Using Data to make differentiated data decisions
In my district, our intervention program (more a of an anti-program) for secondary is available for grades 6-9. That includes all the middle school grades and the first year of high school. There are reasons for not extending past 9th grade, but that is a whole other post. Our goals are NOT to keep students eternally in intervention classes, but to identify their needs and reinforce strategies to support complex reading across content areas, so they can continue growth beyond the intervention classroom. Literacy teachers also work (co-teaching, coaching) with content teachers to support them in using effective strategies for their content. Again, this co-teaching is a topic for a whole other post. My focus today is on the importance of collecting authentic data. We can’t begin true intervention without effective data. We use limited district testing data for entrance and exit requirements, but I deepen that assessment process throughout my limited time with students so that their experience will be a life changing one. I don’t want students to enter my class with a one-size-fits-all curriculum that doesn’t meet every student’s needs in some significant way. I want them to enter my class feeling right from the start that I really SEE them. I want them to exit knowing their ability has been enhanced. With all that in mind, I focus on three levels of assessment, with an intention that students don’t feel ASSESSED all that time.
A typical student data file.
We are three years into the implementation of this intervention process proposed for secondary students. Through the practice in the classrooms of 24 targeted literacy instructors, including my own lab classroom, we adapt and deepen elements as we grow and learn. The pre-and post-assessment requirements we ask our literacy instructors to use has stayed fairly stable. I recognize that different teachers have managed the process in different ways, but the purpose, to provide data-driven, timely, differentiated instruction that meets student needs, has remained the same.
Here is the process as it is still implemented in my classrooms:
I initially assess for three things: student literacy skill, student motivation as it relates to reading specifically and literacy generally, and student self-perception of reading skills. I assess these elements because these are the areas of change I seek. I don’t like to overwhelm students with measurement activities, so these are spread out between other introductory activities throughout the first two weeks of class. I chose these specific measurement tools so I can understand each student better. Most of these resources are recommended by the Reading Specialist Licensure program at Emporia State University.
Pre-assessment we are currently using:
- MAP (Measure of Academic Progress) – This is our district’s apples-to-apples growth measuring test. It is how my district generally measures growth starting at 3rd grade. This is the score on which entrance and exit is determined at this time.
- QRI (Qualitative Reading Inventory) – This is my own apple-to-apples growth measurement choice. The MAP is for the district data needs, but I gain more clinical knowledge on this assessment. I am currently using the QRI-5, but have excitedly received the QRI-6. The QRI-5 has always been very effective for me in this setting I’ve developed.
- Metacognitive Reading Awareness Survey OR Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory – These options are intended to identify what strategies students can already apply. It also identifies misconceptions about what “works,” which turns out to be the more valuable information.
- Rhody Secondary Reading Attitude Assessment (Variations on this resource can found in the 5th Ed. of Improving Reading: Interventions, Strategies, and Resources by Jerry L Johns and Susan Davis Lenski) – With a likert scale format, this focuses on how a student feels about reading specifically.
- Reader Self-Perception Scale (Variations on this resources can also be found in the Johns & Lenski text.) – Again with a likert scale format, students relay their beliefs about themselves as readers.
- Writing Samples – I ask students to produce one narrative about their thinking on their collected and sorted pre-assessment data and one response about a short piece of text at their instructional level.
At the high school level, I have my students score the surveys for their own knowledge. I also have them write about what they think the scores on the reading attitude and self-perception scale mean about them as readers, writers and thinkers. Prompts for writing should be adapted to the age and skill level of the students. Examples may include the following? What do your response scores tell you about how you feel about reading? What do you think about yourself as a reader based on the scores? What surprises you?
There are likely other surveys, inventories, etc. that will give similar information. I encourage teachers to find what informs them and their students best. I encourage teachers to remember that without motivation and a stronger self-perception, the skill development doesn’t tend to stick. This is especially true for students who have spun through several cycles of remediation/intervention. It’s all circular. If you can motivate a student to do the work of skill development and success if experienced, he gains a stronger self-perception. This increases motivation and a creates a deepening sense of self-efficacy. A stronger motivation to continue to grow is a consequence of believing that work is worth the effort. Perpetuating this process is a big deal for students who have spent too much time feeling like failures.
Every lesson and practice produces data to inform the next instructional choice. Solid differentiated intervention requires constant checks for understanding. Examples of this daily process can include annotation on text, graphic organizers around thinking/strategies, student strategy journals, workshop model conferences, independent reading conferences, or written reflections (exit slips) about perceived proficiency with a skill, to name a few. I also regularly track growth on the QRI with an independent version differentiated based on the student’s total comprehension level on the previous QRI assessment.
ILA Blog recently posted this commentary on formative assessment. Although it is mostly elementary focused, many of the authors’ points are universally applicable.
LINK: Better Than CBM: Assessments That Inform Instruction
In post-assessment, we repeat everything except QRI. As I already mentioned, I use a independent version of the QRI through continuous assessment to track QRI growth. This data carries a lot of weight with me, and even with students, because it shows actual reading skill growth. I would prefer to sit with students and do a post- QRI process face-to-face, but the time needed is enormous. I do offer a post face-to-face version to provide growth data for students on IEPs.
I make my students aware of their growth and challenges and encourage them to develop goals specific to what they most want to improve. After each independent QRI, I conference with students (usually during Reading Workshop time) to address recurring concerns. Students typically WANT to improve, and appreciate knowing what they can do to improve. At the high school level, part of my goal is to help my students fully understand their strengths and struggles as a reader. I’ve always attempted to write up a summary of the students data with commentary on the interpretation of that data. That is a consuming task. I work streamline it for other teachers to use. This semester, I used a document from Richard Villa called “Cooperative Teaching Student and Class Summary.” This provides students with my reflection on their growth. It also allows feedback from content teachers as we work together to improve authentic literacy growth.
One of the last actions my students take before they exit the class is to write an essay about their growth and where they still need to grow. I do provide a graphic organizer to help students with structure. The students use the information in their personal data files to develop the essay. I include easy-to-read comparisons of all pre- and post- assessments, all scores on the QRIs as they grew (which they all do), evidence from all of their strategy work, annotated texts from reciprocal teaching groups, morphology work, summaries and writing about strategy application, and my own conference notes. The essay they write is one typed page about what the evidence says about their growth, where they think they still need to grow, and how they believe they will use their new skills in the future.
All of this data collection and application sounds daunting, and it can be, but I try to keep it organized and streamlined. Management requires staying on top of daily data and making real-time decisions about that data. Don’t let it build up.
This is a lot of information. What parts of this can you implement fairly easily? What other types of assessment do you use to get to know your students and their needs?