1. PM Interpretation 1
Progress Monitoring Interpretation
Math
By: Madison Hopkins
SED 372
Fall 2015
University of Texas

2. PM Interpretation 2
Student Information
Student Z is a 5th
grade Latino, male student, 10 years 5 months of age. He lives with
his parents where have not been any reports of important events or trauma within the
family. It has been reported that it does not appear that his educational difficulties are a
result of a cultural bias or lack of educational opportunity. The student has attended H
Elementary School since kindergarten and was initially referred for special education
services in of 2012 by his first grade teacher. The determinant for referral was initiated
after observed significant deficits throughout kindergarten indicated a possible learning
disability. His first grade teacher and the resource teacher informally assessed his
difficulty in phonological awareness affecting his achievement in fluency and
comprehension. Additionally, Student Z “fell behind his classmates” during math
instruction. Concluding eligibility screening for special education, Student Z was labeled
with a Learning Disability (LD) in reading and Math under IDEA 2004.
According to the IEP Team, Student Z can solve three digit addition and subtraction
problems with regrouping with 80% accuracy. Student Z is also able to multiply two
digits by two digits problems with the use of a multiplication chart including products of
factors 1-12. Student Z is able to divide a one digit into a three digit with a multiplication
chart and verbal prompt(s). It has been noted that Student Z struggles interpreting word
problems and place value.
Student Z is receiving special education services with a label of LD in reading and
math. In math, the student’s goal is as follows:

3. PM Interpretation 3
• Goal A: Given Supplemental Aids, oral administration, and special education
support, Student Z will master the concepts presented in the inclusion math class
with at least 70% mastery
Significant considerations contributed to deciding the measures of math to assess.
Because Student Z’s has an LD in reading, it is important that the chosen probe contains
little to no reading components to ensure the results truly reflect the progress of the skill
being assessed. Additionally, Student Z requires the accommodation of the use of a
multiplication chart for computing purposes. It would be inappropriate to administer a
probe that required the knowledge of fluent multiplication facts since it is expected that
he will use the accommodation in academic settings. As a result of these considerations,
it was decided that Numbers & Operations, found at EasyCBM.com, is the most
appropriate measure of math to assess.
When deciding the appropriate grade level probe to monitor the progress of Student
Z’s Math Fluency, a third grade Numbers & Operations probe, the grade level below the
student’s expected grade-appropriate level, found at EasyCBM.com was administered.
The results of this trial probe proved that third grade is the student’s grade- appropriate
level probe for assessing Numbers & Operations of Math, with a score equivalent to 50%.
Administration
The math probe assessed the student’s skills in Numbers & Operations of third
grade. Each probe contains 16 questions that require the student to choose of the three
provided answer choices. This probe did not require a time limit as the student is
expected to respond to all 16 questions. The number of correct responses per session was

4. PM Interpretation 4
recorded. An example of this probe is provided in the appendix.
Twice per week (if opportunity is available), Student Z was pulled out of the
resource classroom for assessment. The sessions were administered over a period of six
weeks including thanksgiving break when opportunity to assess was unavailable. I
explained the purpose of this assessment and the student’s role in participating.
Assessment sessions varied from five to 10 minutes in length and conducted in an empty
classroom with minimal distractions. Administration Procedures are as follows:
1. Student is given the directions, “You are going to answer 16
multiple choice math questions. When I say, ‘go,’ you will flip
over the paper and begin. Do your best quietly and independently.
When you are finished, you will flip the paper back over and raise
your hand.”
2. Student is given the probe face down.
3. Administrator says, “Go.”
4. Student completes probe, flips it back over, and raises his hand.
5. Administrator collects completed probe.
When scoring this assessment, the number of correct responses is recorded. That
is, the raw score is recorded for progress monitoring purposes. If the student omits an
answer choice, it is considered incorrect. If the student selects more than one answer
choice, it is considered incorrect. Scoring procedures provided by EasyCBM.com are
related to a percentile rank associated with the student’s raw score (EasyCBM Norm-
Referenced Interpretations, 2014). According to this site, “In all cases, this information

5. PM Interpretation 5
gives an indication of how a student is performing relative to the performance of other
students on that measure at that point in time,” (2014).
Measurement Graph
The graph below reflects the results of Student Z’s progress monitoring for the
measures of Numbers & Operations. The line shown in red, labeled Actual represents the
raw data points of each assessment session. The line shown in pink, labeled Trendline
represents the student’s current performance trajectory based on the baseline data and the
mean of the three most recent data points. The baseline assessment occurred over the first
three sessions as indicated in the graph below. The purple line labeled Aimline represents
the goal trajectory.
Results
As shown in the graph above, Student Z’s performance varied and he did not
reach the goal. The trendline begins at the raw score of 7.66, the mean of the baseline
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
10/27/15
10/29/15
10/31/15
11/2/15
11/4/15
11/6/15
11/8/15
11/10/15
11/12/15
11/14/15
11/16/15
11/18/15
11/20/15
11/22/15
11/24/15
11/26/15
11/28/15
11/30/15
12/2/15
# of Correct Responses
Assessment Session
Third Grade
Numbers & Operations Probe
Actual
Trendline
Aimline
Baseline

6. PM Interpretation 6
assessment, and ends at the raw score of 9.33, the mean of the three most recent data
points. This aimline begins at the raw score of 7.66, the mean of the baseline
assessments, and follows trajectory to the raw score considered to reflect proficiency, 12.
Although EasyCBM provides norm-referenced percentile ranks, it was decided that the
aimline would be based on the student’s IEP goal stated above. Mastery of his math goal
in the instruction of fifth grade content is considered 70% therefore proficiency in any
math probe is to be considered 70%. It is believed that an achievement of 70% correct
responses suggests that the student’s appropriate grade-level probe would the following
grade level. In relation to the performance goal of 70%, Student Z raw data points are
converted to percentage correct and rounded to the nearest one percent: 44%, 50%, 50%,
44%, 56%, 50%, 63%, 56%, 56%. The trendline indicates progress of 10% from the
baseline score to the mean scores of the three most recent sessions.
It should be noted that the last two assessment sessions that took place on
December 1, 2015 and December 2, 2015 occurred following administration of the State
of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading Practice Test. Due to
potential fatigue from the STAAR test, Student Z’s results in this probe may have been
affected, providing a regression of performance.
Student Z always participated willingly and appeared interested in the results of
the assessment. During the baseline assessment, the student frequently requested support.
As the administrator, I repeated the portion of the administration procedure stating, “Do
your best quietly and independently.” The remaining sessions were completed without
verbal requests for support.

7. PM Interpretation 7
Discussion
When preparing for, administrating, and interpreting the progress monitoring
assessment, I learned the importance of planning. It would have proved beneficial if I had
started monitoring progress earlier in the semester. If I started earlier, the last two data
points would have been more reliable because the student would not have been testing for
two hours prior to this assessment. Also, if I began assessing earlier in the semester, there
would be a more consistent schedule of sessions because we would not have been
interrupted by student holidays.
After interpreting the collected data, it is recommended that Student Z continue
receiving math intervention. One instructional suggestion is to provide concrete fraction
instruction using math manipulatives such as fraction tiles and/or two-colored counters.
This could prove to be beneficial as the current grade level probe assesses knowledge of
fraction concepts and the fifth grade curriculum focuses on “representing and solving the
addition and subtraction of fractions with unequal denominators referring to the same
whole using objects and pictorial models and properties of operations,” (§111.7. Grade 5,
2012).
It is also recommended that the student receive intervention of fractions through
the use of instructional games. The student could participate in the interactive read aloud
inspired by the book The Doorbell Rang by Pat Hutchins. In this book, the story follows
two children in the kitchen of their grandmother’s house. Grandma made cookies and the
children must divide them equally between each other. However, before the children can
dive in, the doorbell rings and in walks a various number of friends. The student listening
to the story participates in the guided practice and/or independent practice of sharing the

8. PM Interpretation 8
cookies equally among the children and their guests. Although the story is not age
appropriate for fifth grader Student Z, the story line can be easily modified to appeal to
the interests of the student.
Lastly, it is recommended that the student receive representational models of
fractions to use in his inclusion classroom. In order to transition from the concrete model
of fraction to the abstract concept, Student Z needs exposure to the representational
model. This includes pictures of the fraction tiles and/or prompts for the student to draw
the two-colored counters when appropriate. Access to this accommodation will provide
support to the student expectantly preventing missed content due to lack of prerequisite
skills such as fraction concepts.

9. PM Interpretation 9
Progress Monitoring Interpretation
Reading
By: Madison Hopkins
SED 372
Fall 2015
University of Texas

10. PM Interpretation 10
Student Information
Student P is a 4th
grade Caucasian, male student, 9 years 9 months of age. He lives
with his parents, his older sister, and older brother. There have not been any reports of
important events or trauma within the family. It has been reported that it does not appear
that his educational difficulties are a result of a cultural bias or lack of educational
opportunity. The student has attended H Elementary School since kindergarten and was
initially referred for special education services in March of 2014 by his second grade
teacher. The determinant for referral was initiated after Section 504 accommodations for
Dyslexia proved insufficient. The student’s second grade teacher believed his
unexpected, low academic performance was due to the student’s, “difficulty with focus.”
Student P’s mother contributed to this idea reporting, “[Student P] has difficulty
concentrating and can act in an impulsive manner.”
Concluding eligibility screening for special education, Student P was labeled with a
Learning Disability (LD) in reading under IDEA 2004. Upon entering the fall semester of
the third grade, Student P was diagnosed by a physician with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and prescribed a daily dose of related medication,
Vyvanse. While his teachers reported an immediate positive correlation between the
consumption of medication and academic performance, his mother decided to cease the
treatment due to negative side effects including loss of appetite and trouble sleeping.
Following a decrease in behavior and academic performance at the start the fourth grade,
student P resumed said medication in October of 2015. His teachers unanimously
observed that Student P’s performance across domains increased after resuming the

11. PM Interpretation 11
ADHD medication. Similar to previous trials, negative side effects returned however
instead of ceasing medication altogether, the student’s mother and physician adjusted the
dosage to a more balanced outcome.
Student P is receiving special education services with a label of LD in reading. In
Language Arts, the student’s goals are as follows:
• Goal A: Given passages and novels in the resource classroom, Student P will
answer comprehension questions on the 3rd
grade level with at least 70% mastery.
o STO A: Given passages and novels in the resource classroom, Student P will
answer comprehension question on the 2nd
grade level with at least 70%
mastery.
• Goal B: Student P will read a story or passage on a 4th
grade level at 100 words
per minute.
o STO B: Paris will read a story on a 3rd
grade level at 100 words per minutes.
Student P is a curious and creative student. When motivated, he often shows
effort in inquiry and will openly relate content to personal experiences and previously
learned information. He seems to be like by his peers and makes friends easily. It was
reported that the student, “makes good use of picture clues to derive meaning from text.”
Student P shows strengths in language and oral communication. It was also reported that
the student’s mother expressed that the student is a sweet child and has a very strong
personality. In the areas of cognitive processing according to WJ-III, the student shows
strengths in crystalized intelligence, visual processing, long-term storage & retrieval,
auditory processing, and fluid reasoning skills.

12. PM Interpretation 12
Student P shows difficulty in areas affected by his ADHD. According to the
resource teacher, “[Student P is] extremely immature [and has] severe academic issues
due to attention problems.” It has been observed that when the student is confused or
does not know what to do/how to do something, he often “acts silly” instead of asking for
help.
In skills related to reading, Student P shows deficits. It has been summarized that
he does not read beyond words that he is unable to decode in order to use context clues. It
was also noted that the student often leaves off the suffix of words and loses his place
while reading.
Student P was assessed for oral reading fluency using the measures and
procedures of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). Student P
fluently reads at a rate of 93 words per minute (WPM) when provided administration of a
2nd
grade DIBELS passage at the end of his 3rd
grade year. For progress monitoring
purposes, DIBELS was chosen because it assesses the skill deficit, reading fluency.
Administration
The reading probe DIBELS assessed the student’s oral reading fluency skills with
passages appropriate for the student’s appropriate grade-level, the third grade. Each probe
consists of a reading passage where the student is expected to orally read with accuracy at
their best pace/rate for one minute. The score is derived from the number of correct
words read per minute. Correct words read per minute is calculated by subtracting the
incorrect words from the total number of words read in the allotted minute. According to
An example of this probe is provided in the appendix.
Twice per week (if opportunity is available), Student P was pulled out of the

13. PM Interpretation 13
resource classroom for assessment. The sessions were administered over a period of six
weeks including thanksgiving break when opportunity to assess was unavailable. I
explained the purpose of this assessment and the student’s role in participating.
Assessment sessions lasted approximately 1 minute in length as this was a timed probed
and administration procedures are quick by design. Assessments were conducted in an
empty classroom with minimal distractions. According to Good, Kaminski, & Dill
(2007), administration procedures are as follows:
1. Student is given a passage with the directions, “Please read this (point) out loud.
If you get stuck, I will tell you the word so you can keep reading. When I say,
‘Stop,’ I may ask you to tell me about what you read, so do your best reading.
Start here (point to the first word of the passage). Begin.”
2. Administrator starts stopwatch when the student says the first word of the
passage.
3. At the end of one minute, place bracket (]) after the last word provided by the
student, stop and reset stopwatch, and say, “Stop.”
4. Administrator removes passage and calculates CWPM.
When scoring this assessment, the number of correct responses is recorded. If the
student omits a word while reading, it is considered incorrect. If the student reads a word
incorrectly, it is considered incorrect. If the student does not read a word within three
seconds, the administrator gives the word to the student and the word is considered
incorrect. If the student self-corrects, the word is considered correct. If the student
pronounces a word differently than expected due to a different in dialect, the word is
considered correct.

14. PM Interpretation 14
DIBELS was chosen as the progress-monitoring probe per Cooperating Resource
Teacher request. The Cooperating Resource Teacher provided the assessment materials
for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF). This specific probe is believed to be
appropriate for Student P because his prior data was collected using DIBELS. Due to the
Cooperating Resource Teacher insistence, the third grade level passages are considered to
be the student’s appropriate grade level.
Measurement Graph
The graph below reflects the results of Student P’s progress monitoring for the
measures of Oral Reading Fluency. The line shown in red, labeled Actual represents the
raw data points, Correct Words per Minute, of each assessment session. The line shown
in pink, labeled Trendline represents the student’s current performance trajectory based
on the baseline data and the mean of the three most recent data points. The baseline
assessment occurred over the first three sessions as indicated in the graph below. The
purple line labeled Aimline represents the goal trajectory.
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
10/27/15
10/29/15
10/31/15
11/2/15
11/4/15
11/6/15
11/8/15
11/10/15
11/12/15
11/14/15
11/16/15
11/18/15
11/20/15
11/22/15
11/24/15
11/26/15
11/28/15
11/30/15
12/2/15
Correct Words Per Minute (CWPM)
Assessment Session
3rd Grade
DIBELS Reading Fluency Probe
Actual
Trendline
Aimline
Baseline

15. PM Interpretation 15
Results
As shown in the graph above, Student P’s performance varied and he did not
reach the goal. The trendline begins at the raw score of 91 CWPM, the mean of the
baseline assessment, and ends at the raw score of 95 CWPM, the mean of the three most
recent data points. This aimline begins at the raw score of 91 CWPM, the mean of the
baseline assessments, and follows trajectory to the raw score considered to reflect
proficiency, 100 CWPM. It was decided that the aimline would be based on the student’s
Short Term Objective stated above with mastery considered to be 100 CWPM. It is
believed that an achievement of 100 CWPM in a third grade level DIBELS passage
suggests that the student’s appropriate grade-level probe would the following grade level,
fourth grade.
It should be noted that the second to last assessment session that took place on
December 1, 2015 occurred following administration of the State of Texas Assessment of
Academic Readiness (STAAR) Reading Practice Test. Due to potential fatigue from the
STAAR test and the student’s limited attentional resources, the results of this session may
have been affected.
Discussion
When preparing for, administrating, and interpreting the progress monitoring
assessment, I learned the importance of planning. It would have proved beneficial if I had
started monitoring progress earlier in the semester. If I started earlier, the second to last
data point would have been more reliable because the student would not have been
testing for two hours prior to this assessment. Also, if I began assessing earlier in the
semester, there would be a more consistent schedule of sessions because we would not
have been interrupted by student holidays.

16. PM Interpretation 16
One instructional recommendation to be made is for Student P to receive more
intervention in Basic Language Skills (BLS). BLS is the intervention of choice by the
Cooperating Resource Teacher and is provided when time allows. Further, the
administration of this intervention is not consistent and the duration does not seem to be
long enough. I think if the student received BLS as intended by the creators, the student’s
performance in oral reading fluency skills would show progress.
Another instructional recommendation consists of practicing sight words. It would
benefit the student’s automaticity to practice Tier II words in a game format. When
presented with an unfamiliar word, the instructor will provide the correct pronunciation
and the meaning. Then, the student will repeat the word and assign a physical
shape/position for the word related to its meaning using his body. After the student
assigns a shape/position for at least three words, the instructor will call out a word and
the student is expected to fall into the assigned position. This activity would be
appropriate for 1:1, small group, or whole group instruction. By associating the word
with audial and physical attributes, the student is more likely to recognize it upon
reading.
Lastly, repeated reading will likely improve Student P’s oral reading fluency
skills. Often times it has been observed that the student is “skipped” when reading aloud
due to his frequent hesitations and slow pace. More opportunities for repeated oral
reading will build the student’s self esteem and provide exposure to unfamiliar words
through guided practice. Given that his language arts resource class consists of six
students, the small group setting provides ample opportunity for corrective feedback and
individualized guided practice.

17. PM Interpretation 17
REFERENCES
Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A., & Dill, S. (2007). DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency. In R H. Good & R. A.
Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills (6th
Ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for
the Development of Educational Achievement. Available: http://dibels.uoregon.edu/
Interpreting EasyCBM Test Results. (2014, August 5). Retrieved November 28, 2015, from
https://app.easycbm.com/static/files/pdfs/info/ProgMonScoreInterpretation.pdf

18. PM Interpretation 18
APPENDIX

19. PM Interpretation 19

20. PM Interpretation 20

21. PM Interpretation 21

22. PM Interpretation 22