Quantitative Evidence
My students participate in the FastBridge (FAST) early reading assessment, specifically the Onset Sound probe. This evidence-based assessment is used to screen and monitor student progress, and identifies skill deficits in the area of phonemic awareness. Students are administered the benchmark in the fall, winter, and spring. I find this assessment informative in two significant ways. First, the assessment gives me a clear indication of students’ pre-reading skill development, and their acquisition of letter sounds and initial sounds through concrete data points. Additionally, observing students’ behaviors while participating in the probe helps me document the qualitative features in their "pre-reading", which informs my future instruction. Some of the “reading behaviors” we target are one-to-one correspondence (sound to word), pointing to the word or picture, and correct articulation of a given letter or initial sound. Most significantly, the assessment is developmentally appropriate and I use the information in an open air data share-out in order to celebrate and recognize student progress. Academic gains are the "ultimate door opener" for positive student outcomes, so it is my responsibility to not only ensure students understand the assessment, but that they have a strong foundation of phonemic awareness, built by dynamic instructional methods.
Overview of FAST
FAST is a nationally recognized, curriculum based measurement that is aligned to Common Core State Standards, and used in conjunction with a larger Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) on our campus. These assessments support the framework for an effective response-to-intervention and MTSS using evidence-based reading, math, and behavioral screening and progress monitoring, computer generated reports, and research-based decision-making tools. The data derived from these assessments serves as an anchor for collaboration with my team around effective practices and ongoing data-driven decision-making.
While FAST offers several early reading assessments, my students participate in the Onset-Sound probe, which measures their ability to identify and apply initial sound knowledge. Onset sound is one building block in the foundation of phonemic awareness, and is a precursor to students’ abilities to decode unknown words. A strong understanding of phonemic awareness skills, such as initial sounds, onset, and rhyme ensures that students are prepared for the rigorous phonics instruction they will receive during their early elementary years. The data gained from this measure is a raw number out of 16, and is ranked by FAST in one of three categories of risk: high, some, and low. These indications allow me to target not only specific students, but also group students according to need and likeness.
Conveying this information to students and their families is particularly important in order to invest them further in progress towards their goals. I like to tell parents that phonemic awareness is "the sound that you would hear when you’re asked a question in the dark”. The skill has nothing to do with what the student sees or if they can name a letter or word-it requires them to isolate a specific sound after they are given an oral prompt. Therefore, this skill can easily be practiced and adapted in every-day situations, and is a simple exercise parents can engage their students in order to support their reading development, in preparation for college and career readiness.
For more information about FastBridge assessments, visit the website http://www.fastbridge.org/assessments/
FAST Sample Questions
The document below includes an administrator guide on how to question the student during test administration, as well as multiple student practice items. These sample questions guide me when designing appropriate instructional material, as well as plan for informal opportunities in which to reinforce the skills assessed during this probe. The document includes the student materials for a sample measure, which illustrates four images. When shown the four images, the student is asked to select (by voice or pointing) the picture that makes a given sound.
FAST Scoring Chart
The early reading measures for FAST have been normed and “benchmark standards (i.e., “cut scores” or “targets”) are built into the system to assist in determining which students are at risk for academic failure, on target for success, or may need enrichment instruction” (FastBridge Learning, 2018). Students’ scores from the assessment are banded within a range and categorized according to the level of “risk” that the deficit places them in, in that given moment of instruction. In order to be “kindergarten ready”, students need to be in the Low Risk band by the end of the year, meaning they have the foundational skills necessary to begin phonics instruction. Students, therefore, need to score a 12 or higher in order to be in the "low risk" band. These bands help me determine which students need the most intensive support, as well as what specific strategies I will utilize in order to provide that instructional support.
Data and Analysis
Below, I included my students' FAST On-set sound data from the beginning and end of the 2016-2017 school year. The data below spans from the beginning-of-year (BOY) to the end-of-year (EOY), and demonstrate significant levels of academic growth. BOY data indicates that initial sound proficiency was extremely low, with 100% of students classified in the lowest tier, or within “High Risk” band. Unfamiliarity with the testing conditions can also play a factor in the baseline data, given students’ age. However, by year’s end only 2/7 of students tested at the lowest level, and it should be noted that these two students have moderate learning exceptionalities and are non-verbal at present time. I am proud to showcase that by year’s end, in addition to the lowest tier shifting significantly, the highest scoring band grew to include 57% of the tested students.
Overall, my pre-Kindergarten students grew from an average score of 2 points (or 2 correct initial sounds) at the beginning of the year to an average of 8 points (or 8 correct initial sounds) at the end of the year. This tremendous 6 points (on average) showed incredible growth and moved my students from scoring in a High Risk band, to a Low Risk Band.
The chart above serves as a tracker for BOY and EOY benchmarks, as well as intermittent progress monitoring. Student 4 transferred into class later in the year, and is missing pre-test data. Therefore, Checkpoint 2 serves as the first data point for Student 4. *signifies a non-verbal student, for which testing accommodations (such as pointing) were provided.
The bar graph above illustrates students' growth from their BOY benchmark scores (blue), administered in the fall, to their EOY benchmark scores, administered in the spring (red).
Evaluating BOY and EOY data provides a window into student fluency with specific sounds and question formation. For instance, I analyzed if students could more accurately respond to an identification question (i.e. Which one begins with /n/?) versus a question that required them to articulate the sound independently (i.e. What’s the first sound in the word “pan”?). Through the use of high impact teaching methods, I was able to embed multiple aspects of phonemic awareness into my instruction, particularly during “non-instructional” times, such a transitions and our daily routines, like morning meeting. Additionally, identifying students' strengths and weaknesses allowed me to share specific strategies with their parents and families, so they too could reinforce phonemic awareness at home. These phonemic awareness skills are critical to students' early reading development, and their subsequent success in Kindergarten, so connecting with families helped them understand the rigor that is expected of their children on the path to college and career readiness.
Because of these teaching methods, the area of phonemic awareness showed an increase in student understanding. Content that I explicitly taught showed even more dramatic growth, in particular letter sound knowledge. As evidence, at the start of the 2016 school year, 42% of students tested knew 10 or less letter sounds; by the end of the same school year, 87% of tested students could articulate 20 or more letter sounds. The first chart below shows students’ raw scores in letter naming for both lower and uppercase letters, as well as letter sound production (in isolation) from the Fall Benchmark.
By the EOY Spring Benchmark, students' overall ability in letter naming and more significantly their acquisition of letter sounds had grown more than 10 points (or 10 letters) per student, as shown in the chart below.
Application of letter-sound knowledge and the accurate articulation of letter sounds is a critical building block in a student's overall phonemic awareness. Having a strong foundation of letter sound relationships is crucial to scaffolded exercises, and necessary for students to be successful in isolating and identifying onset sounds, such as they are asked to do on the FAST assessment.
Individual Examples of Student Growth
Utilizing standardized test scores to evaluate student progress sometimes does not take into account the “whole child”, neglecting their individual strengths, and growth in quality of their responses. Standardized test scores for early childhood can conceal students’ acquisition of oral language expression, aside from their listening comprehension. However, when using FAST data, I am able to assess each student individually and plan lessons and academic feedback accordingly.
The images below are Individual Student assessments from Fall 2016 to Spring 2017. Individual student assessments give a deeper look at each child’s specific deficits and patterns of behavior. Analyzing these probes allows me to conference individually with students about meeting their short-term and annual goals. Additionally, this format of progress monitoring gives me something concrete to present to parents and provides context into their child's learning, reading readiness, or academic interventions.
These reports are used as one piece of data that determines their placement in subsequent academic years, in order to build well-balanced classes. Using these physical tests, including all of their progress monitoring probes, I am able to better project a student's progress and performance when looking at their past and present results and when setting future goals. I can analyze a student’s pattern of errors in order to plan for anticipated misunderstanding or see if their growth is consistent and linear. As shown on the individual data reports below, I am able to reflect on how my students performed on these phonemic awareness measures and plan accordingly for more rigorous early reading instruction.
Below are the physical materials from the FAST Onset Sound assessment, from the BOY and EOY, as well as a mid-year checkpoint in between, for two specific students, Student 4 and Student 7. Each student has documented and identified learning exceptionalities, and has an IEP.
The first page of the document shows that Student 4 above tested 0/16 on the BOY benchmark for Onset Sounds. Her test above illustrates the test administration was discontinued after 4 incorrect answers and/or no response. Her EOY benchmark demonstrates her dramatic academic growth in the area of phonemic awareness, as she correctly responds to 13 out 16 interrogatives.
This student, Student 7, struggled to comprehend testing directions and evaluate choices during the BOY benchmark, scoring a 5/16. This initial score placed him in the High Risk band. However, by year's end, Student 7 raised his scored by 7 points, growing to a 12/16, and moved to the Low Risk Band. Notably, in his EOY assessment, he demonstrated strong self-correction skills, as a result of dynamic instructional strategies.
Conclusion
I effectively utilize the FAST Onset Sound assessment to drive significant academic growth for all of my students. I analyze data across multiple benchmarks as well as several progress monitoring cycles, for both the whole class, as well as individual students. Doing so allows me to target specific behaviors and deficits by providing tailored academic feedback and dynamic instructional methods. By targeting each student's specific academic needs, I am able to adjust and differentiate instruction to meet the needs of all of my students.
Implementing data-driven instruction has resulted in tremendous academic growth for my students. At the beginning of the year, 100% of students scored below grade level expectations and were categorized as High Risk, while by the end of the school year, only 42% remained in the High Risk band. This significant amount of growth ensures that my students are academically ready for the rigorous expectations of kindergarten and beyond.