http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/ en rcapone@letsgolearn.com Copyright 2011 2011-12-09T16:31:24+00:00 http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/what_is_i-ready/ http://www.letsgolearn.com/site/what_is_i-ready/#When:16:31:24Z There has been a lot of confusion about iReady.  Curriculum Associates, our reseller until 12/31/2012, created iReady to compete with DORA and DOMA.  However, iReady originated as a test-prep product, so it is not diagnostic like DORA and DOMA.  It is advertised as a quick assessment and thus needs to be evaluated carefully in that light if your school is considering using it.  Unfortunately, Curriculum Associates has published multiple promotional pieces that misrepresent their relationship with DORA and DOMA.  In these pieces, they imply that they own DORA and DOMA and are the makers of these great products.  They say or imply that iReady is the upgrade to DORA and DOMA.  Make no mistake:  these statements are not true!  DORA and DOMA were developed by Let's Go Learn under the direction of our co-founder, Dr. Rick McCallum of U.C. Berkeley. i-Ready is a separate product published by Curriculum Associates.  DORA and DOMA were developed by Let's Go Learn and are currently sold both by Curriculum Associates and directly by Let's Go Learn. General FAQs 2011-12-09T16:31:24+00:00 http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/how_does_lets_go_learn_determine_standards_mastery/ http://www.letsgolearn.com/site/how_does_lets_go_learn_determine_standards_mastery/#When:17:01:46Z It is important to first differentiate between content standards and performance standards.  Content standards are the type of standards adopted by states or localities to identify what a student should know and be able to do.  Performance standards are measures of how well a student is meeting the content standards; they may be informal classroom observations, rubrics, or even more formal assessments.  Let’s Go Learn’s DORA and DOMA provide, essentially, criterion-referenced (scores that are provided in an accepted unit, in this case, grade levels) performance standard measurements.  In order to create the State Standards reports, LGL’s performance standard measures must be aligned to the specific content standards, which can differ widely by state. For the State Standards reports, Let’s Go Learn uses teams of credentialed reading and math specialists to align state content standards to the performance measures used by DORA and DOMA.  Because of the adaptive nature of DORA and DOMA, the alignment procedures differ based on the subtest specifications.  Alignment protocol also varies from state to state, as there is no accepted norm for the format of state content standards. Mastery of state standards, as reported on the State Standards Reports, is based on mastery levels in DORA and DOMA.  Mastery is determined by the mastery of each corresponding construct or subtest aligned to the standard.  At times, performance on a construct of leveled test items is aligned to the content standards.  For example, in DOMA, the performance on construct 24 (Multi-digit addition) of the Numbers subtest would be aligned directly to state standards addressing that particular skill.  At other times, the overall performance on a subtest is aligned to the content standards.  For example, in DORA, student performance on the High Frequency Words subtest would be aligned directly to state reading/language arts standards.  DORA mastery ranges from 66% to 75%, depending on the number of items within the construct or subtest, which usually varies from 3 to 10 items, depending on the complexity of the construct and the how many items the student sees, as controlled by Let’s Go Learn’s adaptive logic.  Finally, it is important to remember that DORA and DOMA are not norm-referenced, standardized tests, nor are they summative state benchmark tests.  The formative, diagnostic nature of Let’s Go Learn’s assessments, however, does make them well suited for alignment to state content standards, though the assessments may not represent the full scale of each state’s individual standards. General FAQs, Reports FAQs 2011-12-01T17:01:46+00:00 http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/lets_go_learn_and_curriculum_associates_clarification/ http://www.letsgolearn.com/site/lets_go_learn_and_curriculum_associates_clarification/#When:15:57:47Z Letter to our customers (pdf format) What is the exact nature of Let’s Go Learn and Curriculum Associates’ relationship?   LGL and CA entered into a distribution agreement on January 1, 2008.  This agreement assigned CA as the exclusive distributor of specific LGL products in the U.S. and Canada for K-12 schools until December 31, 2012.  The products included DORA, DOMA, Unique Reader, and Unique Math.  However as of October 31, 2011, CA stopped being the exclusive reseller of these 4 LGL products.  Customers can now buy directly from LGL or one of LGL's sales and/or independent reps. Who signed this agreement between CA and LGL?   CEO and co-founder Richard Capone of LGL and then president and founder Frank Ferguson of CA signed this distribution agreement. Why is Let’s Go Learn not issuing new licenses of Unique Reader and Unique Math?  Unique Reader and Unique Math are products designed by LGL but include content from a third-party provider.  Until recently, LGL had a license with the third-party provider that allowed LGL to offer Unique Reader and Unique Math.  The third-party provider recently cancelled LGL’s license because it entered into a new exclusive distribution agreement for its content with Curriculum Associates.  As we understand it,  a condition of this new agreement was that the third-party provider cancel its agreement with LGL.  LGL, therefore, is not issuing new licenses of Unique Reader and Unique Math at this time.  However, LGL is continuing to support all existing customers of Unique Reader and Unique Math and will do so until their licenses expire. Will LGL come out with a new product to replace Unique Reader and Unique Math?  Yes, LGL is actively working to create a new product  to include new instructional content.  Right now there is overlap with the LGL Edge Series, but K-2 reading and K-5 math need to be filled. Why did LGL create the LGL Edge Series?  The LGL Edge Series was developed to address the needs of older students, upper elementary to high school.  Its interface is more mature and essentially fills a gap in its offering.  What is iReady Instruction and how does it compare to Unique Reader and Unique Math?   iReady Instruction is a new product released on June 1, 2011, by Curriculum Associates.  Unique Reader and Unique Math are differentiated instructional products that have DORA and DOMA embedded in them and are offered by Let's Go Learn.  Both products use the same third-party instructional lessons.  But the products differ in that UR and UM use Let's Go Learn's DORA and DOMA diagnostic assessments.  iReady Instruction will use a placement test to place students into instruction.  But check with CA on the latest feature set for their iReady Instruction.  General FAQs 2011-05-26T15:57:47+00:00 http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/how_does_unique_math_compare_to_the_new_lgl_pre-algebra_edge_and_lgl_algebr/ http://www.letsgolearn.com/site/how_does_unique_math_compare_to_the_new_lgl_pre-algebra_edge_and_lgl_algebr/#When:20:35:00Z Unique Math is a differentiated instructional product based on the DOMA Basic Math Skills assessment.  Students complete DOMA BMS and then are placed into online instruction.  The LGL Edge Series is similarly based on diagnostic assessments.  But LGL Pre-Algebra Edge is based on the DOMA Pre-Algebra assessment, and LGL Algebra Edge is based on DOMA Algebra.  Both Unique Math and the LGL Edge Series use third-party instruction licensed by Let's Go Learn.  This combination provides a powerful instructional tool that differentiates instruction for each student.  The nature of each product's instructional content varies considerably. Unique Math is intended for a younger audience.  And the LGL Edge Series is designed for an older audience.  In addition, the instructional approach varies slightly.  Both use a multi-media approach to engage students and provide explicit instruction.  The LGL Edge Series, however, is a more modern product that uses music, pop-culture themes, and a game-like interface to engage and encourage students through each lesson.  The comparison chart below will help you compare features and understand the differences in these products.  Ask a Specialist 2011-03-01T20:35:00+00:00 http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/how_does_unique_reader_compare_to_the_new_lgl_reading_edge_and_lgl_comprehe/ http://www.letsgolearn.com/site/how_does_unique_reader_compare_to_the_new_lgl_reading_edge_and_lgl_comprehe/#When:19:33:29Z Unique Reader is a differentiated instructional product based on the DORA reading assessment.  Students complete DORA and are then placed automatically into online instruction.  The LGL Edge Series is similarly based on the DORA reading assessment.  Both Unique Reader and the LGL Edge Series use third-party instruction licensed by Let's Go Learn.  This combination provides a powerful instructional tool that differentiates instruction for each student.  The nature of each product's instructional content varies considerably. Unique Reader is intended for a younger audience.  And LGL Edge Series in designed to meet the instructional needs of an older audience.  In addition, the instructional approach varies slightly.  Both use multi-media to engage students and provide explicit instruction.  The LGL Edge Series, however, is a more modern product that uses music, pop-culture themes, and a game-like interface to engage and encourage students through each lesson.  The comparison chart below will help you compare features and understand the differences in these products. Ask a Specialist 2011-03-01T19:33:29+00:00 http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/why_doesnt_lgl_provide_formulas_for_geometry_questions_in_doma_pre-algebra/ http://www.letsgolearn.com/site/why_doesnt_lgl_provide_formulas_for_geometry_questions_in_doma_pre-algebra/#When:18:39:30Z We have chosen NOT to include formulas because some parts of the country require students to have memorized them for high stakes assessment, and some provide them.  If we provide the formulas, than the parts of the country that still require memorization do not get an accurate assessment of student knowledge.  Teachers may choose, however, to provide students with formulas if their district does not require students to memorize them. Math Assessment FAQs 2009-11-18T18:39:30+00:00 http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/why_are_the_fluency_passages_fiction/ http://www.letsgolearn.com/site/why_are_the_fluency_passages_fiction/#When:18:29:29Z When we designed the fluency passages, we chose fiction because generally we expect fiction to be more conversational than non-fiction, with more dialogue, and would lend itself more diagnostically to analyzing prosody.  Furthermore, with fictional fluency passages and non-fiction used in the comprehension subtest, DORA addresses the unique reading differences between fiction and non-fiction, making it a more robust assessment. Assessment FAQs 2009-11-18T18:29:29+00:00 http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/why_do_individual_dora_measures_vary_in_range_for_individual_students/ http://www.letsgolearn.com/site/why_do_individual_dora_measures_vary_in_range_for_individual_students/#When:23:20:55Z This FAQ answers multiple questions:Why are some of Let's Go Learn's DORA scores unexpected?Why do some scores seem very high or very low? When using a computer-mediated diagnostic, formative assessment, like DORA, you may come across scores that might look a little different that behavior that you might see in the classroom.  In this document, Let’s Go Learn attempts to address some of the most common misunderstandings about DORA scoring. High Scores on the Word Recognition Subtest The Word Recognition subtest assesses students’ abilities in decoding skills, using a combination of criterion-referenced real words and phonetically regular invented words.  Words are presented to students orally, and they are asked to identify the correct word from four choices.  While this subtest does accurately assess students’ word recognition ability, it is an out-of-context activity, with an oral component.  As such, teachers may sometimes see unexpectedly high scores from students who have strong decoding abilities, but perhaps low comprehension scores.  While students can use decoding skills to isolate the correct word, they may still struggle to read and comprehend the word in context.  This subtest is used to evaluate decoding and word analysis skills in isolation, and is not assessing contextual reading skills. These scores, however, are usually an accurate reflection of students’ graphophonic skills.  The validity of this subtest is particularly high (grade level delta = 0.19, SE = 0.12), meaning that when the test is administered repeatedly with no instructional time between assessments, students will score, on average, a difference of less than two school months between assessments.  Also, this subtest was correlated to both the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (Riverside) (r = 0.81) and the Woodcock Word Identification Test (r = 0.92), both with statistically and practically significant levels of correlation, indicating very high levels of validity for the subtest. High Scores on the Oral Vocabulary Subtest It is important to note, when examining the scores on the Word Meaning subtest, that this subtest does not assess students’ reading vocabulary (or words that they can both read and define).  Instead, it assesses students’ oral vocabulary, as oral vocabulary is often considered predicative of students’ future reading ability.  Students cannot read words that do not exist in their oral vocabularies, so an assessment of oral vocabulary would help identify a gap that would prohibit students from reading achievement.  It is a particularly important subtest for second language learners and for students with developmental language delays.  For other students, however, the word meaning subtest may appear to give unexpectedly high scores. These scores, however, are routinely not errors.  The Word Meaning subtest has been shown to be reliable, with a statistically significant test-retest correlation (r = .60, SE = 0.19).  Further, it has been correlated to the word meaning subtest of the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR), with a moderate to high level of correlation (r - .60).  Further, in 2003, items in the Word Meaning subtest underwent major revision to ensure that test scores were not consistently higher than expected. Low Spelling Scores Spelling is the most challenging sub-test on DORA as the answers are completely student generated as opposed to multiple-choice. If students are performing well on classroom spelling tests, consider the difference in the task. If on Monday they are given a list of 10-25 words (depending on the teacher), they spend the entire week memorizing those words:  writing, re-writing, creating flash cards, drilling themselves, drilling their peers, having sample tests in class and at home over breakfast. The students are given many opportunities to memorize those words and most will do well on the Friday spelling test. When they come take DORA, they are seeing words that they have not just spent a week practicing, and they have only one chance to spell the word correctly. It is a sample of how the student is spelling, in general, without any practice.  Do you administer a spelling pre-test at the beginning of the week? Do your students get the same score on Monday as they do on Friday? Probably not, but I would look at the Monday score as an indicator of how well the child really spells. With practice children will learn to memorize and spell words.  Continued work on classroom spelling lists will improve students’ diagnostic spelling scores, as they continue to be exposed to more words and more complex spelling patterns. Let’s Go Learn’s Spelling subtest has been correlated to two other nationally recognized spelling assessments: the spelling subtest of the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (r = .78) and the spelling subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test (r = 0.85, SE = 0.210). Both studies indicated a statistically significant correlation to both assessments, assuring the validity of the DORA spelling subtest. Low Comprehension Scores Many factors affect a student’s ability to successfully comprehend a text.  Some students struggle with decoding the text they encounter or with the language structures (i.e., phrases and idioms) used.  Other students may possess limited background knowledge about the topic of the text or they may not be interested in what they’re reading.  While Let’s Go Learn’s comprehension test presents students with non-fiction topics that they are likely to have encountered in school, some groups of students may have less familiarity with the subject matter in DORA than in other comprehension assessments. Using non-fiction passages with topics taught in most classrooms across the nation provides less variability in assessment results.  The language involved in generating non-fiction passages is easier to standardize, as it does not contain conversational colloquialisms that are often regionalized in the U.S.  Also, non-fiction passages offer a range of topics common to many classrooms, reducing bias due to race, gender, and culture.  While non-fiction is sometimes more difficult for children to read than fiction, Let’s Go Learn has made a conscious effort to control for this by writing comprehension questions that are not too difficult and by creating an administration protocol which ensures that children only see questions within their comfort level as the sub-test raises and lowers the difficulty of passages according to success on DORA. Another factor that can make scores on DORA seem lower is if your students have been tested using traditional teacher-mediated, pen-and-paper assessments.  On these assessments there is more room for discrepancy, as teachers often ask follow-up questions to clarify students’ responses and students often become familiar with the administration protocol.  Let’s Go Learn’s DORA removes some of this variability often associated with teacher-mediated assessments.  Often comprehension tests, like those utilized in annual state assessments, allow students to re-read the passage after they have seen the questions.  This type of assessment can lead to false positive scores, as students learn strategies for skimming that may not be an indication of absolute comprehension ability. Allowing students to re-read passages introduces a new variable to the assessment that is difficult to control for.  That is, some students choose to re-read the passage over again while other students choose not to re-read the passage.  Allowing students to re-read a passage thus increases the variability of the comprehension sub-test score.  By allowing students to read the passages only once, DORA provides a better indicator of how well students will perform in realistic reading situations.  This gets back to the purpose of DORA, which is to provide diagnostic data for teachers to guide instruction, but could consequently result in scores on the comprehension subtest that are lower than teachers or parents might expect. Also, because DORA is criterion-referenced—that is, based on a set of criteria identified by experts—it is possible that the items might differ from other criterion-referenced assessments you may have encountered.  This does not preclude the utility or meaningful information produced by DORA‘s comprehension sub-test.  It just means that one must consider its difficulty relative to other available comprehension tests.  The avoidance of false positives, as mentioned in the previous question, is also a factor that can make scores appear lower. If other comprehension measures used in the past have a lower degree of false positive aversion, then the difference when comparing DORA to this other measure may appear significant.  Our philosophy is that it is worth it to avoid incorrectly labeling a low comprehension student as high, even if it means on occasion labeling a high comprehension student as slightly lower than his or her real ability.  And have no doubt, comprehension measures must choose one or the other possibility.  There is no way to avoid biases.  Another factor that should be considered is the student’s motivation.  Longer assessments do run a higher risk of fatiguing the student.  And the factor that causes the greatest test score variance is student motivation.  Therefore, students need to be properly introduced to the idea of DORA.  Teachers should stress that this assessment will help them do a better job of instructing the students.  Also, the assessment should be broken up into manageable sessions and students should be monitored during testing.  If some students seem fatigued, the teacher should consider stopping the assessment and resuming it later.  The comprehension subtest is the final test of the assessment, designed intentionally so that other subtests can help to better inform the students’ starting point for the comprehension test; as a result, however, the comprehension subtest may be most effected by student fatigue of lack of motivation. Finally, the age of the student should also be considered.  Sometimes a lower comprehension score is the result of a younger student taking a computer-mediated test for the first time.  Unfamiliarity with the medium can result in lower scores, as student may struggle with how the test is organized.  Making sure to prepare students for the assessment by showing sample questions or discussing the assessment organization will help eliminate this confound. The Comprehension subtest scores have also been validated, to ensure that the scores that a student receives are not abnormally high or low.  In test-retest analysis, when students took DORA comprehension test repeatedly, the grade level delta scores was 0.35 (SD = 0.13).  In other words, when students retake the test, 95% of students’ scores will have a difference of between 0.09 and 0.61 grade levels; almost all students will score less than half a grade level differently.  This indicates the consistency of DORA’s comprehension subtest.  Further, the comprehension subtest has been correlated to both the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading (DAR) comprehension subtest, and the Gray Oral Reading Test, with both indicating medium-high to high levels of correlation to these other assessments. In summary, many factors might make it appear, on occasion, that students’ scores on DORA‘s Silent Reading sub-test are incorrectly lower than their reading ability compared to other reading measures.  However, when examining the biases of each measure, the statistical soundness of DORA’s subtest validity, and interpreting DORA for what it seeks to do, these discrepancies, if any, can usually be explained or accounted for.  Furthermore, there is low probability that any discrepancy between measures will be large enough to negatively affect any particular student’s instructional plan. Support document 749 Reports FAQs 2009-10-23T23:20:55+00:00 http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/why_are_doma_basic_math_skills_reports_different_from_dora_reports/ http://www.letsgolearn.com/site/why_are_doma_basic_math_skills_reports_different_from_dora_reports/#When:03:03:39Z DOMA Basic Math Skills is a diagnostic assessment, much like DORA. However, because the cognitive processes of quantitative reasoning are so different from the cognitive processes of reading, it cannot be entirely like DORA, and the reports generated are consequently different. In math, it happens that the cognitive processes tend to be more linear in nature, particularly when approached from the perspective of the strands outlined in Principles and Standards of School Mathematics, developed by NCTM . DORA is based on the three cueing system model of reading in which there are three discreet cognitive areas that must function together in order to facilitate strategic reading. When we test those three areas, we get a very clear sense of each student’s strengths and weaknesses. DOMA, however, is based on the model of mathematics proposed by NCTM, dividing quantitative reasoning into strands that also must function together for complete quantitative reasoning. According to NCTM, “The mathematical Content and Process Standards…are inextricably linked.” In a way, we can think of these six strands (Numbers and Operations, Algebra, Geometry, Measurement, Data Analysis and Probability, and Problem Solving) as a type of cueing system for quantitative reasoning. By assessing students in math linearly within each strand, we are able to identify student strengths and weaknesses that paint a complete picture of mathematics ability. When there is a hole in one strand, there is a gap in student achievement. So while both assessments are diagnostic, they are based on different models of the cognitive processes they assess; the reporting must reflect those models and, therefore, cannot be the same.In DOMA Basic Math Skills, only two of the NCTM strands are assessed. According to NCTM, “School mathematics programs should not address every topic every year. Instead, students will reach certain levels of conceptual understanding and procedural fluency when they plan their mathematics instruction.” Let’s Go Learn has chosen to focus DOMA Basic Math Skills on two strands on which elementary math education often focuses instruction.In DOMA Basic Math Skills, the detailed list of all the constructs tested indicates where you need to work with the student. Let’s Go Learn doesn't provide additional recommendations because the unchecked boxes in the student's zone of instruction are exactly what the student needs to work on.Additionally, Let’s Go Learn offers a tool to examine student performance in one strand against performance in others. The Class Profile Report provides summary paragraphs, identifying traits of students with differing performances across the strands and offering instructional recommendations, much like in the DORA report.The group strand report is also an amazing tool to help differentiate instruction in small groups within a classroom. Here is the video:http://www.letsgolearn.com/virtual_support_tours/view/doma_reporting/1. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. 2000. Assessment FAQs, Reports FAQs 2009-05-25T03:03:39+00:00 http://www.letsgolearn.com/faqs/why_are_reports_being_generated_for_a_different_student/ http://www.letsgolearn.com/site/why_are_reports_being_generated_for_a_different_student/#When:17:02:07Z I was trying to run reports under one students name and I kept generating reports for a different student from a different class. This happened several times. I would like to be assured of the confidential integrity of the information these programs generate about individual students.It sounds like you are experiencing an error in your Acrobat application. The reports that are showing up are probably reports that were previously viewed on the computer that have been cached. In the past when users updated their Acrobat application, this problem went away. We also currently put a random number at the end of each PDF file name that is generated in our system via the web browser. This has eliminated all browser errors so far that ignore the "do not cache" code embedded in our web pages.  Internet Explorer historically has ignored "do not cache" commands that is a part of standard web page coding. Reports FAQs 2009-05-12T17:02:07+00:00