STUDENT

ASSESSMENT
PROJECT
Maryceline Josephson
EDU 325
Background Information
◦ John: 5th grade
◦ Homeschooled
◦ Good reader, gets A’s and B’s
◦ Gets distracted while reading
◦ Gets openly frustrated when gets problems wrong
DORF Assessment
◦ DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Test
◦ DIBELS contains 5 measures of literacy: comprehension, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and
vocabulary (Dynamic Indicators, 2011)
◦ 1 minute probe
◦ Tests: advanced phonics, fluency, and comprehension
◦ 2 components:
◦ Oral Reading Fluency
◦ Retell
DORF Continue…
◦ Oral Reading Fluency
◦ Score
◦ Words correct divided by words correct plus errors
DORF Continue…
◦ Retell
◦ Student is asked to recall any information that he or she remembers in a minute
DAZE
◦ DIBELS Maze Comprehension Task
◦ Assesses reading comprehension (University of Oregon, 2018)
◦ 3 minute probe
◦ Scores:
◦ The number of incorrect and correct words
Results and Analysis
◦ Scores Compared to the Benchmark:
◦ Reading Fluency Assessment 1:
◦ Median: 134
◦ Benchmark: 111-120
◦ Accuracy: 99%
◦ Benchmark: 98%
Results and Analysis
◦ Scores Compared to the Benchmark
◦ Retell Assessment 1:
◦ Median score: 52
◦ Benchmark: 33-39
◦ Retell Quality: 4
◦ Benchmark: 2+
Results and Analysis
◦ Scores Compared to the Benchmark
◦ DAZE Assessment 1:
◦ Score: 27
◦ Benchmark: 18-20
Results and Analysis
◦ Scores Compared to the Benchmark
◦ Reading Fluency Assessment 2:
◦ Median: 135
◦ Benchmark: 120-132
◦ Accuracy: 97%
◦ Benchmark: 98%
Results and Analysis
◦ Scores Compared to the Benchmark
◦ Retell Assessment 2:
◦ Median: 47
◦ Benchmark: 36-45
◦ Retell Quality: 4
◦ Benchmark: 3+
Results and Analysis
◦ Scores Compared to the Benchmark
◦ DAZE Assessment 2:
◦ Correct: 23
◦ Benchmark: 20+
Results and Analysis
◦ Scores Compared to the Benchmark:
◦ Reading Fluency Assessment 3:
◦ Median: 128
◦ Benchmark: 130-142
◦ Accuracy: 99%
◦ Benchmark: 99%
Results and Analysis
◦ Scores Compared to the Benchmark
◦ Retell Assessment 3:
◦ Median: 66
◦ Benchmark: 36-51
◦ Retell Quality: 4
◦ Benchmark: 3+
Results and Analysis
◦ Scores Compared to the Benchmark
◦ DAZE Assessment 3:
◦ Score: 24
◦ Benchmark: 28
Areas Targeted for Improvement
◦ 1) Fluency: speed and accuracy
◦ He would read too quickly
◦ The timer may be stressful
◦ 2 Strategies:
◦ 1) A page cover (Rippel, 2018)
◦ 2)Guided Oral Reading (What Works, 2013)
◦ Demonstrate to the student how it is read
Areas Targeted for Improvement
◦ Monitoring Student Progress
◦ Fluency:
◦ During a partner reading, the teacher can partner up with the student in need
◦ Teacher should keep a journal to take notes
 Areas Targeted for Improvement
◦ 2) Reading Comprehension:
◦ He did an exceptionally good job
◦ 2 Strategies:
◦ Reader’s Theater:
◦ Improve comprehension through understanding plot and character (Connell, 2015)
◦ Creating a poster/picture (9 Comprehension Strategies, 2002)
◦ Reading the prompt while considering the main idea
Areas Targeted for Improvement
◦ Monitoring Student Progress
◦ Comprehension
◦ Watch them perform a Reader’s Theater
◦ Create a portfolio for the student’s work
Conclusion
◦ 2 Aspects that are Important Moving Forward
◦ 1) The value of Assessment
◦ 2) Allowing us to get to know the student
Bibliography
◦ Connell, Genia. “Reader's Theater for Fluency, Comprehension, and Engagement.” Scholastic, 6 Oct. 2015,
www.scholastic.com/teachers/blog-posts/genia-connell/readers-theater-fluency-comprehension-and-
engagement/
◦ Rippel, Marie. “10 Solutions for Kids Who Read Too Fast (FREE Download!).” All About Learning Press, 23
Mar. 2018, blog.allaboutlearningpress.com/child-reads-too-fast/
◦ University of Oregon Center. (2018). UO DIBELS Data System. Retrieved from
https://dibels.uoregon.edu/assessment/dibels/measures/daze.php
◦ “What Works in Fluency Instruction.” Reading Rockets, National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 14 Nov. 2013, www.readingrockets.org/article/what-works-fluency-instruction
◦ “9 Comprehension Strategies Good Readers Use.” Academic Literacy / 9 Comprehension Strategies Good Readers
Use, Neshaminy School District, 2002, www.neshaminy.org/Page/432.