EDEX 790Educational Assessment Report

Name: DanD.O.B: 05/19/1999C.A.:13Grade:7th

Evaluation Procedures and Dates:Observation:09/12/1209/14/12

CBM Baseline:10/03/1210/04/1210/09/12

CBM Intervention:10/23/1210/29/1210/31/1211/14/1211/26/12

WJIII10/15/1210/22/1210/29/12Reason for Referral:Dan was chosen because he seems to be quite a mystery when it comes to his academic performance. I originally picked him because often people think he is non-verbal when in actuality can speak just will not unless made to. He also has many skills academically but also does not engage in testing materials. This often makes it more difficult to see what he actually knows.

Relevant Background:Dan is in his second year at Irmo Middle School and is a seventh grader. Dan is newer to this school as he moved from another state half way through the school year last year. He is currently placed in a self-contained classroom for students with intellectual disabilities. He is only included in general education classes for special areas. He also receives special services for his speech and language impairment.

Classroom Observations:Observation #1:My first observation of Dan was in a physical education class during a time reserved for students who are in self-contained special education classes. I observed him during P.E. time to see how he interacted with other peers during non-structured time. The behavior I was looking at was to see how he interacted with peers and what type of communication he used (verbal, gestures, etc.) The observation method used was anecdotal notes. I also observed peers during this time (one near/one far) to see what they did. The duration of this first recording was about 45 minutes. During this time Dan made no verbal attempts to interact with peers. For the first ten minutes he played on his own with a basketball. Mainly just walking around with it and making frequent trips to the water fountain. During this time the peer that was near him was shooting basketballs by himself. No verbal attempts were made by this student either. The far peer was sitting on a ball bouncing by them self. This student was not talking verbally either.The next 20 minutes consisted of Dan interacting non-verbally with two other students. No verbal attempts were made by these students either. Two of the students were shooting basketballs to the goal and Dan was retrieving the balls for them. The boys also would pass the balls to each other some. The close peer during this time was shooting the basketball with no verbal attempts. The far peer had two different conversations with adults during this 20 minute time span. No verbal attempts were made with peers just adults.The last 15 minutes of this observation consisted of Dan picking up a scooter and a hula hoop. Both of these pieces of equipment Dan played by himself so no verbal attempts were made with others. The last five minutes during this time was for clean-up and lining up to go back to class. Both of these tasks Dan participated in without extra prompting by adults. The near peer was still shooting basketballs until it was time to clean-up. No verbal attempts were made during this time span either. The far peer was walking around with a basketball and did verbally talk with one of the adults. This observation showed me that Dan does not participate regularly in verbal communication. Although he did not make a verbal attempt in the time span observed compared to his near peer they did the same. The near peer and Dan both made no verbal attempts. The far peer did make three verbal attempts to the adults. Observation #2:The second time that I observed Dan was during his small group reading instruction. The observation time was about 55 minutes. During this time the students were mainly taking their weekly test and engaging in free time which consisted of reading a book (independently or with a partner). During this observation, I observed how many times Dan verbally interacted with others and how many times he participated in commands when prompted. I also observed a near and a far peer for how many verbal attempts were made. Although the first 20 minutes were taken up by a quiz there was about 35 minutes that the students were allowed to talk with others. During this 55 minutes Dan made one verbal attempt to communicate. Right before he left to go to his next class one of his peers said hi and he said hi back. This one verbal attempt equates to a percentage of 2% of the time Dan is verbally communicating. His near peer verbally communicated nine times or 16% of the time. Dans far peer communicated 20 times or 36% of the recorded time. As for participation Dan participated without extra prompting 17/22 opportunities or 77%. This information showed me that Dan does not prefer to verbally communicate with others. Compared to his peers the peers are communicating with others verbally more often.

Testing Observations:Throughout this semester, I have administered eight different probes for word reading. During this process, Dan was very compliant and would complete the probes when asked. Sometimes he would make a grunting sound for a second but would complete the work as asked. I noticed that when completing the CBM probes if Dan came to a word that he did not know he would not verbally try to sound out the word. If he did not know a word he did not attempt any strategies on how to say the word. He would wait for me to tell him the word so that he could move on to the next one. Sometimes when I would tell him the word he did not know he would repeat it back to me once I told him what it was. Dan did say the wrong words at times and sometimes they were close to what the word was. For instance he said mom instead of man or on instead of an. When administering the WJ III some of these very same behaviors were observed. I saw several times where Dan just would not respond if he did not know the answer. For instance when working on the section Letter-Word Recognition when the words got too hard he just would not respond. The same thing happened with other parts of the test as well. These behaviors were particularly observed before he would reach the ceiling of the test for him. I noticed that on the Understanding Directions portion of the test that he would point to the last thing that I had said. For instance, when I asked him to point to the person fishing, then cloud about tallest tree, Dan just pointed to the tree. He seemed to do this several times throughout that section. Although Dan did have some problems with this test he was always polite and would complete the work asked of him.

Curriculum Based Measurement of Word Reading:Baseline:Dan participated in three different word reading selections. The lists were chosen from a second grade reading list. Dan does know his letters and many words but does not do well when he does not already know the word. I used Easy CBM to get my list of words. His word reading assessment was timed for one minute. The number of words read correctly was as follows: 4, 4, and 9. The median number of words read correctly for Dan is four. After taking this number and comparing it to AimsWeb Dan is below 10% of the national average for second grade readers. The national average for 10% of students based from AimsWeb is 13 words per minute.When Dan was reading the words he was instructed to read them out loud. He was also told to read the words from left to right. If he did not know the word he would not respond, make an attempt quietly, or say the first letter of the word. After three seconds of no response, I would tell him the word. He would say the word after me and made no attempt to skip words. Dan did continue working until the timer went off. Based on these baseline probes by the end of the school year Dan should be reading at least 58 words per minute gaining 1.5 words per week.Intervention:During the intervention part Dan was given five more CBM probes from Easy CBM. The focus for these probes was still word reading. The same instructions were given to him as when administrating the baseline probes. I observed much of the same behaviors as noted before. During this part of the process, I continued with second grade level probes. This time he had the following words read correctly per minute: 2, 8, 10, 4, and 5. The data collected from the intervention shows the same level of performance when looking at AimsWeb during baseline collection of data. When looking at all of his scores Dans median score is four words correctly per minute. This is the same number as when baseline was collected. Looking at the scores during intervention it shows that for a few weeks Dan was actually increasing his words but then started to go back down. Even at Dans highest number of words per minute which was 10 he is still below 10% of his peers according to AimsWeb. The end of his probes showed that he was back to where he started during baseline. I think that this data and graph show that Dan will still needs additional help to reach his goal. I think that his current intervention may not be the best fit for Dan as well. Looking at the graph, Dan is not showing much progress. One day he almost reached the aimline but then the next two probes showed a drastic drop in performance. If Dan continues on the same progress as he is currently showing then he will not reach his goal of 58 words per minute. Based on these results a change needs to be made to Dans intervention. This graph shows that the current intervention is not going to help Dan reach his goal.

Level of Achievement:Before the WJIII test results are discussed, a brief explanation of scores is offered. In order to find out what scores are high, average, or low, they give the test to a large number of children across the country. The test is always presented in the same way to all children. The subjects percentile rank indicates the percentage of the children in the norm group who received the same scores or a lower score on the test. A special feature of the WJIII is the option to use either grade- or age-based norms. A grade equivalent reflects the subjects performance in terms of the grade level in the sample at which the average score is the same as the subjects score. An age equivalent score is similar to a grade equivalent, except that it reflects performance in terms of the age level in the sample at which the average score is the same as the subjects score. It is important to note that this does not mean that the subject is performing at the same level as that grade or age, only that the average score was the same as the sample. The ranges for the WJIII are as follows: High Average= SS 111 to 120 and % Rank 76 to 91Average= SS 90 to 110 and % Rank 25 to 75 Low Average = SS 80 to 89 and % Rank 9 to 24 Low = SS 70 to 79 and % Rank3 to 8 Very Low = SS 69 and below and % Rank 0.1 to 2

Test and Subtests Administered:Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement, Standard BatterySubtest Standard Score (68% confidence band) Percentile Ranks Grade Equivalent Age Equivalent

Letter-Word Identification25 (21-28)