A Scholarly Analysis of Dibels and Map – Themes, Subtopics, and Emerging Issues

A Scholarly Analysis of Dibels and Map – Themes, Subtopics, and Emerging Issues

Standardized testing in the early years of schooling has emerged as a burning issue in recent years. With the increased usage of higher frequency and high-stakes testing like DIBELS and MAP, there have been concerns raised over the effects of the tests in the context of the learning-teaching processes in K-3 classrooms (Liebfreund et al., 2022). Some of the risks associated with these assessments include putting up barriers and stigma largely informed by students’ performance and teaching to that test (Justice et al., 2022). Additionally, the high-stakes assessments have been deemed to have adverse effects on students stressing themselves, which, in turn, affects their performance academically and emotionally.

Another issue is the relationship between the K-3 program of study and the content and structure of the state tests. One study found that the curriculum is insufficient to prepare students for testing needs, which places young learners at a disadvantage and may demoralize them (Little, 2020). This literature research will discuss these and other relevant concerns related to DIBELS, MAP, and other standardized tests useful in early elementary education with the aim of evaluating the existing research and potential research questions. Therefore, the literature review paper aims, through a critical review of the current body of knowledge, to offer a clear understanding of the multifaceted relationships between assessment practices, teaching, and learning, as well as the specificities of young learners’ requirements.

The Impact of DIBELS and MAP Assessments on Teaching and Learning

Formative and summative tests, like the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), and Measures of Academic Progress (MAP), among others, are commonplace in early elementary teachers from kindergarten to grade eight (Teale et al., 2020). Such formative assessments are used to track students’ learning and bring out teaching decisions, but their effectiveness in the teaching-learning process is contentious.

The Challenges of DIBELS and MAP Assessments

Studies have revealed several issues regarding the analysis of the DIBELS and MAP tests in the early grades. One dilemma that one can raise is the discrepancy between these standardized tests and the present curriculum (Little, 2020). Research has determined that what is measured by these tests rarely corresponds to the content and organization of learning activities and instructional methods used in many first-grade classrooms (Justice et al., 2022; Liebfreund et al., 2022). Moreover, the management of the DIBELS and MAP assessments through digital platforms has been suggested to present students with hurdles when accessing computers and/or when the students are limited in English proficiency (Khasawneh, 2022). These are unfavorable conditions that can distort the results of the tests and give a distorted picture of the child’s capabilities.

The Impact on Teaching and Learning

The disconnect between curriculum and standardized assessment, compounded by the stakes that the tests carry, has potentially far-reaching consequences regarding instructional and learning practices in elementary classrooms (Relyea et al., 2024). Teachers reportedly end up preparing students for tests, which in some cases may even reduce creativity, limited time for child-directed learning, or even discovery learning. This shift in instructional focus can also produce negative organizational effects, for instance, widening existing gaps in student achievement or putting certain categories of learners, like those coming from low-income families or learners with limited English proficiency, at a disadvantage (Petersen et al., 2020). This shows the need for a more balanced and fair assessment and pedagogy in the early years of schooling.

Literature Review

A foundational part of the reading instruction and the remedial approach is the identification or evaluation of the student’s reading skills. Hoover and Tunmer (2020) introduced the cognitive foundations framework, which presents a detailed, procedural characterization of the nature of reading development and reading skills. It can also be used to examine and plot present-day reading tests and consequently allow the educator to get an understanding of the exact skills and abilities the test is measuring.

Hoover and Tunmer (2020) also prove through the analysis of a school district in the United States that learning can be based on the CFF with an estimation of the assessment trends. They state that enumerated assessments that are related to reading in the district are not as well-mapped as the assessment battery that is administered to elementary students to determine their reading proficiency. By embedding the assessments into the framework, the authors were able to unveil the specific cognitive demands mapped by each of the measures, as well as the regularities of the district’s assessment design. This kind of analysis may be beneficial to teachers to confirm that the type of assessment they are implementing is compatible with skills facilitating the process of reading.

Attempts at anchoring the reading tests with the Cognitive Foundations Framework have been made in other settings. Abernathy (2019) described an analysis of a Tier 2 intervention to boost students’ DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) standards as early literacy screening tools. The various DIBELS assessments can be aligned with the Cognitive Foundations Framework to know the exact skills targeted and how these correspond to the broad area of reading development. Such knowledge could be used to implement specific interventions geared towards specific needs that have been observed.

The need to relate the reading assessments to the basic cognitive processes realized in reading can be further justified based on the findings of the validity and classification studies. Kim et al. (2021) also noted that content literacy instruction in the first grade boosted not only comprehension but also science content knowledge as well as reading motivation, extrapolating that the construct of reading competence is indeed multifaceted. Koller et al. (2022) thus looked at the classification accuracy of early literacy assessments for performance from preschool to kindergarten level in order to stress the importance of assessments that cover all domains of skills that are necessary for reading. That way, educators can match all the used and planned assessments to the Cognitive Foundations Framework and make sure that the assessment practices are effective and cover all the requisite cognitive skills for proficient reading.

Skibbe et al. (2020) introduced the access to literacy assessment system for phonological awareness (ALASA-PA), a new individually administered adaptive measure for students with speech and/or language disorders. Relative to the research questions, the researchers were able to demonstrate whether, through the alignment with the CFF, the ALASA-PA has the capacity to point out phonological awareness competencies in children with and without speech and language impairment. Hence, this research underlines the importance of developing and employing proper and relevant assessments in accordance with the student’s deficits and types of profiles, and the CFF is an excellent guide for such processes.

Scherr Jr (2021) collected data regarding assessment tools applicable in RtI with emphasis on the Map Reading Probe. In contexts of outcome prediction within an RtI framework, Scherr Jr. (2021) discussed how the Map Reading Probe might be used, as well as its potential value for tiered instruction/intervention planning. In the context of RtI, the application of the CFF can support the process of teachers harmonizing the assessment practices such that these systems are grounded within an understanding of the cognitive processes relevant to learning to read.

References

Abernathy, R. K. (2019). The Effects of a Systematic Tier 2 Intervention on Kindergartners’ Dibels Benchmarks.

Hoover, W. A., Tunmer, W. E., Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2020). Assessments and the Cognitive Foundations Framework. The Cognitive Foundations of Reading and Its Acquisition: A Framework with Applications Connecting Teaching and Learning, 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44195-1_10

Justice, L. M., Jiang, H., Purtell, K. M., Lin, T. J., & Ansari, A. (2022). Academics of the early primary grades: Investigating the alignment of instructional practices from pre-K to third grade. Early Education and Development, 33(7), 1237-1255.

Khasawneh, M. (2022). The relationship of curriculum, teaching methods, assessment methods, and school and home environment with learning difficulties in the English language from the student’s perspectives. Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research, 3(1), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v3i1.51

Kim, J. S., Burkhauser, M. A., Mesite, L. M., Asher, C. A., Relyea, J. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Elmore, J. (2021). Improving reading comprehension, science domain knowledge, and reading engagement through a first-grade content literacy intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(1), 3. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/edu0000465

Koller, K. A., Hojnoski, R. L., & Van Norman, E. R. (2022). Classification accuracy of early literacy assessments: Linking preschool and kindergarten performance. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 48(1), 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084221081091

Liebfreund, M. D., Porter, S. R., Amendum, S. J., & Starcke, M. A. (2022). Using an assessment system for data-driven reform: Effects of mCLASS on third-grade reading test scores and special education placement. The Elementary School Journal, 122(3), 341-360. https://doi/abs/10.1086/717952

Little, M. (2020). Educators’ views on the location of pre-K programs and its relation to features of P-3 alignment: An exploratory study. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, 105455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105455

Mark, R. S. (2019). Predictability of Curriculum-based Reading Measures for Statewide Test Performance.

Petersen, D. B., Mesquita, M. W., Spencer, T. D., & Waldron, J. (2020). Examining the effects of multitiered oral narrative language instruction on reading comprehension and writing: A feasibility study. Topics in Language Disorders, 40(4), E25-E39. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0000000000000227

Relyea, J. E., Kim, J. S., Rich, P., & Fitzgerald, J. (2024). Effects of Tier 1 Content Literacy Intervention on Early-Grade English Learners’ Reading and Writing: Exploring the Mediating Roles of Domain-Specific Vocabulary and Oral Language Proficiency.

Scherr Jr, R. J. (2021). The Map Reading Probe’s Effectiveness in Predicting Performance Within an RtIISystem.

Skibbe, L. E., Bowles, R. P., Goodwin, S., Troia, G. A., & Konishi, H. (2020). The access to literacy assessment system for phonological awareness: An adaptive measure of phonological awareness appropriate for children with speech and/or language impairment. Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 51(4), 1124-1138. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-19-00006

Teale, W. H., Whittingham, C. E., & Hoffman, E. B. (2020). Early literacy research, 2006–2015: A decade of measured progress. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(2), 169-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798418754939

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Before starting the Signature Assignment, be sure you have sourced at least 15 current (within the past five years) empirical, theoretical, or conceptual articles. Review Week 2’s content if you need a refresher on article types.

A Scholarly Analysis of Dibels and Map – Themes, Subtopics, and Emerging Issues

In the Signature Assignment, you will present a developed scholarly discussion of the main topic/themes and related subtopics supported by the research sources. This should include a summary and synthesis analysis of issues that arose from the interpretation of the research. This will result in a developed 8 to 12-page paper using a framework of APA-style headings and subheadings that indicate the themes derived from the scholarly research resources.