*** All student and school names have been changed to protect confidentiality.

Class-Wide Academic Assessment Grade 8 February 2012 Report prepared by Linh Nguyen University of British Columbia Overview A class-wide assessment was administered to Ms. Madame Grade 8 English class at Somewhere Secondary School in February 2012. The assessment covered students basic reading and writing skills. The purposes of the class-wide assessment were to: a) Provide instructionally-relevant information regarding student performance in basic skill areas b) Aid in instructional decision-making c) Establish baseline student performance in reading and writing skills for monitoring student progress and response to intervention Summary of Results Reading Fluency Reading fluency skills were in critical reading skills. These individually administered measures are designed to assess the development of reading skills. The type and number of measures administered varies according to the grade and time of year of administration. In grade 8, oral reading fluency is measured. To assess oral ready fluency, each student was asked to read aloud for 1 minute from three grade level reading passages taken from the AIMSweb winter benchmarking materials for grade 8. Research suggests that the number of words students read correctly per minute is predictive of their future reading fluency and comprehension. Research also suggests that those who are not yet fluent readers can improve with proper intervention. Each student read aloud for one minute from three passages at his or her grade level. For each passage, the number of words read correctly per minute was calculated. The median (middle) of the three scores across the passages was determined and recorded as the AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) score for each student. The number of errors per minute was also recorded to calculate percent accuracy.

AIMSweb provides research-based criteria for placing students into one of fiveinstructional levels for oral reading fluency based on the number of correct words read per minute (CWPM) (see Table 1). Criteria exist for the fall, winter, and spring terms for the grade eight levels. For example, in the winter term, students reading 175 words or more per minute are considered to be at Well Above Average or Above Average level. Students reading between 132-175 correct words per minute are considered to be at Average level which means they are currently at the level best suited for their ability. Students reading fewer than 132 words per minute are considered to beat Below Average or Well Below Average level and are in need of more intensive intervention. Table 1.AIMSweb Grade Eight Benchmark for Correct Words per Minute (CWPM)
AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)

Fall 184 165-183 123-164 99-122 <99

Winter 194 175-193 132-174 109-131 < 109

Spring 203 185-202 142-186 119-141 <119

Well Above Average Above Average Average Below Average Well Below Average

Results from the class-wide assessment in Oral Reading Fluency for the grade eight students in the class (see Figure 1) indicate that 47% of the students read between 132-174 words per minute, with skills considered to be at Average level. Forty-one percent of the students read between 109 to 131 words per minute, with skills considered to be at Below Average level. Two of the students (Henry and Jacky) scored in the Well Below Average range reading less than 109 words per minute. In total, 53% of the students in the class are reading below their grade level.

Figure 1. Oral Reading Fluency

180 160 140 Correct Words per Minute 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Well Below Average Below Average Average

Student's Name

Reading Accuracy Another method of assessing a students reading skills in addition to fluency is reading accuracy. Accuracy is determined by dividing the number of correct words read by the total number of words read in one minute for the median passage. Accuracy represents student performance in the reading level of materials used. AIMSweb identifies three levels of accuracy across all grade levels: 95% or greater accuracy indicates that the student is reading at the Mastery level; 90 to 94% accuracy indicates that the student is reading at the Instructional level; and less than 90% accuracy indicates that the student is reading at the Frustrational level (see Table 3). Provided that they are reading with adequate fluency, students can successfully read Mastery level material independently. In, contrast, students at the Frustrational level are reading fewer than nine out of every ten words correctly, resulting in poor passage comprehension. One goal for reading instruction is for all students in the classroom to read grade-level material at or above the Instructional level (9094% accuracy).

Table 3.AIMSweb Criteria for Accuracy

Reading Accuracy

Mastery Level Instructional Level Frustrational Level

95% or greater 90% to 94% Below 90%

Results of the reading accuracy assessment (see Figure 2) show that 82% of the students read with 95% or greater accuracy. Two out of the three remaining students (Kai Ran and Alexander) read between 90% and 94% accuracy. One student (David) read below 90% accuracy placing him in the Frustrational Level. David may benefit from more individualized instruction, including modeling and corrective feedback, to improve their reading accuracy. Figure 2. Reading Accuracy
1 0.98 0.96 Percent Accuracy 0.94 0.92
Instructional Level Mastery Level

0.9 0.88 0.86 0.84

Frustrational Level

Student's Name

Reading Comprehension Reading comprehension refers to how well students understand the material they read. Reading comprehension was measured using a Maze assessment from AIMSweb. In Maze assessments, students read a passage in which the first sentence is left intact, and every seventh word is replaced with a choice of three words, only one of which is correct. Students read the story and circle as many correct choices as they can in three minutes. The total number of correct choices is used to indicate their level of reading comprehension. AIMSweb provides standardized norms of student performance in the form of percentile scores. A percentile describes a students position on a scale of 1 to 99 in comparison to a group of
4

students at the same grade level. For instance, a percentile rank of 50 reflects that the student performed better than 50% of his or her same grade peers. Approximately half of the students scores should fall between the 25th and 74th percentiles (i.e., the average range). Students scoring below the 25th percentile (i.e., the below average range) should be monitored for progress and provided additional opportunities to practice reading and comprehending material. Students whose scores fall below the 10th percentile (i.e., the well below average range) would benefit from additional instruction in reading, including additional reading fluency practice if low in oral reading fluency or decoding practice if low in accuracy. Research shows that repeated practice with corrective feedback improves reading fluency, and that fluent readers are better able to comprehend the material they read. Results from the Maze reading comprehension assessment are shown in Figure 3. No students in grade eight had scores in the above average range. 35% of the students had scores in the average range while 65% scored in the below average range. This is a hand timetable class, which means that it has a smaller class size than regular classes and consists of students who require more support in their learning. There are eight students in the class that have a ministry designation which ranges from learning disabilities to autism spectrum. The passage given may have proven to be too challenging for the majority of the students, which may explain the low scores of most of the students in the class. The class may benefit from additional lessons and support in the area of reading comprehension. Figure 3. Reading Comprehension
Above Average

18 16 Total Words Correct 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Average

Below Average

Student's Name

Writing To assess written expression, all students were administered a written expression probe from AIMSweb. Students were provided one minute to think about a story using the story starter, After getting dropped off at school, you remember that there is no school today because of a holiday. What do you do on your unexpected day off? as the first sentence. The class was then provided three minutes to write the story. Students writing was evaluated through three different scores. The first score was Total Words Written (TWW). Total Words Written is a measure of productivity in writing and is calculated by counting the total number of words written, without taking spelling or grammar into consideration. The second score was a count of the total number of Words Spelled Correctly (WSC). The third score was the number of Correct Writing Sequences (CWS). Correct Writing Sequences takes grammar, syntax and spelling into account and hence is more stringent measure of technical accuracy in writing than TWW and WSC.

Total Words Written (TWW): For each student, the number of total words written in three minutes was calculated and compared with percentile data available from AIMSweb (refer to Figure 4). Normative data regarding the winter benchmark indicate that sixty five percent of the students performed within the average to well above average range. Two students (Priyangah and Russell) perform in the well above average range with a score of more than 81 total words. Twelve percent of the students perform in the below average range and four students (Henry, Jacky, Kai Ran and Alexander) wrote in the well below average range. The four students would benefit from addition support in writing.

Figure 4. Total Words Written

Well Above Average Above Average Average

Below Average Well Below Average

Words Spelled Correctly (WSC): For each student, the number of words spelled correctly in three minutes was calculated and compared to norms from AIMSweb (refer to Figure 5). According to the winter benchmark, 59% of students perform in the average range spelling between 48 to 72 words correctly. Russell scored in the above average range with 80 words spell correctly and Priyangah scored in the well above average range with 86 words spell correctly. Seth scored in the below average range and four students (Alexander, Kai Ran, Jacky and Henry) performed in the well below average range.

Figure 5. Words Spelled Correctly

100 90 Words Spelled Correctly 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Below Average Well Below Average Average Well Above Average Above Average

Students' Names

Total Words Written vs. Words Spelled Correctly: Figure 6 compare Total Words written (TWW) and Words Spelled Correctly (WSC). Similar numbers indicate high spelling accuracy, and discrepancies indicate low spelling accuracy. Most students in the class spelled most of the words they wrote correctly. The largest discrepancies between TWW and WSC were three words difference. Figure 6. Total Words Written vs. Words Spelled Correctly
100 90 80 Numbers of Words 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TWW WSC

Students' Names

Correct Writing Sequences: Normative data indicate that 59% of the students performed in the average range producing between 44 to 69 correct writing sequences in three minutes. Two students (Priyangah and Russell) performed in the above average range with 79 correct writing sequences. Three students, Seth, Alexander, and Kai Ran preformed in the below average range and Jacky and Henry performed in the well below average range.

Figure 7. Correct Writing Sequences

90
Well Above Average

80 Correct Writing Sequences 70 60

Average Above Average

50 40 30 20 10 0
Well Below Average Below Average

Students' Name

10

Total Words Written vs. Correct Writing Sequences: Figure 8 compare Total Words Written (TWW) and Correct Writing Sequences (CWS). Generally, students will produce more TWW than CWS. A discrepancy indicates poor accuracy in writing mechanics (including grammar, syntax, or spelling) or making meaningful links between the words they are writing. Priyangah, Gary, Alvin, James and Gary has larger discrepancies between their TWW and CWS. Figure 8: Total Words Written vs. Correct Writing Sequences
100 90 80 Number of Words 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 TWW CWS

Students' Names

11

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Reading The results of the class-wide assessment in reading indicate that a 41% of the students read at Below Average level and two students scored in the Well Below Average range. In total, 53% of the students in the class are reading below their grade level. Group activities or individual exercise with the purpose of building their fluency in reading are suggested as a classwide intervention. A more individualized plan could be developed for those students who are Well Below Average for reading difficulties (Henry and Jacky). With regards to accuracy, three students read with less than 95% accuracy, indicating that individualized instructions, including modeling, corrective feedback, and vocabulary building may be beneficial to improve their reading accuracy. Reading comprehension was low with 65% of the class scoring in the below average range. The passage given may have proven to be too challenging for the majority of the students, which may explain the low scores of most of the students in the class. A class-wide intensive intervention with the purpose of improving reading fluency may also improve comprehension.

Writing Twelve percent of the students perform in the below average range and four students wrote in the well below average range for total words written on the writing measure indicating that writing activities focusing on planning and production would be beneficial for them. There were little discrepancies between students total number of words written and word spelled correctly, it is expected for students to spell a larger number of words correctly. Priyangah, Gary, Alvin, James and Gary had large discrepancies between their total words written and correct writing sequences than other students. These students would benefit from additional support at the revision and editing stages.

12

INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

Improving Reading Fluency: Assisted Reading Practice

In this very simple but effective intervention, the student reads aloud while an accomplished reader follows along silently. If the student commits a reading error, the helping reader corrects the student error. This method can be adapted to one-to-one or whole class instruction. Materials:

Reading book

Preparation:

The teacher, parent, adult tutor, or peer tutor working with the student should be trained in advance to use assisted reading approach.

Steps in Implementing This Intervention: Step 1: Sit with the student in a quiet location without too many distractions. Position the book selected for the reading session so that both you and the student can easily follow the text. (Or get two copies of the book so that you each have your own copy.) Step 2: Instruct the student to begin reading out loud. Encourage him or her to "do your best reading." Step 3: Follow along silently in the text as the student reads. Step 4: If the student mispronounces a word or hesitates for longer than 5 seconds, tell the student the word. Have the student repeat the word correctly. Direct the student to continue reading aloud through the passage. Step 5: Occasionally, praise the student in specific terms for good reading (e.g., "You are doing a really great job of sounding out the words that you don't know. Good work!").

13

Improving Reading Accuracy Error Word Drill

The Error Word Drill is an effective way to build reading vocabulary. The procedure consists of 4 steps: When the student misreads a word during a reading session, write down the error word and date in a separate "Error Word Log". 1. At the end of the reading session, write out all error words from the reading session onto index cards. (If the student has misread more than 20 different words during the session, use just the first 20 words from your error-word list. If the student has misread fewer than 20 words, consult your "Error Word Log" and select enough additional error words from past sessions to build the review list to 20 words.) 2. Review the index cards with the student. Whenever the student pronounces a word correctly, remove that card from the deck and set it aside. (A word is considered correct if it is read correctly within 5 seconds. Self-corrected words are counted as correct if they are made within the 5-second period. Words read correctly after the 5-second period expires are counted as incorrect.) 3. When the student misses a word, pronounce the word for the student and have the student repeat the word. Then say, "What word?" and direct the student to repeat the word once more. Place the card with the missed word at the bottom of the deck. 4. Error words in deck are presented until all have been read correctly. All word cards are then gathered together, reshuffled, and presented again to the student. The drill continues until either time runs out or the student has progressed through the deck without an error on two consecutive cards.

14

Improving Writing Skills Integrated Writing Instruction

In this instructional approach, the student writes about authentic topics that have a 'real-world' purpose and relevance. Student writing is regularly shared with classmates and the instructor, with these audiences creating a sustaining social context to motivate and support the writer. Students receive instruction and feedback in an interactive manner, presented both in lecture format and through writing conferences with classmates. Technology (particularly computer word processing) is harnessed to help the writing disabled student to be more productive and to make use of software writing tools to extend his or her own capabilities in written expression. The instructor follows a uniform daily instructional framework for writing instruction. First, the instructor checks in with students about the status of their current writing projects, then teaches a mini-lesson, next allows the group time to write and to conference with peers and the teacher, and finally arranges for the group to share or publish their work for a larger audience. Status-checking At the start of the writing session, the instructor quickly goes around the room, asking each student what writing goal(s) he or she plans to accomplish that day. The instructor records these responses for all to see. Mini-Lesson. The instructor teaches a mini-lesson relevant to the writing process. Mini-lessons are a useful means to present explicit writing strategies (e.g., an outline for drafting an opinion essay), as well as a forum for reviewing the conventions of writing. Mini-lessons should be kept shore (e.g., 5-10 minutes) to hold the attention of the class. Student Writing During the session, substantial time is set aside for students to write. Their writing assignment might be one handed out by the instructor that day or part of a longer composition (e.g., story, extended essay) that the student is writing and editing across multiple days. When possible, student writers are encouraged use computers as aids in composing and editing their work. (Before students can compose efficiently on computers, of course, they must have been trained in keyboarding and use of word-processing software). Peer & Teacher Conferences. Writers need timely, gentle, focused feedback from readers of their work in order to improve their compositions. At the end of the daily writing block, the student may sit with a classmate to review each other's work, using a structured peer editing strategy. During this discussion time,
15

the teacher also holds brief individual conferences with students to review their work, have students evaluate how successfully they completed their writing goals for the day, and hear writers' thoughts about how they might plan to further develop a writing assignment. Group Sharing or Publishing. At the end of each session, writing produced that day is shared with the whole class. Students might volunteer to read passages aloud from their compositions. Another method of sharing might be for the students to post their work on the classroom wall or bulletin board for everyone to read and respond to. Periodically, polished student work might be displayed in a public area of the school for all to read, published in an anthology of school writings, read aloud at school assemblies, or published on the Internet.

16