Academic Data for Instructional Decisions:

Elementary Level

Dr. Amy Lingo, Dr. Nicole Fenty, and Regina HirnProject 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

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

Project ABRI 2009

Academic DataReading and Mathematics

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 InventorySubtests

• 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

15

StudentName ORF RTF NWFTiffany 44 19 54Allison 26 18 37Amber 15 25 22Erin B 23 15 25Sheri 49 41 69

Carson 56 45 81Tavia 33 23 63

Haleigh 41 38 61Jacqueline 53 28 42

Shane 39 14 59Matt 47 36 45

Meagan 30 8 32Amanda 40 11 70Cheryl 49 25 57Alex 72 35 94

Erin T 51 22 48Jennifer 58 34 51Tessa 73 49 78

Marissa 57 0 55Ashley 44 25 53Katie 12 * 20Stacy 23 15 25 Few HF words read accurately, reading S x SMean 43.4 53.1

Median 28.0 31.5No. ss below BM 9 8

Total students tested 21 21% ss below BM 43% 38%

Fall 04Comments

Accurate reading; few errors with multi-syllable words

Accurate and fluent reading, good skills with MS words

Reading some NWs sound by sound firstFew HF words read accurately, reading S x SFew HF words read accurately, reading S x S

Accurate and fluent reading, good skills with MS words

Long for short vowels, confuses nonsense for real wordsUsed initial consonants to guess; NWF confusion

Slight difficulty with MS words and confusion with some HF wordsAccurate reading; few errors with multi-syllable words

Difficulty with MS words and HF wordsFew HF words read accurately, difficulty with MS words

Many cvc words read with long vowel soundsDistracted; multiple errors with MS and HF words

Good reading, not able to retell; shy?Right at the benchmark; some hesitancies, but accurate

Slow, labored reading; word by word; poor blending,

Fluent, accurate; good prosody; good CVC automaticityFluent and accurate, but hesitant; long vowel sounds in cvc words

Few errors with multi-syllable words, long for short vowelsAccurate and fluent reading, good skills with MS words

Second Grade Class

16

Group 1 Group 2

Student ORF RTF NWF Student ORF RTF NWFAllison 26 18 37 Tavia 33 23 63Meagan 30 8 32 Haleigh 41 38 61

Matt 47 36 45 Shane 39 14 59Amanda 40 11 70Marissa 57 0 55

Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

Student ORF RTF NWF Student ORF RTF NWF Fall 04Sheri 49 41 69 Amber 15 25 22 Student ORF RTFNWFTessa 73 49 78 Erin B 23 15 25 Jacqueline 53 28 42Cheryl 49 25 57 Katie 12 * 20 Ashley 44 25 53Alex 72 35 94 Stacy 23 15 25 Erin T 51 22 48

Carson 56 25 81 Jennifer 58 34 51Tiffany 44 19 54

Fall 04

Fall 04

Fall 04

Fall 04

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,

• 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

Forming Groups Based on Assessment Data

Student ORF NWF

Allison 26 37

Meagan 30 32

Matt 47 45

Group 1

Central Foci Should Be: Phonics and reading fluencyRationale?

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)

Project ABRI 2009

ElementaryGrade 1% Students per Intervention Category

Available Data: Academic Year in Review (Reading)

Project ABRI 2009

Fall Reading Assessment: Kindergarten

Project ABRI 2009

n=69

Spring Reading Assessment: Kindergarten

Project ABRI 2009

n=66

Fall Reading Assessment: Grade 3

Project ABRI 2009

n=55

Spring Reading Assessment: Grade 3

Project ABRI 2009

n=57

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 Probe

10 4/5 met benchmark 80%• 2 days per week 4/28 Probe

10 4/4 met benchmark 100%

Project ABRI 2009

Sample Intervention with Results

Great Leaps Math• 2 days per week 4/28 Pro be

10 4/4 met benchmark 100%• 3 days per week 7/28 Probe

10 6/7 met benchmark 86%

Project ABRI 2009

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

Project ABRI 2009

Fall Assessment Results

Project ABRI 2009

Fall Assessment Results

Project ABRI 2009

ABRI Process Decision making

Project ABRI 2009

Amy LingoAssistant Professor, Special EducationCollege of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of LouisvilleLouisville, KY 40292Amy.Lingo@louisville.edu(502) 852-0563