CONSTRUCTING RESPONSIVE AN EVALUATION MODEL FOR EARLY READING BASED ON FORMATIVE DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21009/ishel.v2i1.69584Keywords:
responsive evaluation, formative diagnostic assessment, early reading, differentiated instruction, feedbackAbstract
This study aims to construct a Responsive Diagnostic Evaluation Model (RDEM) for early reading assessment based on formative diagnostic assessment. The study employed a conceptual model-development approach through the stages of problem identification, theoretical synthesis, construct formulation, instrument mapping, development of decision-making rules, and internal model evaluation. The model was developed by integrating Stake’s responsive evaluation, diagnostic assessment, formative assessment, differentiated instruction, and data-informed feedback. The findings produced five interconnected domains: responsive context, diagnostic antecedents, student-profile classification, feedback and differentiated instruction, and responsive outcomes. These domains operate within an adaptive cycle that connects students’ initial conditions, the identification of specific reading difficulties, instructional decision-making, follow-up actions, progress monitoring, and meaningful outcomes. The model also provides decision rules that translate diagnostic evidence into targeted instructional actions based on students’ learning profiles. RDEM positions evaluation as a responsive and continuous instructional control system rather than merely a mechanism for measuring and reporting scores. As the model remains conceptual, further expert validation and classroom-based testing are required to examine its feasibility and effectiveness.
References
Amendum, S. J., Conradi, K., & Hiebert, E. H. (2021). Explaining reading variance by student subgroup: Should we move beyond oral reading fluency? Journal of Research in Reading, 44(4), 767–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12371
Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). The science of reading progresses: Communicating advances beyond the Simple View of Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S25–S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411
Ehri, L. C. (2005a). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
Ehri, L. C. (2005b). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298605300301
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_3
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Stecker, P. M. (1989). Effects of curriculum-based measurement on teachers’ instructional planning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221948902200110
Gillon, G. T. (2018). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. The Guilford Press.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258600700104
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (2020). The cognitive foundations of reading and its acquisition: A framework with applications connecting teaching and learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44195-1
Kilpatrick, D. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. Wiley.
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x
Mei, H., & Chen, H. (2024). Cognitive diagnosis in language assessment: A thematic review. RELC Journal, 55(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221122357
Min, S., & He, L. (2022). Developing individualized feedback using cognitive diagnostic assessment. Language Testing, 39(1), 90–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532221995475
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Peters, M. T., Hebbecker, K., & Souvignier, E. (2022). Effects of providing teachers with tools for implementing assessment-based differentiated reading instruction in second grade. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 47(3), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/15345084211014926
Petscher, Y., Cabell, S. Q., Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Foorman, B. R., Hart, S. A., Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Schatschneider, C., Steacy, L. M., Terry, N. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2020). How the science of reading informs 21st-century education. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S267–S282. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352
Schmitterer, A. M. A., & Brod, G. (2021). Which data do elementary school teachers use to determine reading difficulties in their students? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(5), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420981990
Seidenberg, M. S., Borkenhagen, M. C., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in Connecting Reading Science and Educational Practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S119–S130. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.341
Stake, R. E. (1975). To evaluate an arts program. In Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach (pp. 13–31). Merrill.
Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. SAGE Publications.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. https://doi.org/10.2307/747612
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20113
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
Toprak, T. E., & Çakır, A. (2021). Examining L2 reading comprehension ability: Developing a diagnostic test within the cognitive diagnostic assessment framework. Language Testing, 38(1), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532220941470
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Syamzah Ayuningrum, Endry Borieswati , Aceng Rahmad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
