Editor’s Note: This article is the first in a 系列，“使用证据进行改进”，该系列着眼于servinnesota的 推进研究实践中心收集和分析数据，以便 constantly make its programs better for participants.
彼得·纳尔逊, Ph.D., is the Director of 研究 and Innovation at ServeMinnesota, 他在哪里参与我们的项目组合，以确保有效实施和建立证据的关键原则得以实现. In this interview, 我们讨论了ServeMinnesota的团队如何能够实现一种新的评估策略，以帮助改善学生的学习成果 阅读 Corps.
Using Assessment to Understand a Problem
ServeMinnesota: 阅读团是一个已经存在了15年以上的项目，目的是帮助小学生达到年级水平的阅读. 该项目的导师使用不同的策略或干预措施来帮助学生. How do we assess how those students are doing?
彼得·尼尔森: 我们通过对学生读写能力的简短测量来了解他们在不同时期的表现. They practice during each session five days a week, but also complete the brief assessments once each week. Each score gets plotted on a graph. We compare those scores to what we call an aim line, 哪条线是从秋季入学到春季的基准，与未来的大学准备和掌握熟练程度有关.
When 3 of the last 5 weekly scores are 高于目标线，其中两个分数高于下一个基准，学生 are exited from the program. For example, if you exit in March, you need 3 data 得分高于你的球门线，其中两个必须高于未来的春季目标. 这是一种严格的方式，让孩子们无法获得额外的支持 Corps provides.
We want to be confident that when we 如果没有读书队的支持，学生就会走上正轨并取得成功.
What was the initial problem you were interested in?
几年来，我们知道有些孩子从雷丁队退学，但没有坚持下去. 你可以看看论文中的概率——我们发现大约34%的学生在做出退出决定后偏离了轨道. 澄清一下, 我们看到孩子们的生活比以前好得多, 但是，一旦雷丁队的支持停止，许多孩子的表现就无法达到我们所希望的水平.
尽管66%的孩子都保持着良好的成长轨迹, we care a lot about the 34% that weren’t.
Weighing Difference Approaches
How did you figure out why this was happening?
We looked at a lot of factors to 理解为什么我们看到孩子们离开后成绩下降 阅读 Corps.
We wondered, for example, if the point 在学年期间，孩子们退出了这个项目，影响了他们的学习 长期增长. That didn’t explain it. We then looked at demographics of kids – race, gender and so on – and that wasn’t explaining much either.
Eventually, we started thinking less 关于预测下降，更多的是关于是否改变决定 guidelines would be useful. For example, we spent time thinking about, should we change our criteria for exit and make it more rigorous?
Would that be a good approach?
We didn’t see a lot of potential or 返回这里. The yield turned out to not really be worth it, because any time 你让孩子们在项目里待得更久，你让另一个孩子离开了. A 那些需要帮助的孩子得不到帮助，而参与项目的学生却得到了 做的很好. So we ended up not really evaluating new exit criteria in practice.
所以我们把注意力从孩子离开前的事情转移到离开后我们能做些什么.
Assessment as a Means to Solve the Problem
What did you wind up trying?
One thing we discussed was giving kids some extra practice after exit. We started thinking about the least invasive form 在实践中，这已经很方便地融入了孩子们的经历 当他们参加这个项目时，在干预期间，导师每周都进行监督 使用一分钟的阅读流畅性评估学生的进步. So we 虽然t why not just keep that going after the intervention? Progress 监控是之前被记录下来的东西 能提高学生的学习成绩——但只通过告知的方式 instruction or adapting to their needs. It’s never been discussed as something that is inherently beneficial.
If you think about progress monitoring as a task, 虽然, 孩子们有机会练习一项技能，他们将在年底接受测试. 在这种情况下，他们被测试的正是阅读一篇文章的技巧. They also are getting feedback on how they’re doing, 他们会得到一个提醒，提醒他们年底的目标是什么.
这些都是我们在干预中谈到的非常有力的东西——反应的机会, opportunity to engage in the task, 和反馈. 这就是我们的假设——在孩子们离开读书团后，继续监测他们的进步可以对长期的结果产生影响.
You were able to test the hypothesis through a research pilot. What happened?
We saw a 10 to 14 percent increase in 学生达到年终基准的概率 post-exit progress monitoring. This struck us as a really promising impact given the low level of time and resources involved.
今年, 我们正在进行一项出院后进展监测的随机对照试验——我们有100个站点, 其中50个将在孩子们离开雷丁队后继续每周监测他们的进步，还有50个网站没有这样做. 这是对编程的一个很小的改变，但却有很大的潜在回报.
How were able to identify this issue and implement change so quickly?
We’re able to do it largely because we have infrastructure that supports innovation. It supports the analysis – we 有非常复杂的数据系统，我们知道孩子们的表现如何 and growing, but we also know information about their experiences. 我们知道怎么做 他们得到了多少分钟，当他们得到支持的时候，确切地说 他们在做什么，他们在哪里，他们是什么样的导师 处理. It’s a really rich dataset. Not a lot of folks in academia have access to that kind of data. It’s millions of cases and thousands of kids.
另一方面，我们有一个为所有这些孩子服务的项目, and it’s still relatively nimble. 在一年的时间里，我们可以说，“我们学到了这个，现在让我们改变它。.” And there aren’t a lot of analogs to that. I don’t think in your typical education setting you can say, “We found this out, we’re going to make this change.“我们可以。. 在这种情况下, we might just make it for a subgroup, but if we find out positive results this year, it’s something we can rapidly scale for everybody nationally, which is great.
What would it take to decide to rapidly scale that change nationally?
If we see ANY impact that is statistically significant, 这意味着，在今年的随机对照试验中接受了退出后进度监控的孩子，在年底的时候比没有参与的类似孩子过得更好, that will be enough for us to make the change. If we see the same effect, that would be great. Even if it’s just 10 percent, that would be enough. 在成千上万的孩子中，每10个学生中就有一个达到他们的标准, is something that’s notable.
Learn more about the proven impact of 阅读 Corps and how to become a 阅读 Corps 导师.
