Summary of Curriculum-Based Assessment



Summary of Curriculum-Based Assessment and Intervention

Name: Joshua C Grade: 8

Age: 13 years Teacher: Mr. Brian Landrigan

Report Date: April 30th 2009 School: V C Secondary

UBC Practicum Student: Kavita V. Kamat School

Purpose of Assessment and Intervention

The primary purpose of the assessment and intervention process was to use assessment results to design and monitor an individual tutoring intervention in the area of reading. A secondary purpose was to provide training opportunities in direct academic assessment and intervention planning for the graduate student. This assessment was conducted by Kavita V. Kamat, a student at the University of British Columbia, under the supervision of Dr. Kent McIntosh and doctoral student Theresa Andreou, from UBC. Written parental permission was obtained by school personnel prior to student involvement.

All activities that occurred during the process were consistent with activities that typically occur during the school day (e.g., observation of class activities, examination of work samples, teacher report of student performance, direct assessment of reading, and individual reading tutoring).

Reason for Involvement

Joshua was identified by his teacher, Mr. Landrigan, for additional reading support. Joshua’s scores on a class-wide reading assessment indicated that intensive reading support was necessary for improved literacy outcomes.

Assessment Methods

• Teacher interview: February 2nd, 2009

• Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Survey – Beta Version: February 13th, 2009

• Student interview: February 13th, 2009

• Review of work samples: February 13th, 2009

• Direct Classroom Observation: February 26th , 2009

• DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) Progress Monitoring: March 4th –April 8th , 2009

• AIMSweb Maze Reading Comprehension Progress Monitoring : March 4th –April 8th, 2009

Background Information

Joshua is a grade 8 student from the Philippines. Mr. Landrigan reported that he is polite, sociable, shows an interest in learning and enjoys going to school. Joshua was selected by Mr. Landrigan to participate in the reading intervention because he had a good attendance record and was a motivated learner. Joshua has been diagnosed with a learning disability and experiences continued difficulty in reading, mathematics and writing. Mr. Landrigan reported that Joshua’s instructional level was at a grade 5 to 6 level. During the student interview, Joshua reported that he liked to watch sports and movies. He also reported that he enjoyed reading the newspaper at school and comics at home.

Current Level of Support

At the time of the report, Joshua was enrolled in the Secondary Learning Support Program, offered by Vancouver School Board, for grade 8 students at risk for academic failure. He was in a class of 15 students, many of whom have been diagnosed with a learning disability. Mr. Landrigan was their primary teacher, and on occasion, student volunteers from Grade 11/12 provided teacher support.

Assessment

Survey Level Assessment

DIBELS Survey. Reading skills were assessed using DIBELS Survey, a set of research-based, standardized, norm-referenced measures for screening and monitoring progress of reading skills. DIBELS Survey is a tool that allows the consultant to “back-test” from a student’s current level of expected performance on grade level reading passages by dropping back to earlier levels of skills to determine the student’s Instructional level. At the Mastery level, the student is reading in the low risk range with greater than 95% accuracy, indicating that he or she has mastered that level of material and is ready to move on to the next level or skill. The Instructional level is the level at which the student is able to read a passage with 90-94% accuracy. When accuracy is below 90%, the student is reading at the Frustrational level, indicating that the material is too difficult for instruction to be effective. The student is asked to read aloud from three separate grade-level passages for one minute each, and the median score is used to determine the instructional level of the student.

Assessment of Oral Reading Fluency: DIBELS

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF). Research suggests that the number of words a student reads correctly per minute is predictive of his or her future reading fluency and comprehension. Research also suggests that those who are not yet fluent readers can improve with proper intervention. To assess ORF, Joshua was asked to read aloud for 1 minute from three grade level reading passages taken from the DIBELS winter benchmark materials. For each passage, the number of correct words per minute was calculated. The median (middle) of the three scores across the passages was determined and recorded as the DIBELS (ORF) score for Joshua. The number of errors per minute was also recorded to calculate percent accuracy.

DIBELS provides research-based criteria for placing students into one of three categories of risk for reading problems (see Table 1). Criteria exist for beginning, middle, and end of year goals for each grade level. At the middle of grade 6, for example, students reading 120 or more correct words per minute are considered to be on target and at ‘Low Risk’ for having reading difficulties. Students reading between 99 and 120 correct words per minute are considered to be at ‘Some Risk’ for later reading problems and it is recommended they receive additional intervention. Students reading fewer than 99 correct words per minute are considered to be performing at a level that places them in the category of ‘At Risk’ for reading problems and are in need of more intensive intervention.

Table 1. DIBELS Grade 6 Criteria for Correct Words per Minute (CWPM)

|DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency |Beginning of Year |Middle of Year |End of Year |

|(ORF) |Month 1-3 |Month 4-6 |Month 7-10 |

|Low Risk |CWPM ≥109 |CWPM ≥ 120 |CWPM ≥ 125 |

|Some Risk |83 ≤ CWPM < 109 |99≤ CWPM 94% |

|Instructional Level |90% - 94% |

|Frustrational Level |< 90% |

Assessment of Reading Comprehension: Maze

Reading comprehension refers to how well a student understands the material he or she reads. Reading comprehension was measured using a grade 6 AIMSweb Maze passage (). AIMSweb Maze is a standardized, research validated assessment of reading comprehension. The student has three minutes to silently read a passage in which every seventh word is replaced by a choice of three words, only one of which is correct. The final score is the number of correct choices made within three minutes.

To facilitate this test interpretation, a Percentile Rank (PR) is used. A percentile describes a student’s position on a scale of 1 to 99 in comparison to a grade or age-reference group. For instance, a percentile ranking of 50 reflects that the student performed better than 50% of students at his/her grade level. AIMSweb provides standardized norms of student performance in the form of percentiles. Approximately half of the students should fall between the 25th and 75th percentiles for that grade level. Students below the 25th percentile should be monitored for progress and provided additional opportunities to practice reading and comprehending material. Students who fall below the 10th percentile are scoring in the bottom 10 percent of the children in their grade, and would benefit from additional instruction in reading comprehension strategies, including extra reading practice to build reading fluency. Research shows that repeated practice with corrective feedback improves reading fluency, and that fluent readers are better able to comprehend the material they read.

Assessment Results

Oral Reading Fluency: DIBELS Survey. Joshua read aloud for one minute from three separate reading passages starting at a grade 4 level. For each passage, the number of correct words per minute was calculated. Joshua’s score placed him in the ‘Low Risk’ category for grade 4 and grade 5. With grade 6 passages, Joshua received a median score of 115 correct words per minute with 93% accuracy, which identified him to be in the ‘Some Risk’ category for reading with reference to the grade 6 winter benchmark goal.

During the baseline phase, Joshua was asked to read a grade 6 level DIBELS progress monitoring passage for 1 minute. On the first day of baseline monitoring, Joshua read 115 correct words in 1 minute. On the second day of baseline monitoring, Joshua read 114 correct words in 1 minute. Because there were only two baseline data points, it was not possible to determine a trend or a growth rate of Joshua’s reading in response to the current level of support. The baseline was considered to be stable and in the following session, the intervention was introduced.

During both baseline points, Joshua read 97% of the words correctly (at a Mastery level), indicating that he was able to read individual words accurately and independently. From the baseline data, it was clear that Joshua was able to read individual words accurately but needed to improve his overall reading fluency.

Maze Reading Comprehension: AIMSweb. In keeping with the DIBELS grade level for assessment, the grade 6 AIMSweb passages and norms were used to assess Joshua’s reading comprehension. Two probes were administered and Joshua’s average score was 19.5 responses correct in three minutes. This score placed Joshua in the average range for reading comprehension for grade 6 materials. The results indicated that his reading comprehension of grade 6 material was average, but this material was two grades below his current grade level.

Skills Targeted for Intervention

Based on the DIBELS assessment of Oral Reading Fluency and AIMSweb Maze assessment of reading comprehension, two skills were targeted for support:

1. Oral Reading Fluency

2. Reading Comprehension

Intervention

Oral Reading Fluency Intervention

Repeated Reading. Repeated Reading was the intervention selected to increase reading fluency. Repeated Reading is a strategy in which the student reads aloud through a passage repeatedly while being timed. This strategy was chosen as it is simple and straightforward to administer, requires minimal intervention materials, and is research-validated for improving students’ reading fluency. Joshua read a grade 6 level progress monitoring passage from the DIBELS website (). The number of words he read correctly in one minute was calculated and recorded on his progress monitoring graph (Figure 1).

To keep Joshua’s interest level high, he chose the book to read for the repeated intervention. He selected a book from the library and another book was suggested by Mr. Landrigan. Both books selected were confirmed to be at the grade 6 level. At the start of the repeated reading intervention Joshua selected a passage from the book. The number of words he read correctly in one minute during his first reading was referred to as the ‘cold probe’. Joshua’s ‘cold probe’ score was noted on the repeated reading chart (see Appendix A). At this point, Joshua was asked to set a new goal. He was encouraged to set a goal by adding 10-15 additional words from where he stopped. This point became Joshua’s new reading goal. Joshua then repeatedly read this passage each time for 1 minute. Following each reading, Joshua marked his score on the repeated reading chart and received feedback on the errors he made. Feedback included drawing attention to the words Joshua skipped or read incorrectly. He was asked to re-read the sentence in which these errors were made. Readings continued until Joshua reached the new goal, usually within three to four reads. The final number of correct words per minute was his ‘hot read’ score. The intervention process took between 15 and 20 minutes to complete from start to finish. Joshua received this intervention twice per week. Please refer to the Appendix B for a step-by-step outline of this intervention strategy.

Reading Comprehension Intervention

Text Lookback. Text Lookback was the intervention selected to increase reading comprehension. Following discussion with Mr. L, a grade 6 level text “Weaving it Together –Connecting Reading and Writing” by Milada Broukal was selected for the intervention. The text had short passages on a wide range of topics. Each chapter contained comprehension exercises at the end of the unit. The comprehension review questions focused on main ideas of the passage, to determine the student’s general understanding of the passage and other details. Each chapter also had discussion questions that focused on student opinion, thought, belief or idea related to the subject. During each session, Joshua chose a unit that he wanted to read. After reading each unit he verbally summarized the main idea of the unit and sought clarification of words that he did not understand. Joshua then completed the review questions at the back of the unit. All review questions were answered verbally. Each session took 15-20 minutes. Joshua received this intervention approximately twice per week. Please refer to the Appendix C for a step-by- step outline of this intervention strategy.

Measurement Strategy

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF). The ORF score was recorded twice per week for five weeks to monitor Joshua’s progress and to ensure the repeated reading intervention adequately supported Joshua in meeting his goals. At the beginning of each session, the tutor administered a one minute ORF probe. This ‘cold probe’ score was recorded onto Joshua’s progress monitoring graph.

AIMSweb Maze. Joshua’s correct responses on the grade 6 Maze were also recorded twice per week for five weeks to monitor his progress and ensure the Text Lookback intervention was adequately supporting Joshua in meeting his goals for reading comprehension. The responses correct score was recorded on Joshua’s progress monitoring graph for reading comprehension.

All progress monitoring probes were administered by the tutor. The school provided access to a quiet room opposite the student’s classroom for the sessions.

Goal Setting

Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)

The ORF goal was for Joshua to read 125 correct words per minute by the end of 5 weeks (first week of April), which would have him reading at the Low Risk level for grade 6. An aimline was drawn from the average score of the two baseline data points (114.5 correct words per minute), to the end goal of 125 correct words per minute. The aim line represents the expected rate of improvement that would allow Joshua to reach the goal of 125 correct words per minute by the first week of April. The growth rate needed for Joshua to achieve this goal was calculated using the following equation:

Median Baseline Score + ([Growth Rate] x [# of Weeks]) = Goal

(114.5 + [n x 5]) = 125

n= 2.1 (growth rate)

The growth rate of 2.1 represents an ambitious growth rate. A target goal was set for Joshua to achieve the end of the year benchmark goal for the grade 6 level (125 correct words per minute) on the ORF measure by April 8th, 2009.

Reading Comprehension

The reading comprehension goal was for Joshua to obtain 24 responses correct in three minutes on the AIMSweb grade 6 progress monitoring Maze passage by the end of five weeks (first week of April). Joshua’s median baseline score was 19.5, which placed him in the average range (near the 25th percentile) for grade 6. To move from near the 25th percentile to above the 50th percentile, a goal of 24 responses correct would need to be obtained. The aimline was drawn from the average score of the two baseline data points (19.5 responses correct in three minutes), to the end goal of 24 responses correct in three minutes. The aimline represents the expected rate of improvement that would allow Joshua to reach the goal of 24 responses correct by the first week of April. The growth rate needed for Joshua to achieve this goal was calculated using the following equation:

Median Baseline Score + ([Growth Rate] x [# of Weeks]) = Goal

(19.5 + [n x 5]) = 24

n= 0.9 (growth rate)

The target goal for Joshua was set at 24 responses correct in three minutes using the AIMSweb grade 6 progress monitoring passages. For him to achieve this goal, the growth rate was established at 0.9 or approximately 1 response correct per week.

Plan for Monitoring and Decision Making

The aimlines were used to help monitor Joshua’s response to intervention. Data were plotted on the progress monitoring graphs each session. Two decision rules were used to analyse the data and modify the intervention accordingly. First, three consecutive data points below the aimline would indicate that an instructional change was required, as it would indicate, that the intervention was not supporting Joshua to meet his goal. Second, if there were two data points above the final benchmark goal, it would be assumed that Joshua had mastered that grade level material and could move up to the next grade level.

Response to Intervention:

Oral Reading Fluency. Joshua’s ORF scores before (baseline phase) and during intervention are illustrated in Figure 1. The vertical dotted line indicates the beginning of the intervention phase. The solid horizontal line represents the aimline, or the expected rate of improvement, of 2 words per week.

Figure 1. DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Grade 6 Winter 2009

[pic]

As Figure 1 shows, majority of the progress monitoring data scores were close to the aimline which indicates that Joshua was responding to the intervention. Joshua scored above the goal on one probe (March 10th) and the following probes were on or below the aimline. The trend of Joshua’s data indicates that he was responding to the intervention but had not yet met the final goal of 125 correct words per minute. Overall, Joshua responded well to the repeated reading intervention and the current data suggest that if he continues to progress at the same rate, Joshua will reach his goal by the end of April and can move to grade 7 level materials.

Reading Comprehension: Two baseline data points were collected. The average score placed Joshua in the 25th percentile for grade 6 materials and norms. Joshua’s scores in reading comprehension before (baseline phase) and during intervention are illustrated in Figure 2. The vertical dotted line indicates the beginning of the intervention phase. The solid horizontal line on the graph represents the aimline of 0.9 responses correct per week.

Figure 2. AIMSweb Reading Comprehension, Grade 6 Winter, 2009

[pic]

As Figure 2 shows, the majority of the progress monitoring data scores were close to the aimline, which indicates that Joshua was responding to the intervention. Joshua scored above the goal on one of the probes and the following probes were above the aimline, but below the final goal. These data indicated that Joshua was responding to the intervention but had not yet met the final goal of 24 responses correct on AIMSweb progress monitoring passages. Using the decision rules mentioned in the previous section, no changes were made to the instruction, or the aimline. Overall, Joshua responded well to the Repeated Reading and Text Lookback interventions and the current data suggest that if he continues to progress at the same rate, Joshua will reach his goal by the last week of April.

Summary

Overall, Joshua is on track to meet the DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency benchmark goal for the end of grade 6 and the AIMSweb reading comprehension goal for grade 6. The progress monitoring data shows that the combination of reading fluency instruction and reading comprehension strategies, along with many opportunities to read, have provided Joshua with adequate practice to help him reach the grade 6 reading goals and progress to the next grade level.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this assessment and intervention, the following recommendations are suggested to assist Joshua with his reading development. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, comprehensive, or predictive of all barriers for success Joshua will encounter. Recommendations should be selected for implementation in consultation with Joshua, his parents, his teachers and school team. The practicum student is also available to consult on selection and implementation of recommendations.

Reading Fluency

Repeated Reading Intervention: It is recommended that Joshua continue to participate in the repeated reading exercises at least twice per week with the support of the teacher or Grade 11/12 student volunteers.

Increase Opportunities to Read: It is also recommended that Joshua continue to have many opportunities to read. Currently, Joshua demonstrates an interest in reading newspapers and comic books. Joshua should be encouraged to read books that are at his instructional level (currently grade 6). The school and his parents can further support his interest in reading by asking him to read and review books on subjects that are of interest to him. When Joshua reads a word incorrectly, the adult or peer reader can correct Joshua immediately and have Joshua re-read the sentence with the word at least two times. Joshua can be encouraged to maintain a list of new words and their meanings as he reads. These words can be reviewed regularly at school and at home. Building his vocabulary will help Joshua decode words while reading and will enable him to read more fluently. The adult or peer reader can also model how to read the passage or page of the book fluently. Also, Joshua could continue to visit the library at school and in the community. These strategies can provide him with the opportunities to explore new books and choose books of interest.

Reading Comprehension

The Text Lookback Intervention: It is recommended that Joshua continue to use the

Text Lookback strategy for improving reading comprehension with expository text. Given, that Joshua does not have an assigned Student Education Assistant, the strategy can be modified and administered to the general class. Providing more opportunities for students to practice reading and answering the questions at the end of each unit independently or with a peer buddy is likely to result in better reading comprehension outcomes for the entire class.

Continued Progress Monitoring

Reading Fluency: It is recommended to continue to self-monitor Joshua’s progress in reading fluency and comprehension (see Appendix D). Joshua can be encouraged to plot his ‘cold probe’ scores on a progress monitoring graph (see Appendix E) as a tool for him to self-monitor his progress.

Reading Comprehension: Joshua can also continue to self-monitor his progress in reading comprehension using the grade 6 expository text (see Appendix F). He can score the number of questions correctly answered after each completed unit, and graph the score on a chart (see Appendix G). Joshua can discuss the criteria for success with his teacher (% accuracy needed to change to the next level of instructional material) It is important to adhere to the decision rules mentioned above so adjustments to the goal and to the instruction can be made accordingly.

All efforts made by Joshua to improve his reading fluency and comprehension can be positively reinforced both at home and at school. This will motivate Joshua to continue his efforts and will more likely to result in positive reading outcomes.

It was a pleasure working with Joshua and other students in the class. We wish Joshua all the best as he continues through his remaining years at VT Secondary School and beyond. If there are any questions or if we can provide further assistance is needed, please do not hesitate to contact the UBC Practicum Student Kavita V Kamat at 604-671-2972 or via e-mail at kkamat@, the course supervisor, Dr. Kent McIntosh, at 604-822-6382 or via e-mail at kent.mcintosh@ubc.ca, or the graduate student supervisor, Theresa Andreou, via e-mail at tandreo@interchange.ubc.ca

|________________________ | |

|Kavita V Kamat | |

|Dept of Educational & Counselling Psychology & Special Education | |

|The University of British Columbia | |

| | |

| | |

________________________ ________________________

|Kent McIntosh, Ph.D., NCSP |Theresa Andreou |

|Supervisor, Assistant Professor |Doctoral Student Supervisor |

|Dept of Educational & Counselling Psychology & Special Education |Dept of Educational & Counselling Psychology & Special Education |

|The University of British Columbia |The University of British Columbia |

References

• AIMSweb Progress Monitoring and Response to Intervention System



• Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literary Skills



• Intervention Central

• Mather, N., Jaffe, L.E. (2002). Woodcock Johnson III reports, recommendations and strategies. John Wiley and Sons, Inc

Appendix A

Repeated Reading Chart

Name: _________________________ Date: __________________

Goal: ____ Correct words per minute Reading Material: ___________________

|Correct Words Per Minute | | | | | |

|140 | | | | | |

|139 | | | | | |

|138 | | | | | |

|137 | | | | | |

|136 | | | | | |

|135 | | | | | |

|134 | | | | | |

|133 | | | | | |

|132 | | | | | |

|131 | | | | | |

| 130 | | | | | |

|129 | | | | | |

|128 | | | | | |

|127 | | | | | |

|126 | | | | | |

|125 | | | | | |

|124 | | | | | |

|123 | | | | | |

|122 | | | | | |

|121 | | | | | |

|120 | | | | | |

|119 | | | | | |

|118 | | | | | |

|117 | | | | | |

|116 | | | | | |

|115 | | | | | |

|114 | | | | | |

|113 | | | | | |

|112 | | | | | |

|111 | | | | | |

|110 | | | | | |

|109 | | | | | |

| | 1 2 3 4 5 |

Number of Trial

Appendix B

Repeated Reading

The student reads through a passage repeatedly, silently or aloud, and receives help with reading errors

Materials: Reading book and Stop watch (if readings are to be timed)

Preparation: The teacher, parent, adult tutor, or peer tutor working with the student should be trained advance to use the listening passage preview approach.

Intervention Script:

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.

Step 2: Select a passage in the Grade level (appropriate to the student’s instructional level) book of about 100 to 200 words in length.

Step 3: Have the student read the passage aloud for one minute. Count the number of correct words per minute and mark it on the progress monitoring chart (“cold read” score).

Step 4:If the student is reading aloud and misreads a word or hesitates for longer than 3 seconds, read the word aloud and have the student repeat the word correctly before continuing through the passage. If the student asks for help with any word, read the word aloud. If the student requests a word definition, give the definition.

Step 5: When the student has completed the passage, have him or her read the passage again. You can choose to have the student read the passage repeatedly until either the student reaches his goal (of correct words per minute) or has read the passage a total of 4 times which ever comes first.

Important Considerations

Take Steps to Keep the Student Invested in the Activity. Repeated reading is effective as an intervention to build student reading fluency because it gives the student lots of reading practice. However, this activity could become dull and uninteresting for the student over time. If you find that the student is beginning to lose interest in repeated reading, consider:

• Provide praise to the student in specific terms for good reading.

• Allow the student to pick out high-interest books or articles to use for repeated reading.

• Using a stop-watch, monitor the student’s reading rate during each repeated

reading and chart the results on a graph. (Appendix A)

Appendix C

Text Lookback

Text Lookback is a simple strategy that students can use to boost their comprehension of the expository prose by looking back in the text for important information. It improves their ability to answer questions based on the text and also encourages them to relate their prior knowledge to the text by answering what has been described as “think questions”

Materials: Expository text and lookback/think questions

Preparation: Create at least 3 lookback questions and one think question for each expository text passage selected incise the text chose does not have these questions built into each lesson.

Intervention Script:

Step 1: Introduce the Text Lookback strategy by telling student that people cannot always remember everything that they read. If we read an article or book chapter, though, and are asked a ‘fact’ question about it that we cannot answer, we can always look back in the article to find the information that we need.

Step 2: Describe for the class the difference between lookback and think questions. An example of an explanation that you might use is: “When we are asked questions about an article, sometimes the answer can be found directly in the article and sometimes it cannot be found directly.”

• Lookback questions are those that tell us that the answer can be found right in the article. For example, if a question uses phrases such as in the article or in the author’s words, these phrases would be clues that the question is a lookup question and that we can find the answer in the article.

• Think questions are those that ask you to give your own opinion, beliefs, or ideas. Our answers to these questions are based on our own ideas or thoughts about the topic. For example, if a question uses phrases such as in your opinion or what do you think, these phrases would be clues that the question is a think question and that the answer cannot be found in the article.

Step 3: Read aloud through the sample expository passage. Then read the series of 4 text lookback/think questions to the student. As you read each question, highlight for the student the word clues that indicate whether the question is a think or Text Lookback question.

Step 4: Tell the student that they must re-read carefully to find the answer to a Text Lookback question. However, he /she can save time by first skimming the article to get to the general section where the answer to the question is probably located. To skim, the student should:

• Read the Text Lookback question carefully and underline the section that tells the reader what to look for.

• Look for titles, headings, or illustrations in the article that might tell the reader where the information that he or she is looking for is probably located

• Look at the beginning and end sentences in individual paragraphs to see if that paragraph might contain the desired information.

Step 5: ‘Thinking aloud’, demonstrate for students how to skim the example article to locate efficiently the answer to each Text Lookback question.

Step 6: Present additional example articles with Text Lookback questions and monitor student mastery of the technique. Assign students to use the strategy independently when, under your supervision, they can distinguish reliably between think and Text Lookback questions and are able to find the answers to Text Lookback questions in the text.

Tips:

Have Students Write Text Lookback Questions for assigned reading. For homework, encourage students to compose several challenging text lookback questions based on their assigned reading. Use these questions later for class review. This strategy can be also be used effectively as a general class strategy with all students.

The strategies described in Appendix B and C are modified versions of the same strategy as described in “Reading Interventions That Work” by Jim Wright ()

Appendix D

Self- Monitoring Strategy in Reading Fluency

This strategy teaches the student to independently monitor his or her progress on reading fluency for better reading outcomes.

Material: A reading passage that is at the students’ instructional level and self-monitoring graph.

Preparation: This strategy can be implemented when the student is in the fluency building stage in the instructional hierarchy.

Procedure:

Step 1: Student chooses a passage that is of interest to him and is at his instructional level.

Step 2: The student reads the passage for one minute. The number of words read correctly in one minute is calculated by the tutor and student notes his score on the progress monitoring graph (see Appendix E).

Step 3: The student sets a new goal to increase fluency for the following day.

Step 4: The student continues to practice reading passages in school and at home.

Step 5: The student reads one passage for one minute with a tutor each day and notes his fluency score on the progress monitoring chart.

Step 6: If the student fails to demonstrate progress for a predetermined number of days or if the progress is slow then it indicates that student may need more explicit instruction in reading. It is also important to rule out other extraneous factors that may be contributing to the student’s poor progress.

Step 7: The tutor encourages and supports the student’s efforts. Other reinforcement strategies can also be used to motivate the student to use the self- monitoring strategy for better outcomes in reading fluency.

Appendix E

Self-Monitoring Graph in Reading Fluency

Appendix F

Self-Monitoring Strategy in Reading Comprehension

This strategy teaches the student to independently monitor his or her progress on reading comprehension for better reading outcomes.

Material: Expository text and self-monitoring graph.

Preparation: This strategy can be implemented when the student is in the fluency building stage in the instructional hierarchy. Therefore, this strategy follows explicit instruction in reading comprehension.

Procedure:

Step 1: Identity an expository text that has review questions at the end of each unit.

Step 2: The student reads a unit and completes the questions at the end of the unit.

Step 3: The tutor corrects it and provides a percentage accuracy score.

Step 4: The student marks the score on his or her progress monitoring graph (see Appendix E).

Step 5: The student sets a new goal to increase accuracy.

Step 6: Each time the student reads a unit from the expository text and completes the questions, it is corrected by the tutor and he marks the accuracy score on the graph.

Step 7: Once the student achieves more than 95% accuracy for a predetermined number of days or units the tutor can present him the next grade level instructional material.

Step 8: If the student fails to demonstrate progress for a predetermined number of days or if the progress is slow then it indicates that student may need more explicit instruction in the skill. It is also important to rule out other extraneous factors that may be contributing to the student’s poor progress.

Step 9: The tutor encourages and supports the student’s efforts. Other reinforcement strategies can also be used to one, motivate the student to use the self-monitoring strategy and two for better outcomes on reading comprehension accuracy.

Appendix G

Self-Monitoring Chart

Name: _________________________ Week of: _______________________________

Accuracy Goal: ___________________ Name of text: ____________________________

|Percentage Accuracy |Monday |Tuesday |Wednesday |Thursday |Friday |

|100 | | | | | |

|98 | | | | | |

|96 | | | | | |

|94 | | | | | |

|92 | | | | | |

|90 | | | | | |

|88 | | | | | |

|86 | | | | | |

|84 | | | | | |

|82 | | | | | |

|80 | | | | | |

|78 | | | | | |

|76 | | | | | |

|74 | | | | | |

|70 | | | | | |

|68 | | | | | |

|66 | | | | | |

|64 | | | | | |

|62 | | | | | |

|60 | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | Title of unit |

Notes:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download