Student Name: Allen Thomas Report of Educational Assessment Student: Allen H.

Thomas (pseudonym) Parents: Mary Thomas and Mike Thomas Address: 555 Hope Street Macomb, MI 48816 Phone: 555-555-5555 Primary Language: English Referral Source: Learning Center Teacher Birth Date: 3-17-2004 Test Dates: 09-18-2012 to 10-01-2012 Age: 8-6 Grade: 3.2 Examiner: Caitlin Shanahan

Reason for Referral: Allen H. Thomas, an 8-year, 6-month old male, was referred for an Autism Consultation by the Learning Center teacher, Lorri Zieleniewski , on 11-17-09. The primary reasons for Allens referral were his struggles with routine and need for extensive support and modifications in the general education classroom. Significant Background Information: Allens file, specifically in a Social Work Report from 1-12-12, indicates that he lives at home as an only child with his supportive Mother and Father. Both parents are fully involved in Allens schooling and extremely willing to guide and support him where needed. Allen has resided in Utica, Michigan throughout his entire life and attended Duncan Elementarys Early Childhood setting before being enrolled as a Kindergartener in 2009. Parent input also indicates that Allen is a very sensitive child who gets frustrated very easily. At the time of referral for Special Education services, Allens general education teacher, Kathy Collins, indicated that Allen was performing below grade level in all subject areas, required assistance to complete assignments correctly, and frequently lacked focus during independent work time. Despite receiving guided reading supports in the general education setting four days a week, assistance on most writing tasks, as well as help from the classroom teacher and/or classroom buddy to complete math tasks, Allen continues to show slow progress. As of January 27, 2012, Allens primary certification was changed from Early Childhood Developmental Delay (ECDD) to Specific Learning Disability (LD) in the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. A re-evaluation was done on 1-27-12 to determine Allens current level of performance. Based on his classroom performance at this time, Allen was making gains in writing, but he was still not on grade level. His writing lacks development in the areas of ideas, conventions, and organization. Allens current Individualized Education Plan (IEP) includes reading, writing, mathematics, and cognitive goals. When Allen was last re-evaluated in January of 2012, in reading he scored a Rigby 9 (primer level), which places his reading ability at a middle first grade level. He needs to be a Rigby 15 or higher for his grade level. At the beginning of his second grade year Allen was at an intensive level for the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) fluency assessment). Currently, Allen requires individualized instruction in basic reading

Student Name: Allen Thomas concepts, which impedes his progress in reading comprehension and decoding in the general education classroom. Allens reading is supported in the general education setting through re-teaching and re-explanation of concepts, small group instruction in the form of guided reading, and breaking down grade level vocabulary concepts through repeated exposure. In writing, Allen is below grade level with 1s in organization, content, ideas, and conventions according to the 6 +1 Trait Writing Rubric in which a 4 is considered proficient. Allen receives writing support through the use of visuals such as Thinking Maps and Concept Maps to help him organize his thoughts. Poor conventions highly impact whether or not Allens writing is intelligible. In mathematics, Allen was not independently proficient on his second grade Third Quarter Math Assessment, scoring a 46%. To support Allen in higher-level math learning vocabulary needs to be revisited constantly. Allens cognitive goals result from his short-term memory weakness, which directly impacts his performance in the general education classroom in all academic areas. Allen receives Supplementary Aids and Supports in two areas. One is in timing and scheduling of instruction and assessment. Allen receives extended assessment time in all academic settings when his frustration tolerance is limited. He also receives support in the area of presentation of instruction and assessment. Allen is read aloud to in individual or small groups in all academic settings when frustration tolerance is limited. In considering Special Factors mentioned on Allens most current IEP, it was noted that Allen has no health, physical, and/or medical issues, as well as perceptual, motor, or mobility concerns that may impact his learning. It was noted on past interviews included in Allens Special Education File that Allen struggles with social skills and fine motor tasks, however he does not receive support from an Occupational Therapist. Currently, Allen receives Learning Center supports one hour a day, five days a week. He participates in the general education setting for 85% of the school day. Teacher Interview: An interview was conducted on 9-18-12 with Allens second grade general education teacher from the 2011-2012 school yearAllens teacher commented that he had shown improvement in all academic areas over the course of the year. By the middle of his second grade year Allen was mostly independent in math, but still needed reading comprehension assignments and directions read aloud to him by another adult. At the beginning of the year in Fall 2011, Allens teacher commented that he had a difficult time focusing and would shout out during instruction. This teacher noticed a significant change in behavior once Allen started taking medication (not specified). She then described Allen as a model student who demonstrated very kind and respectful behavior to peers. During Allens second grade year the following classroom accommodations were provided; oneon-one assistance, tests read to Allen, modified assignments when necessary, and a modified spelling list.

Student Name: Allen Thomas

Clinical and Informal Observations: Allen has no apparent physical abnormalities, but his weight and height appear to be a little low for his age. Allen was very cooperative during his assessments and was not hesitant to begin. During the Basic Reading Inventory (BRI) Assessments Allen was very calm. He demonstrated his ability to use familiar reading strategies to sound out a word if he didnt know it. He was not affected or distracted by the examiner when the examiner was marking down miscues on the test protocols. Allens behavior is very similar across all academic areas. He works quietly in both the Learning Center and general education classroom and rarely has to be redirected. He is very familiar with the classroom and school rules and procedures, and he is usually first to correct a student or peer who is not following those rules. Allen is very conscious of his own learning and continues working hard even when he is struggling or showing signs of fatigue. In writing, Allen is below grade level. Allen struggles to come up with ideas in writing without prompting from his general education or Learning Center teachers. He will stare at his paper for several minutes trying to think of a writing topic and details, but he responds well to teacher prompts. On four AIMSweb progress monitoring probes, Allen scores in the 10th %ile for his grade level on four out of four probes in the areas of total words written (TWW), words spelled correctly (WSC), and correct writing sequence (CWS). Allens difficulty with spelling was a major factor in why his WSC and CWS scores were so low on all four probes. ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND ANALYSIS The following assessment tools were administers to measure Allens academic abilities in Basic Reading Skills: Basic Reading Inventory: A Basic Reading Inventory (BRI) of reading achievement was administered to Allen in September of 2012. BRI is a series of individually administered assessments designed to informally determine a students reading instructional needs. A students performance on the BRI Graded Word Lists and the appropriate grade level reading passages will identify the current level of that students reading ability so that instructional supports can be put in place. The five core components of the BRI are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. These assessments will allow the administrator to determine what grade level the students current level of performance is at based on whether the student scores at the frustration, instructional, or independent levels of performance. The frustration level is the level at which the student is unable to pronounce many of the words or is unable to comprehend the material. The instructional level is the level at which the student can make maximum progress in reading with teacher guidance. Finally, the independent level is the level at which the student reads fluently with excellent comprehension. The Graded Word Lists contain twenty words per list, beginning with words at the pre-primer level up to grade twelve. The student being assessed reads through the appropriate Graded Word List based on that childs age or suspected reading ability while

Student Name: Allen Thomas the administrator follows and marks errors. If the student can correctly identify the word within three seconds, the administrator marks that word as correct. After the student has read through the entire list, the administrator counts the number correct and uses that number to identify if the student is at an independent, instructional, instructional/frustration, or frustration level for that Graded Word List. At the independent level, the read should correctly recognize 95-100% of the words. At the instructional level, the reader will correctly identify 80-90% of the words on the list. At the instructional/frustration level the students can correctly identify 70-75% of the words on the list. If the student recognizes less than 70% of the words on the Graded Word List administered, that student is at the frustration level for that grade. Once it has been determined which level (frustration, independent, or instructional) the student is at for the appropriate graded word lists, the student will read the oral reading passage matched with his appropriate grade level. Given the first grade word list, Allen was able to identify 20/20 words, placing him at the independent level. On the second grade word list, Allen correctly recognized 18/20 words, placing him at the instructional level for the second grade word list. On the third grade word list, Allen correctly recognized 12/20 words, placing him at the frustration level for third grade. Between the second and third grade word lists, Allen struggled to identify multiple multi-syllabic words such as quiet, above, camp, treasure, behind, impossible, shot, manage, receive, and automobile. Allen correctly identified the first syllable in all of these words, but struggled to recognize the second syllable. For example, Allen read the word impossible as important. He also read the word cabin as camp. This shows evidence that Allen is weak at recognizing multi-syllabic words. The results for Allens level of performance on the Grade Level Word Lists are as follows: Graded Word Lists Reading Level Grade Level Independent Reading 1st grade Level Instructional 2nd grade Reading Level Frustration Reading 3rd grade Level On the Oral Reading Passages, the examiner takes notes of the students miscues. Substitutions, omissions, insertions, reversals, repetitions, self-corrections, and meaning changes are considered miscues. At the end, the examiner counts the total number of miscues to determine what level the student is at for that grade level passage. The Word Recognition Scoring Guide is as follows: Total Miscues Level 0-1 Independent 2-4 Independent/Instructional 5 Instructional 6-9 Instructional/Frustration 10+ Frustration After the student reads the passage, the examiner asks comprehension questions to the reader. If the reader answers the questions correctly a plus sign is marked next to the

Student Name: Allen Thomas question. If the question is incorrect the examiner puts a minus sign next to the question. If the student answers the question half correctly, the student receives a score of for that question. At the end, the number of total questions missed is noted. The Comprehension Scoring Guide is as follows:

Questions Missed 0-1 1 - 2 2 3- 4 5+

Level Independent Independent/Instructional Instructional Instructional/frustration Frustration

Allens performance on the Oral Reading Passages placed him at the frustration level on the second grade passage with a score of 89% accuracy. However, on the comprehension portion of the second grade passage Allen missed two and a half, which puts him at the instructional level for comprehension on the second grade passage. On the second grade passage, Allen read slowly and had eleven total miscues. Allen had four substitution miscues, five repetition miscues, one insertion, and one omission. Allen read with no intonation or pitch throughout the entire passage and failed to pause at two periods in the passage. On the post-reading comprehension assessment Allen demonstrated that he is able to recall important explicit details from the story. Allen did use some prior knowledge and experience in answering two of the comprehension questions, but the questions asked for details taken from the passage so Allens answered were scored as incorrect. On the first grade reading passage Allen read with 95% accuracy with five total miscues, which placed him at the instructional level for first grade. All of Allens miscues were substitution miscues. Two of the five substitution miscues involved reversing the order of letters in words such as reading the word was as, saw, and the word how as, who. Allen read at an appropriate pace the entire time and demonstrated good phrasing with little choppy cadence throughout. On the post-reading comprehension assessment Allen missed 1 questions, but was able to recall many key details and events from the passage. The following chart summarizes Allens performance on the Grade Level Oral Reading Passages: Passage Level First Grade (Instructional) Second Grade (Frustration) Number of Miscues 5 11 Comprehension Accuracy (% correct) 1 Questions Missed 2 Questions Missed

Student Name: Allen Thomas The following assessment tools were administers to measure Allens academic abilities in Written Language: Direct Writing Assessment: Allens writing skills were assessed at the beginning of his third grade year using a kid-friendly rubric that was designed using all of the elements found in the 6 + 1 Writing Trait Rubric. The writing rubric focuses on all six writing traits developed in the 6+1 Writing Trait Rubric and is categorized the following four groups: 1.) Focus and Detail: The purpose of the writing and added details. 2.) Organization (Beginning, middle, and end): The internal structure of the piece. 3.) Style and Voice: The way the writer adds personality to the piece using adequate word choice, personal voice, and sentence variation. 4.) Punctuation, Capitals, and Spelling: The mechanical correctness of the piece. This writing rubric offers students a score between one and six based on their level of performance according to the elements on the rubric. A score of six is the highest ability level and one is the lowest ability level. A zero can be given if the student does not attempt the writing prompt. Before Allen was given his writing journal to begin writing, he was allowed three minutes to discuss the writing prompt verbally with a peer to generate ideas. The writing prompt was a generic prompt titled, My Favorite Thing I Did This Summer. This prompt was chosen because Allen has shown difficulty generating and developing ideas in his writing in the past; therefore a generic prompt was ideal for his learning needs. Allen showed enthusiasm about the prompt and had a lot to discuss with his peer. After three minutes of brainstorming, Allen sat at a desk positioned three feet from the nearest friend. There were six total students in the Learning Center at this time. A timer was set for ten minutes and the students were instructed to write for the whole ten minutes. Allen began writing immediately and continued to write for over eight minutes before he put his pencil down and said he was finished. He was instructed to read through his writing again to fix any mistakes and add detail as needed. Allen wrote 46 words and 33 were spelled correctly. Allen was able to produce five basic sentences and two sentence fragments. Compared to his same-age, special education peers who were also given this writing prompt, Allens writing was several words longer than the other writing samples. Allen received the following scores on this direct writing assessment: Focused and Detailed: 2; Allen was able to follow the generic prompt and write about something he did this summer, but his ideas are not focused and lack any details. Allens first sentence reads, This summer we celebrated my sisters birthday, which clarifies that he understands the prompt at hand. As he continues on, Allen writes about seven different things he did during the summer in short basic sentences that all lack further detail. Organization: 2; Allens writing sample does include a beginning sentence that introduces the prompt, as well as a conclusion sentence that reads, Thank you, bye, which demonstrates that he has some prior knowledge about organizing a writing piece. However, the middle of the writing piece is packed with multiple surface-level details that seem unconnected and lack structure. Style and Voice: 2; Allens sentences vary in length with some being one word long, and others with thirteen words. However, his writing piece lacks descriptive words and

Student Name: Allen Thomas personality. Allen uses basic vocabulary throughout his writing sample. The most descriptive vocabulary word Allen used in this piece was, celebrated. Punctuation, Capitals, and Spelling: 2; Allen wrote seven sentences and only two of those sentences had a capital letter at the beginning. Allen did end every sentence with a period. Allen spelled ten words incorrectly. The 33 words he spelled correctly in the writing piece were basic sight words and high frequency words such as this, we, my, and, went, to, up, mom, and dad.
Writing Trait Focused and Detailed Organization Style and Voice Punctuation, Capitals, and Spelling Score 2: My purpose for writing this story is not clear. I am not very focused on my central idea. I need details. 2: I pretty much write things down as I thought of them. I am not sure they are in any kind of order. 2: My story has boring sentences. It sounds like anybody could have written it. 2: It has lots of mistakes that make it difficult to understand. Overall Score: 2

The following assessment tools were administers to measure Allens academic abilities in Broad Written Language: TEST SUBSCALE RAW SCORE STANDARD SCORE PERCENTIL 68% E CONFIDENC E INTERVAL 25 20 45 58 35 86-94 82-90 93-102 96-110 90-98

WoodcockJohnson III Tests of Achievemen t (WJ-III)

Broad Written Language

Spelling

22 12 8

90 86 98 103 94

Written Expression
Writing Fluency Writing Samples

TEST

SUBSCALE

Total Words Written

Words Spelled Correctly

Correct Word Sequence

Percentil e at Fall of Grade

Student Name: Allen Thomas (TWW) Academic Improvemen t Monitoring System web (AIMSweb) Written Expression (Third Grade) Progress Monitoring Prompt 1 18 TWW 14 WSC 11 CWS TWW: 10th WSC: 25th CWS: 25th TWW: 10th WSC: 10th CWS: 10th TWW: 50th WSC: 50th CWS: 10th TWW: 10th WSC: 25th CWS: 10th (WSC) (CWS) 3

Prompt 2

16 TWW

11 WSC

6 CWS

Prompt 3

29 TWW

22 WSC

10 CWS

Prompt 4 TEST SUBSCALE

18 TWW RAW SCORE (Number correct out of total) 8/20 14/20

15 WSC PERCENT (Accuracy)

10 CWS

Dynamic Assessment

Pre-test Post-test

40% 70%

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III): Allen was administered the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III) in the first week of November 2012. The WJ-III is comprised of 22 subtests, which assess in the areas of reading, mathematics, oral language, written language. The WJ-III is a norm-referenced test (NRT), which compares the scores of each student to the average performance of same-age peers or grade-level peers. The WJ-III uses Standard Scores (SS), which are based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Standard scores of 90-110 are considered to be within the average range on this assessment.

Student Name: Allen Thomas Each subtest takes 5-10 minutes to administer, and the examiner can choose to give all subtests to the student, or only focus on one or two academic areas for assessment purposes. Each subtest is marked with a basal and ceiling set at six, which means that the examiner stops testing once the student gives six consecutive incorrect responses. Using the WJ-III, Allens Broad Written Language skills were assessed using the following subtests; Spelling, Writing Samples, and Writing Fluency. The Writing Samples and Writing Fluency subtest are also considered part of the Written Expression cluster, therefore it is presented as so in the report below. Allens achievement scores were computed using the age-based norms. Overall results of the Broad Written Language Skills from WJ-III: In the areas of broad written language skills, Allens standard score was 90 and his percentile rank was 25. This equates Allen to scoring as well as or better than 25% of his age-level peers in the norming sample. When compared to others at his age, Allens standard scores are average in broad written language. A 68% confidence band was used to estimate Allens true score on broad written language skills to be in the range of 86-94. The confidence band means that the examiner is 68% confident that Allens standard score would fall within the range of 86-94 if he were administered the test at any other time or under any other conditions. In the area of broad written language, Allens grade equivalent score is 2.3, which means that Allens raw score is equivalent to the average raw score obtained by children that are in the third month of second grade. Allens age equivalent is 7-8, which means that his raw score is equivalent to the average raw score obtained by children that are 7 years, 8 months old in the normative sample. Note that it is incorrect to interpret age equivalent or grade equivalent scores as suggesting a students skills in this area are similar to students age 7-8 or in the 3rd month of grade 2 because these scores do not take into account the difficulty of the items the student completed correctly. Allens Standard Score of 90 suggests his skills in this area are within the average range compared to his same age peers. The following subtest for broad written language was administered: Spelling: This subtest measures the individuals ability to write orally presented words correctly. The test items increase in difficulty as the student progresses through the test. The test administration guidelines require the administrator to begin with item 12 on the spelling subtest for students in third grade. After Allen had six incorrect responses, the test was stopped. Allens raw score was 22, which translates into a standard score of 86 and a percentile of 20. This means that on this particular day, Allen scored as well as or better than 20% of his peers. A 68% confidence band was used to calculate that Allens true score on the spelling subtest was estimated to be in the range of 82-90. This means that the examiner is 68% confident that Allens score would fall within this range if given the test again on any other day. On the spelling subtest, Allens grade equivalent score is 1.9, which means that Allens raw score is equivalent to the average raw score of children that are in the ninth month of first grade. Allens age equivalent score is 7-3, which means that his raw score is equivalent to the average raw score obtained by children that are 7 years, 3 months old in the normative sample. During the test Allen stated that he knew he was spelling the last six words wrong because the items did not look correct when he wrote them on paper, however he did not know the correct spelling. Note that it is incorrect to interpret age equivalent or grade equivalent scores as suggesting a students

Student Name: Allen Thomas skills in this area are similar to students age 7-3 or in the 9th month of grade 1 because these scores do not take into account the difficulty of the items the student completed correctly. Allens Standard Score of 86 suggests his skills in this area are within the average range compared to his same age peers. Overall results of the Written Expression Skills from WJ-III: In the area of written expression, Allens standard score was 98 and his percentile rank was 45. This equates Allen to scoring as well as or better than 45%of his same age peers. When compared to others at his age, Allens standard scores are average in written expression. A 68% confidence band was used to estimate Allens true score of written expression skills to be in the range of 93-102. The confidence band means that the examiner is 68% confident that Allens standard score would fall within the range of 86-94 if he were administered the test at any other time or under any other conditions. In the area of written expression, Allens grade equivalent score is 2.7, which means that Allens score is equivalent to the average score obtained by children that are in the seventh month of second grade. Allens age equivalent is 8-1, which means that his score in the area of written expressions is equivalent to the average score obtained by children that are 8 years, 1 month old in the normative sample. Note that it is incorrect to interpret age equivalent or grade equivalent scores as suggesting a students skills in this area are similar to students age 8-1 or in the 7th month of grade 2 because these scores do not take into account the difficulty of the items the student completed correctly. Allens Standard Score of 98 suggests his skills in this area are within the average range compared to his same age peers. The following subtests for Written Expression were administered: Writing Fluency: This subtest measures the individuals skills in formulating and writing simple sentences quickly. This subtest is timed at exactly seven minutes. The examiner first provides the student with four sample items, then the student has seven minutes timed to answer as many test items as he or she can independently. Each test item has a picture with three short words that are used to formulate a short sentence. All three words must be used in the sentence in order for the sentence to be marked correct. Correct punctuation and mechanics are not required for the test item to be marked correct. On the writing fluency subtest, Allens raw score was 12, which translates into a standard score of 103 and a percentile of 58. This means that on this particular day, Allen scored as well as or better than 58% of his peers. A 68% confidence band was used to calculate that Allens true score on the spelling subtest was estimated to be in the range of 96-110. This means that the examiner is 68% confident that Allens score would fall within this range if given the test again on any other day. On this subtest, Allens grade equivalent score is 3.3, which means that Allens raw score is equivalent to the average raw score of children that are in the third month of third grade. Allens age equivalent score is 8-7, which means that his raw score is equivalent to the average raw score obtained by children that are 8 years, 7 months old in the normative sample. Allens score on the writing fluency subtest indicates that he is at an average to above average level, because his standard score falls well within the average range of 85-115. Allen answered seventeen items within the seven-minute time frame. Of those seventeen items, five were marked as incorrect because Allen did not include one or more of the provided words for that item.

Student Name: Allen Thomas Writing Samples: This subtest measures the individuals ability to respond in writing to a variety of demands. The test taker must produce written sentences that are evaluated with respect to the quality of expression. Allen was administered the test items in block C, which includes items 7-18. These test items are appropriate for third grade students. On the writing samples subtest, Allens raw score was 8, which translates into a standard score of 94 and a percentile of 35. This means that on this particular day, Allen scored as well as or better than 35% of his peers. A 68% confidence band was used to calculate that Allens true score on the spelling subtest was estimated to be in the range of 90-98. This means that the examiner is 68% confident that Allens score would fall within this range if the test was given again on any other day. On this subtest, Allens grade equivalent score is 2.4, which means that Allens raw score is equivalent to the average raw score of children that are in the fourth month of second grade. Allens age equivalent score is 7-8, which means that his raw score is equivalent to the average raw score obtained by children that are 7 years, 8 months old in the normative sample. Allens score on the writing samples subtest indicates that he is at an average level, because his standard score falls within the average range of 85-115. Allen answered 7.5 of the 12 items correctly, which was rounded up to 8. The items are scored using strict scoring guidelines, which determine if the student receives a score between 0 and 2. Allen did not receive a score of 2 on any of the test items, and he received a score of 0 on four test items, with five of Allens responses written as incomplete sentences. Academic Improvement Monitoring System Web (AIMSweb): AIMSweb is a web-based assessment tool used for benchmark and progress monitoring. This data management and reporting system provides the framework for Response to Intervention (RTI), which is focused on multi-tiered instruction that modifies the delivery and amount of individualized instruct a student receives based on his or her academic progress. AIMSweb is composed of brief, frequent probes used to track student growth over a period of time. AIMSweb progress monitoring can be used for all students so that teachers can create individual goals based on student needs. AIMSweb Written Expression Curriculum-Based Measurement (WE-CMB) Allen was administered the Written Expression Curriculum-Based Measurement (WECBM) for AIMSweb. To progress monitor Allens skills in the domain of written expression, Allen was given 4 written prompts along with a same grade peer for peer referencing. The peer-referent student also receives most of his writing instruction in the special education setting with Allen. The AIMSweb writing probes begin with a story starter provided by the examiner. The story starters are designed to stimulate narrative writing and are formatted such that students are unable to adequately respond to the prompt by writing a yes or no answer. The students are given one minute to think, and three minutes to write. The examiner must have a stop watch to monitor the exact time of the writing prompt. After three minutes, the student can choose to finish the writing sample on a separate sheet of paper. The writing samples are scored on Total Words Written (TWW), Words Spelled Correctly (WSC), and Correct Word Sequence (CWS). To total the total words written (TWW), the examiner counts the number of words the student wrote in three minutes. A word is considered any group of letters separated by a space, even if the word is misspelled or is a nonsense word. To determine the number of correct word sequences (CWS), the

Student Name: Allen Thomas examiner looks for sequences of adjacent words that are mechanically, semantically, and syntactically correct. The number of sequences are added to find the total CWS written in a given writing sample. Finally, to score words spelled correctly (WSC), the examiner subtracts the number of words spelling incorrectly from the total number of words written (TWW). The remaining number is the WSC.

Student Name: Allen Thomas

AIMSWeb Writing Scores with Peer Reference

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 10/29 10/29 11/1 11/1 11/5 11/5 11/7 11/7 Student Peer Student Peer Student Peer Student Peer TWW WSC CWS

Allen was administered four WE-CBM progress monitoring probes using four different narrative story starters. The four AIMSweb WE probes were given on 10-29-12, 11-01-12, 11-05-12, and 11-07-12. The story starters are as follows: 1. A mother and son were walking in the park and 2. Yesterday, a Monkey climbed through the window at school and 3. Once upon a time there was a haunted house 4. I opened my door very slowly and Results of AIMSWeb WE-CBM Probes Date Prompt TWW 10/29/12 1 18 11/01/12 2 16 11/05/12 3 29 11/07/12 4 18

WSC 14 11 22 15

CWS 11 6 10 10

Allens results for those four writing probes in total words written (TWW) were 18, 16, 29, and 18. For words spelled correctly (WSC) the results were 14, 11, 22 and 15. Finally, for correct word sequence (CWS) the results were 11, 6, 10, and 10. The same grade peer referent is also a student that displays writing disabilities. He receives most of his writing instruction in the special education setting. His scores on the four AIMSWeb probes in TWW were 23, 14, 21, and 17. His results for WSC were 15, 8, 15, and 12. Finally, for CWS the results were 9, 5, 11, and 14. When compared to the national norms of same-grade peers for TWW, Allens scores fell between the 10th and 50th percentile with scores ranging from 16 to 29. For WSC, Allens scores fell in the 10th, 25th, and 50th percentiles on different writing probes with scores ranging from 11 to 22. For CWS, Allens scores fell in the 10th and 25th percentiles with scores ranging from 6 to 11. The peer referent had similar scores falling in the 10th and 25th percentiles in TWW, WSC, and CWS. Using the AIMSweb Qualitative Features of

Student Name: Allen Thomas Writing Checklist, the examiner can look at least 2-3 writing samples to evaluate the degree to which important features of writing are present. Overall, Allens writing lacks organization, structure, and planning. Although he does communicate an idea in all four writing samples, his ideas are underdeveloped and choppy. Both Allen and his peer had poor spelling, vocabulary, syntax, and sentence-to-sentence and word-to-word relationships. . In analyzing his results on the WE-CBM AIMSweb prompts, Allen would benefit from instruction in spelling. Spelling was the main reason Allens scores were so low in CWS and WSC in all four progress monitoring prompts. Dynamic Assessment-Spelling Test: Allen was given a dynamic assessment in spelling to test his potential to learn vowel patterns while receiving prompted instruction. A dynamic assessment is a test-teach-retest approach to measure a students capacity for learning a need skill and applying it afterwards. As a pretest Allen was given a spelling test in which the words were given orally by the examiner. The spelling words on the pre and post tests consisted of vowel teams in CVVC (Consonant, vowel, vowel, consonant) words and long vowels in CVCe (consonant, vowel, consonant, e) words. Allen was required to write the spelling of each word on a lined sheet of paper typically used in the classroom, and was scored 1 point for a correct response and 0 points for an incorrect response. A correct response means that Allen spelled the entire word correctly. After instruction, Allen was given the same spelling test with the same words as the pretest. The scores of the pretest and posttest were compared to determine how well he responds to instruction. In the teaching, or instruction, portion of the dynamic assessment Allen was taught vowel patterns ea ee ai and the use of the magic e through mediated scaffolding using a series of four prompts. These vowel patterns were chosen because they follow the rules being taught as part of instruction. Mediated scaffolding means that the student first received high support during instruction, but support was decreased with each of the four prompts. The dynamic assessment is designed to use four prompts during the teaching process that scaffold Allen to learn the vowel patterns in words. The 20 words used in the teaching phase were different than the 20 words used in the pre and post-spelling test, however both sets of words the same vowel patterns. Pretest-Mediated Prompting-Posttest Results Raw score PRETEST Prompt 1 Prompt 2 Prompt 3 Prompt 4 Posttest 8/20 Teaching Phase 19/20 11/20 12/20 11/20 14/20

Student Name: Allen Thomas

The dynamic assessment used a serious of four prompts in the following order: Prompt 1: Explicitly taught vowel rules: The student was taught the, magic e, rule for long vowels in CVCe words, as well as the vowel team rule, When two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking. The magic e rule told the subject that an e at the end of a word causes the vowel to say its name, or become a long vowel. The examiner and student then read through each word and the examiner pointed out the vowel patterns in each word. After going through the list of words, the examiner and the examinee went through the list a second time to reinforce rules. Prompt 2: Word Sort: The student was given a series of cards with CVVC, CCVCe, and CVCe words written on them. The student sorted the cards into two piles; one group containing vowel teams and one group containing long vowels. Then the examiner and student read through the words together to practice vowel patterns. Initially, the student required high support sorting the words into two piles, but was able to finish the sort with less support. Prompt 3: Fill In Vowels: Student was shown a series of words with missing vowels. The examiner supported the student to fill in the missing vowels. The examiner gave feedback and corrections when needed. After the missing vowels were filled in, the examinee read through the list of words orally. Prompt 4: Choose the correct spelling: The student was instructed to choose the correct spelling of the word to complete each sentence. The student correctly answered 11 questions out of 20. The examiner supported the student in completing the remaining questions. Looking at the results from this dynamic assessment, it is evident that Allen responds well to instruction. He increased his score from his pretest to his posttest by 6 correct responses. Allen appeared to accept instruction during all four prompts in the teaching phase. His highest score was 19 responses correct out of 20 in prompt 1, in which the examiner gave maximum support in identifying vowel teams and long vowels in CVVC and CVCe words. Allen used the vowel pattern cues taught to him in prompt 1 throughout the entire teaching portion. He was observed using these cues during the posttest to try to remember the spelling of each word. While taking the post-test, Allen verbally stated the rule for vowel teams that was used throughout the teaching phase. Summary: Allen appears to be functioning below average when compared to his 3rd grade peers. Allens mains area of concern is reading, but written expression is also an area that Allen should continue to receive services in. Specifically in reading, Allen struggles with decoding multisyllabic words, comprehension, and retelling key details and events from a passage. In writing, Allen struggles with spelling, idea generation, organization, and correct word sequences. Given Allens performance on the informal and formal assessment instruments, he does appear to exhibit a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) in the areas of basic reading and written expression (due his low scores in spelling on the WJ-III as well as in looking at the AIMSWeb Progress Monitoring Probes). Although Allens WJ-III standard scores were in the average range, it is recommended that he continue services in the special education setting to continue to build his written expression. Currently, Allen receives 60 minutes of Learning Center support everyday. In looking at the results of the

Student Name: Allen Thomas Dynamic Assessment in the domain of written expression, Allen does appear to respond well to instruction, which means his deficits in reading and writing could show great improvement with the use of targeted, evidence-based instruction each day. Additionally, Allens has an extremely positive attitude about learning, which motivates him to try his best in all academic areas. Recommendations: I. Based on all of the available data, Allen should continue to receive Learning Center support for basic reading and written expression. II. Allen will continue to benefit from receiving one-on-one support and instruction in the general education classroom for reading and writing. III. Allen will benefit from targeted, evidence-based instruction in spelling. IV. Allen should continue to orally read passages at his instructional level of first grade and answer comprehension questions that require him to recall key details and events from the text. V. Allen should continue to build his skills in oral retelling after reading a passage at his independent and instructional levels. Allen may benefit from the use of concrete retell beads, which remind him to incorporate first, next, then, and last details in his oral retell. VI. Allen may benefit from the use of thinking maps and graphic organizers while pre-writing to improve his idea generation in writing. VII. Allen may benefit from word study strategies such as word sorts and studying word patterns to improve his spelling. Goals and Objectives: Common Core English Language Arts for 3rd Grade: Writing 3.W.5: With guidance and support from peers and adults, develop and strengthen writing as needed by planning, revising, and editing. Annual Goal: Allen will develop and strengthen his writing by using strategies to plan, revise, and edit his work to increase his score on the holistic writing rubric from a 2 to a 3. a. Given a thinking map, Allen will independently plan and organize his ideas by including a lead, topic sentence, three details, and a conclusion in the given areas on the thinking map with 100% accuracy. b. Given an anchor paper (finished writing sample), Allen will revise and edit the writing sample to make corrections in spelling and punctuation with 90% accuracy. c. After completing a thinking map, Allen will compose a writing piece that includes all six out of six parts of the thinking map. d. After composing a first draft writing sample using a thinking map in the pre-writing stage, Allen will revise and edit the piece to compose a second draft with correct spelling and punctuation with 90% accuracy. e. In composing the first, second, and final drafts of a writing sample, Allen will demonstrate his ability to independently plan, revise, and edit his own

Student Name: Allen Thomas writing to increase his writing score on the holistic rubric from a 2 to a 3 in the areas of organization and spelling. Common Core English Language Arts for 3rd Grade: Reading 3.RFS.3 Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words. a. Identify and know the meaning of the most common prefixes and derivational suffixes. b. Decode words with common Latin suffixes. c. Decode multisyllabic words. d. Read grade-appropriate irregularly spelled words. Annual Goal: When orally reading grade-level text, Allen will decode multisyllabic words with 80% accuracy. a. Given a list of grade-appropriate multisyllabic words, Allen will orally decode multi-syllabic words in isolation with 90% accuracy. b. Given a grade-level text, Allen will accurately decode grade-appropriate multisyllabic words with 60% accuracy. c. Given a grade-level text, Allen will accurately decode grade-appropriate multisyllabic words with 80% accuracy

Signature of Examiner

Date

Caitlin Shanahan Name of Examiner Special Education Intern Title