Running Head: DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS

TLT 405: Data Collection & Analysis Report

Gaby Montes

Lehigh University
Running Head: DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS 1

Class Report: Baseline Data

Student Name Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Baseline Raw Score 20 95 51 42 39

Baseline Percentile 5th 66th 21st 15th 13th

Score

Benchmark Well Below Above Well Below Well Below Well Below
Achievement

Class Report: Baseline and Most Recent Data Comparison

Student Name Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5

Baseline Raw Score 20 95 51 42 39

Baseline Percentile 5th 66th 21st 15th 13th

Score

Benchmark Well Below Above Well Below Well Below Well Below
Achievement

Most Recent Raw 35 148 90 70 80

Score

Most Recent 11th 95th 61st 38th 51st

Percentile Score

Growth Positive, Positive Positive, Positive, At Positive,

Below Growth Above the Aimline Above the
Aimline Aimline Aimline

Benchmark Well Below Above Above At At

Achievement Benchmark Benchmark

Action Plan Tier 2 Administer Try to Continue to Continue to

Intervention student administer administer administer
Needed: probes of a student probes at probes at
Guided & higher level probes of a current level current
Repeated slightly to ensure level to
Reading higher level continued ensure
growth continued
growth
Running Head: DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS 2

Individual Student Data

Student 1

Student 1 is a 3rd grade student taking the Acadience Oral Reading Fluency progress monitoring
assessment. Student 1’s initial baseline score was 20 WRC, placing him/her in the 5th percentile
in comparison to other third grade students. This score is well below the third grade benchmark
goals for ORF words read correct. His/her final score after seven weeks was 35 WRC, which
places him/her in the 11th percentile in comparison to other third grade students. Though student
1 shows overall growth in terms of their raw score, he/she remains well below the third grade
benchmark goals, demonstrating a need for intensive support. Further, the student’s score falls
below the cut point for risk, which is a 55. This cut point for risk indicates a level of skill below
which the student is unlikely to achieve subsequent reading goals without receiving additional,
targeted instructional support.

The student’s rate of improvement is a 2.14 [(35-20)/ 7]. When examining the line graph above,
it is clear that Student 1 was initially steadily improving at a rate better than the aimline, but then
after probe 4 began to demonstrate some regression. Though the final score after seven weeks is
higher than the baseline, it is important to investigate what caused Student 1’s regression after
probe 4.
Running Head: DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS 3

Action Plan for Student 1

Since Student 1 is performing well-below the 25th percentile, even after seven weeks, we will
need to set an appropriate goal for them. To do so, the teacher will need to determine the most
precise level to monitor student progress. Since the student is well-below the 25th percentile, the
teacher must begin by administering probes from a lower level and will continue until they
identify the highest grade level at which the student is instructional. For example, administering
the student 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade reading passages to determine their level. Then, the teacher
could set a normative goal for the student. One intervention this student may benefit from is
guided and repeated reading. In this intervention strategy, the student reads a text to the teacher
and as they do, the teacher provides him/her with helpful feedback on decoding errors or
struggles. Then, the student re-reads the sentence in which they encountered the word of struggle
to help establish fluency and comprehension. This could help because perhaps the student began
strongly and got discouraged as they encountered more challenging words and they did not know
how to go about decoding unknown words -- leading to the regression in their score after probe
four. This would enable the student to learn and practice these decoding strategies and gain
confidence.
Student 2

Student 2 is a 3rd grade student taking the Acadience Oral Reading Fluency progress monitoring
assessment. Student 2’s initial baseline score was 95 WRC, placing him/her in the 66th
percentile in comparison to other third grade students. This score is above the third grade
benchmark goals for ORF words read correct. His/her final score after seven weeks was 148
Running Head: DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS 4

WRC, which places him/her in the 95th percentile in comparison to other third grade students.
The student begins at a baseline that is already above benchmark and then continues to show
positive growth. The student’s rate of improvement is a 7.57 [(148-95)/ 7]. When examining the
line graph above, it is clear that Student 2 is demonstrating a consistent positive growth overall.

Action Plan for Student 2

Since the student is in the 95th percentile in comparison to other third grade students, the teacher
should definitely administer the student probes of a higher level to see how the student scores
and pinpoint the best level to continue monitoring student success.

Student 3

Student 3 is a 3rd grade student taking the Acadience Oral Reading Fluency progress monitoring
assessment. Student 1’s initial baseline score was 51 WRC, placing him/her in the 21st percentile
in comparison to other third grade students. This score is well below the third grade benchmark
goals for ORF words read correct. His/her final score after seven weeks was 90 WRC, which
places him/her in the 61st percentile in comparison to other third grade students. This final score
is above the third grade benchmark goals for ORF words. The student demonstrated a consistent
rate of positive growth that went beyond the aimlie. The student’s rate of improvement is a 5.57
[(90-51)/ 7].
Running Head: DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS 5

Action Plan for Student 3

Since Student 3 is scoring in the 61st percentile, the teacher could try administering probes of a
slightly higher level to see how the student scores. Based upon those scores, the teacher can
decide whether or not to continue administering the probes of the higher level on the basis of
what they believe to be the best level to continue monitoring student success.

Student 4

Student 4 is a 3rd grade student taking the Acadience Oral Reading Fluency progress monitoring
assessment. Student 1’s initial baseline score was 42 WRC, placing him/her in the 15th
percentile in comparison to other third grade students. This score is well below the third grade
benchmark goals for ORF words read correct. His/her final score after seven weeks was 70
WRC, which places him/her in the 38th percentile in comparison to other third grade students.
This final score is at the third grade benchmark goal for ORF words. The student demonstrated a
rate of positive growth that followed the aimline for the most part and was able to make the
benchmark after seven weeks. The student’s rate of improvement is a 4 [(70-42)/ 7].

Student 4 Action Plan

Since student 4’s performance has shown steady positive growth and the student has reached the
benchmark, the teacher can continue to administer probes at the current level to ensure the
student continues to demonstrate positive growth. If the student continues to do so, the teacher
can administer probes of a higher level in the future to see how the student scores.
Running Head: DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS 6

Student 5

Student 5 is a 3rd grade student taking the Acadience Oral Reading Fluency progress monitoring
assessment. Student 1’s initial baseline score was 39 WRC, placing him/her in the 13th
percentile in comparison to other third grade students. This score is well below the third grade
benchmark goals for ORF words read correct. His/her final score after seven weeks was 80
WRC, which places him/her in the 51st percentile in comparison to other third grade students.
This final score is at the third grade benchmark goal for ORF words. The student demonstrated
an amazing rate of positive growth that surpassed the aimline and the student was able to make
the benchmark after seven weeks. The student’s rate of improvement is a 5.86 [(80-39)/ 7].

Student 5 Action Plan

Since Student 5 has demonstrated steady positive growth that has gone above the aimline and the
student has reached benchmark, the teacher should continue to administer a few more probes at
the current level to ensure continued growth and then administer probes of a slightly higher level
to see how the student scores.

Appendix
Timeline
The assessment timeline of the probes was seven probes. Once per week for a time period of
seven total weeks.
Running Head: DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS 7

Probes
Student Probe 1 Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 4 Probe 5 Probe 6 Probe 7 ROI
Student 1 20 46 51 60 49 40 35 2.14
Student 2 95 100 98 125 137 132 148 7.57
Student 3 51 65 68 76 52 83 90 5.57
Student 4 42 46 60 55 66 51 70 4
Student 5 39 61 69 77 81 82 80 5.86

Recording Sheets
Not applicable because the data was provided by the instructor.

References
Fluency: In Depth. (2019, September 11). Retrieved from
https://www.readingrockets.org/teaching/reading101-course/modules/fluency/in-depth

Reading Fluency. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.interventioncentral.org/academic-interventions/reading-fluency