#seaccr Week 11: Data

My data consists of 3rd grade student AIMSweb fluency scores taken in September 2014 and November 2014. At the end of my project, after the students have used the iTalk app, I will gather the student’s AIMSweb scores again. In September the RTI staff in the school collected the student’s AIMSweb scores and in November I collected the student’s scores.

Most of the student’s fluency scores have increased. 16 out of 23 student’s fluency scores have increased; of those 16 students five have doubled their fluency score. Six out of 23 student’s scores have decreased, some by just a few words and others by 20 words or more. My data tells me that student’s most of the class is reading more fluently than they were in September. Most of the students are becoming more fluent readers.

Date of analysis:

Evaluator: Alison Gryga

Name of document: AIMSweb scores

Patterns:

Student name Sept. wpm Nov. wpm
Student 1 153 152
Student 2 136 111
Student 3 130 138
Student 4 120 124
Student 5 109 104
Student 6 108 116
Student 7 107 105
Student 8 105 82
Student 9 89 103
Student 10 78 105
Student 11 76 99
Student 12 72 84
Student 13 62 94
Student 14 61 80
Student 15 59 70
Student 16 50 100
Student 17 39 32
Student 18 38 78
Student 19 33 63
Student 20 31 38
Student 21 24 71
Student 22 15 17
Student 23 7 15

Themes:

Student #8 scores went down by almost 30 words per minute. The student with the lowest wpm, student #23, increased their score from 7 wpm to 15 wpm. This student is considered Tier 3 and receives 60 minutes of RTI reading tutoring instruction 4 times a week.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “#seaccr Week 11: Data

  1. It would be interesting to see if there are circumstances that explain why some of your students scores decreased such as attendance, illness, family issues, etc. I often wonder when I have a student whose performance drops during the course of the year. Many times, I find out later that these kids were going through a variety of difficulties. It’s good to see the improvement in a majority of your kids, especially the kids whose scores jumped up significantly after starting off low.

    • It is interesting for those whose scores decreased. A little decrease doesn’t alarm me i.e Student #1, especially since that student is reading 153 words per minute. For some of them I wonder if it was because they were not familiar with me.

  2. I, too, am interested in why scores would decrease. Attention span issues, where children are seated during testing, outside influences that may affect in addition to Scott’s thoughts. Are you planning to include any observations or student interviews in addition to this data?

    • Not sure about adding observations or interviews. I am trying to figure out how or why it would be good or bad for my project. I have been going into the room every Tuesday for an hour, while students use iTalk, so I have made some observations.

  3. It would have been neat to have a control group as well to see the difference in growth between users and non-users. Like your RIT student who gets extra reading time, the other student’s fluency should be growing since the beginning of the school year. I would be interested to see how much more in comparison to a class that is not using technology. Nicely done

  4. I wonder about those students whose rate has decreased: has their expression improved or gotten worse? In other words, they may read a little more slowly, but is that because they are slowing down to improve their expression, possibly as a result of listening to their recordings?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s