DIBELS

I performed the Dibels assessment on a 2nd grader. I used the Nonsense Word Fluency benchmark (beginning of the year). The second assessment that I used is the Oral Reading Fluency benchmark (beginning of the year) exam ("My Handprints").

NWF
--
First, I used the Nonsense Word Fluency benchmark (beginning of the year) exam. The student 51 letter sounds per minute. The observations that were returned to me were:

Stage 1 -
Has isolated letter-sound correspondences but lacks a systematic strategy for attacking unknown words.
Stage 2 -
Produces correct consonant sounds; incorrect vowel sounds.

The benchmark scores was listed as "Established", so reinforcement activities were deemed optional.

Plan of Action:
If I'm understanding this assessment correctly, this 2nd grader is essentially fine with the exception of some minor miscues. That being said, I would work on stringing sounds together with the student. This would satisfy the two observations that were presented.

Reflection:
I can honestly say that I do not agree with the tool, or the idea behind NWF examination. There are too many variables that can come into play. Yes, the test seems simple, but that is to an adult who has fully matured mentally. This is a 2nd grader that we're dealing with in this instance. He's still advancing his knowledge of the language, so his knowledgebase of words isn't all that big to begin with.

I do not see the logic behind using fake words to assess whether, or not, he can produce sounds properly. He has to completely abandon his instincts in certain cases to get these words right. Some of these nonsense words resemble actual words, so that can be confusing. If his instincts are telling him that a word should have a long "e" sound instead of a short "e" sound he will get that word wrong. I just feel like it can be too confusing to the student at times.

Overall, The tool in itself is great. But I do not like the NWF assessment. It's not something that I would administer to a student. If I were to do something similar, I would use real words that a student is likely to come across at some point in the future. At least they will see double the benefit this way.

ORF
--
The student scored a 95% accuracy rating. His Oral Reading Fluency score was 86 words per minute. The RTF score was 22 words per minute. Overall, he scored as Low Risk.

Observations:
1. Frequent errors on irregular/sight words
2. Frequent errors on multisyllabic words
3. Makes no attempt to sound out unfamiliar words

Reflection:

I actually think that the ORF tool can be a bit useful, so long as you make your own observations. The observations listed above were given to me by the Dibels program. I don't agree that He made no attempt to sound out unfamiliar words. In fact, he tried so much that it took up valuable seconds of his time to read the passage. I should've just told him the word(s) so that he could move one, but I wanted to see if he could get it on his own.

However, I do agree that he struggles mightily with multisyllabic words. One word that he got wrong is "beautiful". Personally, I think that this is a word that he should've been exposed to by now. The only thing that could credit his error to is a possible lack of confidence with long words. I noticed that started to read slower as he approached that word. It was almost as if he was hoping that I'd stop him before he reached it.

Overall, I like the ORF tool. I think that I can actually be quite useful. My only reservation is that I wouldn't simply accept the observations that the Dibels provides you with as absolute truth. Everything cannot be accurately quantified by the touch of a stylus. I would use the ORF Dibels assessment, but I would be sure to form my own conclusions in conjunction with the observations provided to me by the program.