their current grade level.  Students not showing grade level proficiency should be placed in tiers or groups of focused instruction to improve their literacy skills.  The groups may look different in each classroom or school depending on the current learning needs of present students.  Students should be monitored to ensure that current placement is effective for them.

The following is a timeline for the types of universal screeners that should be used to determine students who are at-risk for literacy acquisition.  This table was developed while I was conducting research for chapter 2 of my dissertation.

Table 1

Universal Screening Grade Level Timeline

 

Reading Skill

 Column A

Gersten et al., 2009

 Column B

Kashima et al., 2009

 Column C

Lam & McMaster, 2014

 Column D

NJCLD, 2011
 

Letter naming & fluency

  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

Grade K-1

  

 
Phoneme segmentation Grade K-1 Grade K-1
Phonemic awareness

Nonsense fluency

  

Grade 1

 Grade K-3
Word identification Grade 1-2 Grade K-3
Oral reading fluency Grade 1-2 Grade 1 Grade K-3 Grade K-3
Sound repetition Grade K-1
Vocabulary Grade 1
Reading comprehension Grade 2-3 Grade K-3
Listening comprehension Grade 2-3 Grade K-3
Written expression Grade K-3
Basic reading skills Grade K-3
Oral expression Grade K-3

 Note: Column A was adapted from “Assisting Students Struggling with Reading:  Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades” by R. Gersten et al., 2008, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 2009-4045, p. 13. Column B was adapted from “The Core Components of RTI: A Closer Look at Evidence-Based Core Curriculum, Assessment and Progress Monitoring, and Data-Based Decision Making by Y. Kashima, B. Schleich, and T. Spradlin, 2009, Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, p. 6.  Column C was adapted from “A 10-Year Update of Predictors of Responsiveness to Early Literacy Intervention” by E. A. Lam and K. L. McMaster, 2014, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 37(3), p. 143.  Column D was adapted from “Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation of Students with Learning Disabilities” by The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2011, Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(1), 3-16. 

Other references

Gilbert, J., Compton, D., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Early screening for risk of reading disabilities: Recommendations for a four-step screening system. NIH Public Access, Author Manuscript. Retrieved from  http://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903290 doi:10.1177/1534508412451491

Kilgus, S. P., Methe, S. A., Maggin, D. M., & Tomasula, J. L.(2014). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (r-cbm): A diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of evidence supporting use in universal screening. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 377-405. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.03.002.

Ray, J.S. (2017). Tier 2 interventions for students in grades 1-3 identified as at-risk in reading.  (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/3826/

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)

Facebook
Twitter