Running head: ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 1

Administering Progress Monitoring Probes and Planning Focused Interventions

Brittney Vargas

EDU 325
ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 2

Administering Progress Monitoring Probes and Planning Focused Interventions

Jane is a first-grade student in a suburban elementary school in the Ohio Valley. She is a

seven-year-old who loves coloring and stickers. The student is familiar with the assessor as she

attends Success for All (SFA) tutoring twice a week. At the start of the tutoring sessions, she was

slow to warm up to the instructor. Once she was comfortable with the instructor, Jane follows

directives given and usually gives her best effort to the task at hand.

When reviewing the information sheet that was filled out by Jane’s general education

teacher, observations of the student giving her best effort and following directives were further

supported. In the information sheet, Jane was described as a student who picks up on concepts

fairly quickly and performs well academically. Jane has as in all but one subject. Although she

has an A in reading, Jane’s teacher would like to see her be able to read at grade level. Per the

information sheet, Jane is not on an IEP or BIP and other than tutoring, she does not receive any

additional accommodations in the classroom.

When picking up the information sheet form the general education teacher, Ms. B., she

detailed more information on Jane’s homelife. Ms. B described her home life as chaotic, as she

has a half-brother in the same grade. Jane and her brother are in the same groups for reading and

math, and they often fight during instructional time. Ms. B also described Jane as emotionally

needy, which she believes stems from a lack of attention at home. In previous work with this

student, the instructor has not seen her be emotionally needy as the sessions are one-on-one and

she has the instructor’s undivided attention. Jane is overall a good student, who works hard and

gives her best effort but does need some additional support to get on grade level for reading.

Procedures
ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 3

Selecting Jane for conducting the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills

(DIBELS) assessment was an easy process. I already work with Jane for another class, to be

specific, I tutor her for reading. After one of our tutoring sessions, I asked Ms. B. if it would be

possible to work with Jane for an assignment for another class. She immediately agreed, and I let

her know to look in her email for a student information sheet. I emailed Ms. B. the information

sheet, including a brief message reminding her of our conversation. A week passed with no

response, and I decided it would be better to connect with her in person, rather than try and

connect via email again. When I had my next tutoring session with Jane, I printed the sheet out

and gave it to Ms. B. She said she had received my email but had not had time to fill out the form

yet. When the form was completed, there was very little information written in. I connected with

her at recess and asked if there was any additional information that could be added. It was at this

point that Ms. B gave the details of Jane’s home life. Learning this information cleared up some

questions I had about Jane’s behavior.

When administering each probe, I followed the instructions to the best of my abilities.

During the assessment, Jane was attentive to my instructions and was able to perform each task

that I had set before her. Going into the assessment, I already knew that she would struggle with

certain probes that would be given for her grade level. I was concerned that she would become

upset, and that she would not complete one of the probes. There were several points during the

assessment where she became frustrated with herself because she thought that she was not doing

well. Because of this, between probes that we took deep breaths together and did some jumping

jacks. Despite becoming frustrated, Jane still gave her best effort to all the probes that were

given. After each probe, I made it a point to say that she did a great job with the amount of effort

that was put in and I thanked her.

ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 4

My initial thoughts were confirmed when I calculated the scores from each of the probes

given. Of all the probes given, Jane consistently performed below the benchmark for her grade

level. I had expected that she would perform at or below benchmark because she is receiving the

equivalent of tier two intervention through tutoring. In the SFA program tutoring there are not

explicit benchmarks set, however, it is clear that at almost halfway through the first grade she

should be able to perform at a higher level than she currently is. She did come close to the

benchmark for one of the measures but was still considered to be below.

Based on the results, I chose the target areas of phonemic awareness and fluency.

Targeting these areas can improve Jane’s foundational knowledge to help her reach benchmark

and be successful later in her academic career.

Assessments Given

DIBELS is a Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) system that includes a variety of

measures that can be given to a student to determine their level of basic literacy. Deno (2003),

outlines the reasons for using CMBs, of the reasons provided, instructional guidance and

progress monitoring are two of the main reasons. Of the six measures included in DIBELS, Jane

was given four. Her grade level called for Letter Name Fluency (LNF), Nonsense Word Fluency

(NWF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), and DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF).

Measures are not randomly given for each grade level. Good and Kaminski (2012), break down

the skills needed for early literacy and present a chart that explains why each measure is given

when it is. A student would not be tested for DORF at the kindergarten level because these

students are still working on phonemic awareness. In order for students to reach the ultimate

goal, reading comprehension, they must first be fluent in the basics required to achieve literacy.
ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 5

The LNF measure includes a mix of upper- and lower-case letters which students must

name as many as they are able in the time given, one minute. The measure is meant to assess the

student’s fluency in naming letters, not an assessment to identify which letters a student knows

or does not know (Good & Kaminski, 2012). LNF, while not directly related to the skills

outlined in the DIBELS manual, has a positive association with a student’s ability to read

fluently by the end of the first grade (Clemens, Lai, Burke & Wu, 2017). Due to LNF not being a

skill of early literacy outlined by DIBELS, there is no benchmark for performance.

The National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000), through their research, found that when

students were taught to manipulate phonemes, this aided their ability to learn to read. In the

measure PSF, students are orally presented with a word and are asked to say each individual

sound they hear in the word. For example, the instructor would say “hall” and the student should

respond /h/ /o/ /l/. The student is then given credit for each correct letter sound regardless of

whether it was blended or segmented. While the measure called phoneme segmentation, it is

really assessing whether or not a student knows and can produce each individual sound (Pavri,

2012).

NWF is a measure that is meant to assess a student’s ability to phonologically decode and

their understanding of the alphabetic principle (Good & Kaminski, 2012). A student’s ability to

decode an unfamiliar word is a key factor in reading fluency and comprehension.

Comprehension cannot occur when a student is putting forth all their mental energy into reading

an unfamiliar word. To assess a student’s ability to perform this task, students are asked to read a

series of nonsense words in a CVC or VC pattern. It is assessing a student’s ability to recognize

letter-sound relationships and blend the sounds the see into a word. Real words are not used to
ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 6

avoid having students use other strategies to decode a word and to prevent the student from

recognition (Fein et al., 2008).

In the first grade, students are tested in DORF for the first time. Starting this assessment

at an earlier time would not make sense because students are still learning the basics and

foundations of reading. By the middle of the first grade, students should be able to begin to put

into practice what they have been learning. Students are given a passage that is at grade level and

have one minute to read as much as they can. Errors are deducted from the total words read per

minute to calculate the correct words per minute score. In order for comprehension to occur,

there must be a level of fluency in a student’s reading (Basaran, 2013).

Results and Analysis

Of the four assessments given, three had benchmark scores to compare Jane’s scores to.

At a glance, it was clear to see that Jane’s performance was below the benchmark scores in every

probe given. As was mentioned earlier, this was not surprising because she is receiving tier two

support in reading. The first probe given, LNF, was the probe that Jane performed most

confidently in. She was able to correctly identify 25 letters in the minute she was given. In the

assessment, she did have one consistent error pattern. Jane even in SFA tutoring confuses her G

with Q nearly every time she is presented with either letter. In tutoring, she is also used to saying

the sound of the word when presented with letters. When the assessment was being explained to

Jane saying the letter name was emphasized to her. Jane was slow to identify some of the more

uncommon letters such as V, U, and Y.

On PSF Jane performed below benchmark. PSF is the probe she was closest to the

benchmark range that would be considered on grade level. She scored 39 correct letter sounds.

Though she did come close to the benchmark, there were some problems with her segmenting.
ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 7

39 correct sounds were said but she blended the rime of many of the words and omitted a few

sounds. Jane has a good understanding of the basic sounds but cannot always fully segment each

sound. Due to this, she would benefit from support that targets the ability to recognize each

sound in a word.

Jane is likely to need support in phonemic awareness based on the results of the NWF

probe. She scored 34 correct letter sounds, which would place her in the above benchmark

category. Of the 34 correct letter sounds, they were all individual or a blend of two letters. Jane

was unable to mentally recognize each sound and blend the phonemes to only say the word. She

was able to read a few of the words, but only after verbally saying each phoneme and then

slowly saying the word. For whole words read (WWR) she received a score of zero which

indicates that she needs intensive support in this area.

The last probe that Jane was given was DORF, which measures reading fluency. This is

the section of the assessment Jane struggled the most with. The median of her scores was 5

words correct per minute. In this specific passage, she read a total of 11 words and had 6 errors

which gave her an accuracy of 45.5%. Based on her performance in this probe, she is categorized

as well below benchmark and in need of intensive support in the area of accuracy and fluency.

An overview of Jane’s scores as compared to the benchmark scores can be found in Table 1.
ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 8

Table 1

Jane’s Scores Compared to Benchmark Scores

Probe Jane’s Score Benchmark

LNF 25 N/A

PSF 39 40

NWF-CLS 34 27

NWF-WWR 0 1

DORF-Words Correct 5 23

DORF-Accuracy 45.5% 78%

DIBELS Composite Score 103* 130**

*This composite score was calculated by using each score from the probes given. Traditionally, scores are not
calculated in this manner,
**The middle of the year benchmark was used because the DORF probe was administered.

Areas Targeted for Improvement

Phonics. Based on Jane’s performance in the NWF probe, specifically looking at the

WWR score, she needs support in the area of decoding unknown words. She has a good

understanding of the alphabetic principle, which is connecting sounds to the written letter

(Reutzel & Cooter, 2012). Per the NRP (2000), the alphabetic principles must be mastered before

learning to read and write. Jane has already mastered this but needs support in applying her

knowledge of the letter sounds. Reutzel and Cooter (2012) discuss the point that blending is not

intuitive and must be explicitly taught and modeled. A strategy that this text suggests is using a

graphic organizer to visually show sequential blending (Reutzel & Cooter, 2012). A variation of

the aforementioned strategy is word boxes. Alber-Morgan, Joseph, Kanotz, Rouse, and Sawyer

(2016), state that word boxes, derived from Elkonin boxes, help students see and hear all the

sounds in a word before saying it all together. This strategy was also examined by Keesey,
ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 9

Konrad, and Joseph (2015), whose research focused on using word boxes to build the letter-

sound correspondence. Word boxes were found to be effective in their study. Using word boxes

includes having a page with one box per phoneme, in which the student will write the

corresponding grapheme for a phoneme, then say it all together. In this activity, students are

hearing each sound of the word individually and together, with a visual aid. For Jane, word

boxes should be used and paired with grapheme cards or made to be dry erase, so she is able

write the graphemes. Using grapheme cards will help her with spelling and help her to practice

decoding words she will encounter in her academic career. Though the probe NWF works with

made up words, but by gaining experience with blending each phoneme of a word, she will have

a better understanding of the process and practice of blending sounds. Jane’s progressed will be

monitored with observation and field notes. In the notes, the teacher or paraeducator will list

common mistakes, and tailor next session of one on one work to target those areas. Every two

weeks the NWF probe will be administered to have data to inform instruction and show progress.

Fluency: accuracy. Based on the results of Jane’s DORF assessment, she needs to

improve in the area of accuracy within her reading. The NRP (2000) states, practice in the area

of fluency should be oral, include repeated reading, and provide feedback for the student. When

planning for instruction specific to Jane, all three of these elements will be included. Reutzel and

Cooter (2012) place an emphasis on modeling fluent reading and practicing fluent reading. A

strategy proposed by Reutzel and Cooter (2012) was echo reading. In this strategy, the teacher

will read a passage, and all students will repeat the passage back to the teacher. Rasinski,

Homan, and Biggs (2008), also place an emphasis on modeling fluent reading and repeated

reading. The strategy of echo reading contains all the element outlined by the NRP, if the teacher

gives appropriate feedback to each student. This can be accomplished very simply, as the teacher
ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 10

is reading, she can walk around the room, and jot down notes as she hears students reading

orally. Field notes will be used to monitor Jane’s progress. At least three times a week the

teacher will work with Jane in a small group setting to get a more focused look at her

performance. In addition to observation and small group time, an oral reading probe will be

administered every two weeks.

Conclusion

Jane’s overall performance would put her at the below benchmark category, which means

that she is in need of additional support in nearly every category of her early literacy

development. Working with the student beyond the context of this assignment, I can say that

with focused interventions, she is improving in each of these skills. When planning for tutoring,

though we are working with a different program from DIBELS, I am able to take the results of

these probes to plan activities that will target the specific areas that she is struggling in. Jane has

a good understanding of letter-sound correspondence, apart from a few of the easily confused

letters, G and Q for Jane, she has a solid basic foundation on which we can build. If the areas of

blending and accuracy are targeted with the proper interventions, there is a good chance that Jane

can get closer to the benchmark. Despite environmental factors that are against Jane, she is a

bright young lady, who with the proper support should be able to have a successful academic

career. I am already seeing this growth in our sessions for SFA tutoring as she has shown

significant progress since the beginning of the semester. If it were not for administering the

DIBELS probes, it would have taken me a bit longer to recognize the specific areas that Jane was

struggling in, as the SFA assessment is not as specific as the DIBELS probes.
ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 11

Bibliography

Alber-Morgan, S. R., Joseph, L. M., Kanotz, B., Kanotz, C. A., & Sawyer, M. R. (2016) The

effects of word box instruction on acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of

decoding and spelling skills for first graders. Education and Treatment of Children,

39(1), 21-43.

Basaran, M. (2013). Reading fluency as an indicator of reading comprehension. Educational

Sciences: Theory & Practice. 13(4), 2287-2290. DOI: 10.12738/estp.2013.4.1922

Clemens, N. H., Lai, M. H., Burke, M., & Wu, J. (2017). Interrelations of growth in letter

naming and sound fluency in kindergarten and implications for subsequent reading

fluency. School Psychology Review. 46(3), 272–287. DOI: 10.17105/SPR-2017-

0032.V46-3

Deno, S. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education,

37, 184-192.

Fien, H., Baker, S. K., Smolkowski, K., Mercier Smith, J. L., Kame’enui, E. J., & Beck, C. T.

(2008). Using nonsense word fluency to predict reading proficiency in kindergarten

through second grade for English learners and native English speakers. School

Psychology Review, 37, 391-408.

Good, R.H., III, & Kaminski, R.A. (2012). DIBELS Next assessment manual. Eugene, OR: The

University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning.

Keesey, S., Konrad, M., & Joseph, L. M. (2015). Word boxes improve phonemic awareness,

letter-sound correspondences, and spelling skills of kindergartners at risk of reading

failure. Remedial and Special Education, 36(3),167-180.

ADMINISTERING AND PLANNING 12

National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching

children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development.

Pavri, S. (2012). Effective assessment of students: Determining responsiveness to instruction.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Rasinski, T., Homan, S., & Biggs, M. (2009). Teaching reading fluency to struggling readers:

Method, materials, and evidence. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3), 192-204.

Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B., Jr. (2012) Teaching children to read: The teacher makes the

difference. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.