What Happened to Using Data to Inform Instruction and Intervention in K–2?

1

EDVIEW360 Webinar, January 14, 2025

Barbara R Foorman, PhD, Emerita Kraft Professor of Education

Emerita Director, Florida Center for Reading Research

Past Director of the REL Southeast

Florida State University

Constructs Predicting Reading Success at Various Grades

Total percent of variance explained in reading comprehension decomposed into unique and common effects of language, decoding, and unexplained variance for Grades 1, 6, and 10.

K-2 Latent Literacy Profiles Associated with Reading Outcomes

FCRR Reading Assessment: VOC=Vocabulary Pairs; FD=Following Directions; PA=Phonological Awareness, LS=Letter Sounds); SC=Sentence Comprehension; WR=Word Reading; Spell=Spelling. Foorman, Petscher, Stanley, & Truckenmiller (2017). J of Research on Educational Effectiveness.

% Students in K-2 Latent Literacy Profiles

(Foorman, Petscher, Stanley, & Truckenmiller (2017). J of Research on Educational Effectiveness)

[VOC=Vocabulary Pairs; FD=Following Directions; PA=Phonological Awareness, LS=Letter Sounds); SC=Sentence Comprehension; WR=Word Reading; Spell=Spelling]

Review of Characteristics of Universal Screening

​

Universal Screening measures should be:

​

• Reliable: Tests are constructed to obtain consistent results; administration and scoring is standardized to increase reliability.

• Valid: Universal screening should have high predictive validity: they accurately predict which students are likely to fail to obtain grade level expectations without intervention to spoil these predictions of progress.

​

• Easy to administer, score, and interpret so that results are obtained quickly: Since the purpose of screening is to determine which students warrant further investigation and to provide responsive instruction, screening tools must provide results quickly so that additional assessment to diagnose academic strengths and needs can proceed in a timely manner.

​

• Triangulated with data from other sources: Sources could include teacher observations, school-level assessments, and district-level assessments.

Classification Accuracy

Sensitivity

[A/(A+C)]

Sample 2 x 2 Contingency Matrix for Considering Screening Accuracy

(Petscher, Kim, & Foorman, 2011)

Specificity

[D/(D+B)]

Positive predic-tive power

[A/(A+B)]

Negative predic-tive power

[D/(C+D)]

Diagnostic Efficiency Results (in Percentages)

From Petscher, Kim, & Foorman (2011) in Assessment for Effective Intervention

Note. Sample = 17,778 grade 2 students attending Reading First schools in FL. Demographics represented FL; ORF from DIBELS. Stanford Achievement Test and Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test; ROC curves set cut point for #1 at 48 and for #2 at 36.

No Screen has 100% Classification Accuracy

• Determine the goals for screening within available resources. Define “at risk.” Select outcome.
• Determine base rate in school, district, or state and examine positive and negative predictive power.
• If sufficient resources exist to intervene with all students predicted to fail outcome, then high sensitivity (& positive predictive power) are desired.
• If resources limited and “watchful waiting” adopted, then high specificity and negative predictive power better identify students with a low chance of developing a problem and needing intervention.

(Petscher, Kim, & Foorman, 2011)

Questions for Educators to Consider

• What are local definitions of risk and the base rate of classification accuracy calculated from current assessments?
• What supports are needed to meet current definitions of risk and base rate of classification accuracy (e.g., recruit more assessors; change classifications indices and/or cut points; change assessments)?
• When selecting new assessments, is the NCII website useful?
• How will assessment results be used to differentiate instruction, given classroom’s diverse academic skills? Is an RTI/MTSS plan in place?

​

Questions for Vendors to Consider

• What domains/constructs are measured?
• What is the diagnostic efficiency?
• How do results translate to instruction?
• Describe your PD for teachers and administrators on test administration and data interpretation.
• How quickly are assessment results reported to teachers and administrators?
• What evidence do you have that your test results predict proficiency on the State Grade 3 ELA test?

​

​

​

​

Assessment Challenges/Solutions

• Too many false positives
• Not diagnostic
• Takes too much time
• Lack of alignment to standards/instruction
• No link to progress monitoring
• No link to formatives

​

• Too many overlapping assessments

​

• Use Negative Predictive Power
• Use valid predictors
• Use computer-adaptive test
• Data translate to evidence-based instruction
• Screen/progress monitoring = interim assessment
• Assess learning with curriculum- based/formative tasks
• Streamline assessment system

Formative Assessments to Inform Classroom Literacy Instruction in Grades K-2

Based on evidence-based recommendations for instructional practice in the domains of:

• Academic Language (language of school, text)
• Phonemic awareness and letter-sound knowledge
• Decoding, spelling, and analyzing words
• Reading connected text for accuracy, fluency, and comprehension

Ideally state standards reflect these recommendations

[Foorman et al. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3^rd grade. WWC Practice Guide]

Word Pairs (K,1,2)

FORK

DESK

SPOON

Audio provides each word and box lights up as each word is said. Student clicks on 2 words that go together. PreK version includes a “picture assist”.

Sentence Structure (K, 1 , 2)

Click on the girl who is not sleeping.

Student hears sentence and computer captures response.

Following Directions (K, 1, 2)

Student hears pictures names and sentence. “Move the heart to the end of the row.” Computer captures response.

PA as Concept Development��

1. In K, identity-based teaching:

First sound of sand is /s/;

/s/ in sand and /s/ in sit are the same;

/s/ is represented by the letter s.

2. K-1 writing signals children’s awareness of the alphabetic principle. E.g., a typical progression for first-grade spelling is:

TGK, THIEK, TANGK, THINGK, THINK

semiphonetic-phonetic-transitional-conventional

Alphabetic Principle

This principle is not that letters represent speech sounds but rather that they represent the more remote phonological (and morphophonological) segments conveyed by speech sounds. …the spoken English word bag consists not of one segment but of three segments (differing from sag in the first, big in the second, and bat in the third) that happpen to be opaque in the surface sound and transparent only in the underlying phonology.

Lukatela & Turvey, 1998, p. 1070

K Letter-sounds

Blending (K, 1)

• Audio file pronounces word segments for each item. Teacher records student’s oral response as correct or incorrect

Deletion (K, 1)

Say ‘football’. Now say ‘football’ without ‘foot’

​

Say ‘cup’. Now say ‘cup’ without /k/.

​

• Audio file pronounces words. Teacher marks if student is correct

Letter–Sound Connections

Part one Audio (no picture): “What is the first sound in ‘pan?’”

Part two Audio (this screen): “Point to the letter that makes the /p/ sound?”

Recommendation 3: Teach students to decode words, analyze word parts, and write and recognize words.

• Action Step 2: Instruct students in common sound-spelling patterns.

Building words with Elkonin sound boxes

[Foorman, Beyler, et al., 2016]

Development of Word Recognition (Ehri, Perfetti)

Incidental

Visual

Cues

Letter

Name

Knowledge

​

​

Partial

Phoneme

Awareness

Recognition

Of

“chunks”

​

Grapheme-

Phoneme

Connections

​

​

More

Elaborated

Phoneme

Awareness

Sequential

Decoding and

Fluent Analogizing

To Larger Units

​

​

Phoneme,

Syllable,

Morpheme

Speech-Print

Connections

​

​

Phoneme and

Morpheme

Awareness

(context-dependent)

​

(initial letter,

salient consonants)

___________

​

NOVICE MATURE

LOGOGRAPHIC ALPHABETIC ALPHABETIC ORTHOGRAPHIC

Spelling Scope and Sequence: Grades 1-6�

• Single correspondence units (e.g., consonants, short vowels, consonant digraphs, consonant blends, long vowel silent-e, vowel combinations for long vowels, diphthongs, silent letter graphemes. (1-3)
• Inflectional morphology (plurals, past tense, etc.) (2-3)
• Conditional orthographic patterns and rules (e.g., qu; double f, l, s, z; simple consonant doubling, drop e, change y, ge/dge alternation, ch/tch; c, k, ck; hard and soft c and g). (2-3)
• Spelling oddities such as homophones, contractions, homographs, compounds, and unusual word forms. (2-3)
• Syllable constructions (e.g., closed, open, consonant-le, r-control vowels) and syllable juncture patterns explaining doubled letters (3-5)
• Derivational morphology (Latinate roots, suffixes, and prefixes, etc.) (5-6)
• Etmology (Greek vs. Latin-based morphology; foreign language influences (5-6).

​

K-1 Word Reading

Word Building (K, 1)

_ at

“If I put the letter ‘c’ here it says cat. Move one letter to make it say hat”

h c m t s p

Word Building (1, 2)

c a m p

“What is this word? Now, move a letter to make the word ‘cramp.’ Now make the word ‘cram’”

h s l r t n

My Day at the Farm

I am happy about going to school today. My class will visit a farm! I want to have fun at the farm with my teacher and friends.

When I get to school, my class will get on a bus. We must ride on the bus to the farm.

“Look,” said my friend, Sam. “There is the farm!”

We see lots of animals. We see pigs and cows. We see sheep and goats. We see horses.

“Stop that!” I said, as a goat chews on my pants!

We get to see baby animals at the farm. I feed a baby pig from a bottle. I feel happy when I take care of a baby animal.

I ride a horse at the farm. My friend, Sam, rides a pony.

“It is time to go,” said my teacher. “We can now write a story about our good day.”

Grade 1 Reading Passage

(Perfetti & Helder (2022)

�Comments or Questions?

bfoorman@fsu.edu

​

​

​

​

References

Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51.

Ehri, L. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading 18(1), 5-21.

Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C., Dimino, J., Furgeson, J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A., Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3^rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/21

Foorman, B., Petscher, Y., & Herrera, S. (2018). Unique and common effects of oral language in predicting reading comprehension in grades 1-10. Learning and Individual Differences, 63, 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.02.011

Foorman, B., Petscher, Y., Stanley, C., & Truckenmiller, A. (2017). Latent profiles of reading and language and their association with standardized reading outcomes in kindergarten through tenth grade. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(3), 619-645. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1237597

Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M.T. (1998). Reading in two alphabets. American Psychologist, 53(9), 1057-1072.

Petscher, Y., Kim, Y., Foorman, B. (2011). The Importance of predictive power in early

Screening assessments: Implications for placement in a response to intervention framework. Assessment for Effective Instruction, 36(3), 158-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508410396698

Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357-383.

Perfetti, C., & Helder, A. (2022). Progress in reading science: Word identification, comprehension, and universal perspectives. In M. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook, 2nd ed., pp. 5–35). Wiley-Blackwell.�

​

​