progress monitoring interpretation

PM Interpretation 1

Progress Monitoring Interpretation

Math

By: Madison Hopkins

SED 372

Fall 2015

University of Texas

PM Interpretation 2

Student Information

Student Z is a 5th grade Latino, male student, 10 years 5 months of age. He lives with

his parents where have not been any reports of important events or trauma within the

family. It has been reported that it does not appear that his educational difficulties are a

result of a cultural bias or lack of educational opportunity. The student has attended H

Elementary School since kindergarten and was initially referred for special education

services in of 2012 by his first grade teacher. The determinant for referral was initiated

after observed significant deficits throughout kindergarten indicated a possible learning

disability. His first grade teacher and the resource teacher informally assessed his

difficulty in phonological awareness affecting his achievement in fluency and

comprehension. Additionally, Student Z “fell behind his classmates” during math

instruction. Concluding eligibility screening for special education, Student Z was labeled

with a Learning Disability (LD) in reading and Math under IDEA 2004.

According to the IEP Team, Student Z can solve three digit addition and subtraction

problems with regrouping with 80% accuracy. Student Z is also able to multiply two

digits by two digits problems with the use of a multiplication chart including products of

factors 1-12. Student Z is able to divide a one digit into a three digit with a multiplication

chart and verbal prompt(s). It has been noted that Student Z struggles interpreting word

problems and place value.

Student Z is receiving special education services with a label of LD in reading and

math. In math, the student’s goal is as follows:

PM Interpretation 3

• Goal A: Given Supplemental Aids, oral administration, and special education

support, Student Z will master the concepts presented in the inclusion math class

with at least 70% mastery

Significant considerations contributed to deciding the measures of math to assess.

Because Student Z’s has an LD in reading, it is important that the chosen probe contains

little to no reading components to ensure the results truly reflect the progress of the skill

being assessed. Additionally, Student Z requires the accommodation of the use of a

multiplication chart for computing purposes. It would be inappropriate to administer a

probe that required the knowledge of fluent multiplication facts since it is expected that

he will use the accommodation in academic settings. As a result of these considerations,

it was decided that Numbers & Operations, found at EasyCBM.com, is the most

appropriate measure of math to assess.

When deciding the appropriate grade level probe to monitor the progress of Student

Z’s Math Fluency, a third grade Numbers & Operations probe, the grade level below the

student’s expected grade-appropriate level, found at EasyCBM.com was administered.

The results of this trial probe proved that third grade is the student’s grade- appropriate

level probe for assessing Numbers & Operations of Math, with a score equivalent to 50%.

Administration

The math probe assessed the student’s skills in Numbers & Operations of third

grade. Each probe contains 16 questions that require the student to choose of the three

provided answer choices. This probe did not require a time limit as the student is

expected to respond to all 16 questions. The number of correct responses per session was

PM Interpretation 4

recorded. An example of this probe is provided in the appendix.

Twice per week (if opportunity is available), Student Z was pulled out of the

resource classroom for assessment. The sessions were administered over a period of six

weeks including thanksgiving break when opportunity to assess was unavailable. I

explained the purpose of this assessment and the student’s role in participating.

Assessment sessions varied from five to 10 minutes in length and conducted in an empty

classroom with minimal distractions. Administration Procedures are as follows:

1. Student is given the directions, “You are going to answer 16

multiple choice math questions. When I say, ‘go,’ you will flip

over the paper and begin. Do your best quietly and independently.

When you are finished, you will flip the paper back over and raise

your hand.”

2. Student is given the probe face down.

3. Administrator says, “Go.”

4. Student completes probe, flips it back over, and raises his hand.

5. Administrator collects completed probe.

When scoring this assessment, the number of correct responses is recorded. That

is, the raw score is recorded for progress monitoring purposes. If the student omits an

answer choice, it is considered incorrect. If the student selects more than one answer

choice, it is considered incorrect. Scoring procedures provided by EasyCBM.com are

related to a percentile rank associated with the student’s raw score (EasyCBM Norm-

Referenced Interpretations, 2014). According to this site, “In all cases, this information

PM Interpretation 5

gives an indication of how a student is performing relative to the performance of other

students on that measure at that point in time,” (2014).

Measurement Graph

The graph below reflects the results of Student Z’s progress monitoring for the

measures of Numbers & Operations. The line shown in red, labeled Actual represents the

raw data points of each assessment session. The line shown in pink, labeled Trendline

represents the student’s current performance trajectory based on the baseline data and the

mean of the three most recent data points. The baseline assessment occurred over the first

three sessions as indicated in the graph below. The purple line labeled Aimline represents

the goal trajectory.

Results

As shown in the graph above, Student Z’s performance varied and he did not

reach the goal. The trendline begins at the raw score of 7.66, the mean of the baseline

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

10/27/15

10/29/15

10/31/15

11/2/15

11/4/15

11/6/15

11/8/15

11/10/15

11/12/15

11/14/15

11/16/15

11/18/15

11/20/15

11/22/15

11/24/15

11/26/15

11/28/15

11/30/15

12/2/15

#ofCorrectResponses

AssessmentSession

ThirdGradeNumbers&OperationsProbe

Actual

Trendline

AimlineBaseline

PM Interpretation 6

assessment, and ends at the raw score of 9.33, the mean of the three most recent data

points. This aimline begins at the raw score of 7.66, the mean of the baseline

assessments, and follows trajectory to the raw score considered to reflect proficiency, 12.

Although EasyCBM provides norm-referenced percentile ranks, it was decided that the

aimline would be based on the student’s IEP goal stated above. Mastery of his math goal

in the instruction of fifth grade content is considered 70% therefore proficiency in any

math probe is to be considered 70%. It is believed that an achievement of 70% correct

responses suggests that the student’s appropriate grade-level probe would the following

grade level. In relation to the performance goal of 70%, Student Z raw data points are

converted to percentage correct and rounded to the nearest one percent: 44%, 50%, 50%,

44%, 56%, 50%, 63%, 56%, 56%. The trendline indicates progress of 10% from the

baseline score to the mean scores of the three most recent sessions.

It should be noted that the last two assessment sessions that took place on

December 1, 2015 and December 2, 2015 occurred following administration of the State

of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading Practice Test. Due to

potential fatigue from the STAAR test, Student Z’s results in this probe may have been

affected, providing a regression of performance.

Student Z always participated willingly and appeared interested in the results of

the assessment. During the baseline assessment, the student frequently requested support.

As the administrator, I repeated the portion of the administration procedure stating, “Do

your best quietly and independently.” The remaining sessions were completed without

verbal requests for support.

PM Interpretation 7

Discussion

When preparing for, administrating, and interpreting the progress monitoring

assessment, I learned the importance of planning. It would have proved beneficial if I had

started monitoring progress earlier in the semester. If I started earlier, the last two data

points would have been more reliable because the student would not have been testing for

two hours prior to this assessment. Also, if I began assessing earlier in the semester, there

would be a more consistent schedule of sessions because we would not have been

interrupted by student holidays.

After interpreting the collected data, it is recommended that Student Z continue

receiving math intervention. One instructional suggestion is to provide concrete fraction

instruction using math manipulatives such as fraction tiles and/or two-colored counters.

This could prove to be beneficial as the current grade level probe assesses knowledge of

fraction concepts and the fifth grade curriculum focuses on “representing and solving the

addition and subtraction of fractions with unequal denominators referring to the same

whole using objects and pictorial models and properties of operations,” (§111.7. Grade 5,

2012).

It is also recommended that the student receive intervention of fractions through

the use of instructional games. The student could participate in the interactive read aloud

inspired by the book The Doorbell Rang by Pat Hutchins. In this book, the story follows

two children in the kitchen of their grandmother’s house. Grandma made cookies and the

children must divide them equally between each other. However, before the children can

dive in, the doorbell rings and in walks a various number of friends. The student listening

to the story participates in the guided practice and/or independent practice of sharing the

PM Interpretation 8

cookies equally among the children and their guests. Although the story is not age

appropriate for fifth grader Student Z, the story line can be easily modified to appeal to

the interests of the student.

Lastly, it is recommended that the student receive representational models of

fractions to use in his inclusion classroom. In order to transition from the concrete model

of fraction to the abstract concept, Student Z needs exposure to the representational

model. This includes pictures of the fraction tiles and/or prompts for the student to draw

the two-colored counters when appropriate. Access to this accommodation will provide

support to the student expectantly preventing missed content due to lack of prerequisite

skills such as fraction concepts.

PM Interpretation 9

Progress Monitoring Interpretation

Reading

By: Madison Hopkins

SED 372

Fall 2015

University of Texas

PM Interpretation 10

Student Information

Student P is a 4th grade Caucasian, male student, 9 years 9 months of age. He lives

with his parents, his older sister, and older brother. There have not been any reports of

important events or trauma within the family. It has been reported that it does not appear

that his educational difficulties are a result of a cultural bias or lack of educational

opportunity. The student has attended H Elementary School since kindergarten and was

initially referred for special education services in March of 2014 by his second grade

teacher. The determinant for referral was initiated after Section 504 accommodations for

Dyslexia proved insufficient. The student’s second grade teacher believed his

unexpected, low academic performance was due to the student’s, “difficulty with focus.”

Student P’s mother contributed to this idea reporting, “[Student P] has difficulty

concentrating and can act in an impulsive manner.”

Concluding eligibility screening for special education, Student P was labeled with a

Learning Disability (LD) in reading under IDEA 2004. Upon entering the fall semester of

the third grade, Student P was diagnosed by a physician with Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and prescribed a daily dose of related medication,

Vyvanse. While his teachers reported an immediate positive correlation between the

consumption of medication and academic performance, his mother decided to cease the

treatment due to negative side effects including loss of appetite and trouble sleeping.

Following a decrease in behavior and academic performance at the start the fourth grade,

student P resumed said medication in October of 2015. His teachers unanimously

observed that Student P’s performance across domains increased after resuming the


ADHD medication. Similar to previous trials, negative side effects returned however

instead of ceasing medication altogether, the student’s mother and physician adjusted the

dosage to a more balanced outcome.

Student P is receiving special education services with a label of LD in reading. In

Language Arts, the student’s goals are as follows:

• Goal A: Given passages and novels in the resource classroom, Student P will

answer comprehension questions on the 3rd grade level with at least 70% mastery.

o STO A: Given passages and novels in the resource classroom, Student P will

answer comprehension question on the 2nd grade level with at least 70%

mastery.

• Goal B: Student P will read a story or passage on a 4th grade level at 100 words

per minute.

o STO B: Paris will read a story on a 3rd grade level at 100 words per minutes.

Student P is a curious and creative student. When motivated, he often shows

effort in inquiry and will openly relate content to personal experiences and previously

learned information. He seems to be like by his peers and makes friends easily. It was

reported that the student, “makes good use of picture clues to derive meaning from text.”

Student P shows strengths in language and oral communication. It was also reported that

the student’s mother expressed that the student is a sweet child and has a very strong

personality. In the areas of cognitive processing according to WJ-III, the student shows

strengths in crystalized intelligence, visual processing, long-term storage & retrieval,

auditory processing, and fluid reasoning skills.


Student P shows difficulty in areas affected by his ADHD. According to the

resource teacher, “[Student P is] extremely immature [and has] severe academic issues

due to attention problems.” It has been observed that when the student is confused or

does not know what to do/how to do something, he often “acts silly” instead of asking for

help.

In skills related to reading, Student P shows deficits. It has been summarized that

he does not read beyond words that he is unable to decode in order to use context clues. It

was also noted that the student often leaves off the suffix of words and loses his place

while reading.

Student P was assessed for oral reading fluency using the measures and

procedures of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Student P

fluently reads at a rate of 93 words per minute (WPM) when provided administration of a

2nd grade DIBELS passage at the end of his 3rd grade year. For progress monitoring

purposes, DIBELS was chosen because it assesses the skill deficit, reading fluency.

Administration

The reading probe DIBELS assessed the student’s oral reading fluency skills with

passages appropriate for the student’s appropriate grade-level, the third grade. Each probe

consists of a reading passage where the student is expected to orally read with accuracy at

their best pace/rate for one minute. The score is derived from the number of correct

words read per minute. Correct words read per minute is calculated by subtracting the

incorrect words from the total number of words read in the allotted minute. According to

An example of this probe is provided in the appendix.

Twice per week (if opportunity is available), Student P was pulled out of the


resource classroom for assessment. The sessions were administered over a period of six

weeks including thanksgiving break when opportunity to assess was unavailable. I

explained the purpose of this assessment and the student’s role in participating.

Assessment sessions lasted approximately 1 minute in length as this was a timed probed

and administration procedures are quick by design. Assessments were conducted in an

empty classroom with minimal distractions. According to Good, Kaminski, & Dill

(2007), administration procedures are as follows:

1. Student is given a passage with the directions, “Please read this (point) out loud.

If you get stuck, I will tell you the word so you can keep reading. When I say,

‘Stop,’ I may ask you to tell me about what you read, so do your best reading.

Start here (point to the first word of the passage). Begin.”

2. Administrator starts stopwatch when the student says the first word of the

passage.

3. At the end of one minute, place bracket (]) after the last word provided by the

student, stop and reset stopwatch, and say, “Stop.”

4. Administrator removes passage and calculates CWPM.

When scoring this assessment, the number of correct responses is recorded. If the

student omits a word while reading, it is considered incorrect. If the student reads a word

incorrectly, it is considered incorrect. If the student does not read a word within three

seconds, the administrator gives the word to the student and the word is considered

incorrect. If the student self-corrects, the word is considered correct. If the student

pronounces a word differently than expected due to a different in dialect, the word is

considered correct.


DIBELS was chosen as the progress-monitoring probe per Cooperating Resource

Teacher request. The Cooperating Resource Teacher provided the assessment materials

for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF). This specific probe is believed to be

appropriate for Student P because his prior data was collected using DIBELS. Due to the

Cooperating Resource Teacher insistence, the third grade level passages are considered to

be the student’s appropriate grade level.

Measurement Graph The graph below reflects the results of Student P’s progress monitoring for the

measures of Oral Reading Fluency. The line shown in red, labeled Actual represents the

raw data points, Correct Words per Minute, of each assessment session. The line shown

in pink, labeled Trendline represents the student’s current performance trajectory based

on the baseline data and the mean of the three most recent data points. The baseline

assessment occurred over the first three sessions as indicated in the graph below. The

purple line labeled Aimline represents the goal trajectory.

828486889092949698100102

10/27/15

10/29/15

10/31/15

11/2/15

11/4/15

11/6/15

11/8/15

11/10/15

11/12/15

11/14/15

11/16/15

11/18/15

11/20/15

11/22/15

11/24/15

11/26/15

11/28/15

11/30/15

12/2/15

CorrectW

ordsPerMinute(CWPM

)

AssessmentSession

3rdGradeDIBELSReadingFluencyProbe

Actual

Trendline

Aimline

Baseline


Results As shown in the graph above, Student P’s performance varied and he did not

reach the goal. The trendline begins at the raw score of 91 CWPM, the mean of the

baseline assessment, and ends at the raw score of 95 CWPM, the mean of the three most

recent data points. This aimline begins at the raw score of 91 CWPM, the mean of the

baseline assessments, and follows trajectory to the raw score considered to reflect

proficiency, 100 CWPM. It was decided that the aimline would be based on the student’s

Short Term Objective stated above with mastery considered to be 100 CWPM. It is

believed that an achievement of 100 CWPM in a third grade level DIBELS passage

suggests that the student’s appropriate grade-level probe would the following grade level,

fourth grade.

It should be noted that the second to last assessment session that took place on

December 1, 2015 occurred following administration of the State of Texas Assessment of

Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading Practice Test. Due to potential fatigue from the

STAAR test and the student’s limited attentional resources, the results of this session may

have been affected.

Discussion When preparing for, administrating, and interpreting the progress monitoring

assessment, I learned the importance of planning. It would have proved beneficial if I had

started monitoring progress earlier in the semester. If I started earlier, the second to last

data point would have been more reliable because the student would not have been

testing for two hours prior to this assessment. Also, if I began assessing earlier in the

semester, there would be a more consistent schedule of sessions because we would not

have been interrupted by student holidays.


One instructional recommendation to be made is for Student P to receive more

intervention in Basic Language Skills (BLS). BLS is the intervention of choice by the

Cooperating Resource Teacher and is provided when time allows. Further, the

administration of this intervention is not consistent and the duration does not seem to be

long enough. I think if the student received BLS as intended by the creators, the student’s

performance in oral reading fluency skills would show progress.

Another instructional recommendation consists of practicing sight words. It would

benefit the student’s automaticity to practice Tier II words in a game format. When

presented with an unfamiliar word, the instructor will provide the correct pronunciation

and the meaning. Then, the student will repeat the word and assign a physical

shape/position for the word related to its meaning using his body. After the student

assigns a shape/position for at least three words, the instructor will call out a word and

the student is expected to fall into the assigned position. This activity would be

appropriate for 1:1, small group, or whole group instruction. By associating the word

with audial and physical attributes, the student is more likely to recognize it upon

reading.

Lastly, repeated reading will likely improve Student P’s oral reading fluency

skills. Often times it has been observed that the student is “skipped” when reading aloud

due to his frequent hesitations and slow pace. More opportunities for repeated oral

reading will build the student’s self esteem and provide exposure to unfamiliar words

through guided practice. Given that his language arts resource class consists of six

students, the small group setting provides ample opportunity for corrective feedback and

individualized guided practice.


REFERENCES

Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A., & Dill, S. (2007). DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency. In R H. Good & R. A.

Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills (6th Ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for

the Development of Educational Achievement. Available: http://dibels.uoregon.edu/

Interpreting EasyCBM Test Results. (2014, August 5). Retrieved November 28, 2015, from

https://app.easycbm.com/static/files/pdfs/info/ProgMonScoreInterpretation.pdf


APPENDIX

progress monitoring interpretation

Documents