Wit & Wisdom Affirm - Interpret and Act on Reports

For information on how to access the different types of reports and a basic overview of their structure, see the Wit & Wisdom Affirm® Teacher Reports article. The information below provides guidance on how teachers can interpret and act on the report results.

 

The Purpose of Wit & Wisdom Affirm Reports

Wit & Wisdom Affirm provides reports that prioritize meaningful data for teachers to support an integrated approach to literacy instruction.

In Affirm assessments, students respond to one or several texts, also referred to as stimulus texts. These rich, authentic grade-level texts form the foundation of the assessments. The platform and its reports are designed to highlight the texts, helping teachers and students return to them for further instruction and deeper reading. This contrasts with traditional literacy assessments, which focus on decontextualized reading skills or isolated standards and provide data reports based on these misleading subcategories. Skills- or standards-based reports do not reflect a meaningful analysis of student knowledge and reading ability. When analyzed out of context, they often lead to remediation or skills-based test preparation, taking time away from valuable content-rich instruction. (For information on each assessment’s overall standard alignment, see the Library page.)

Instead, Affirm emphasizes texts and content:

• Affirm reports provide holistic information on overall reading performance.
• Affirm reports help teachers identify specific aspects of texts or writing tasks where students may have struggled.
• Affirm displays the titles of assessed texts in the Library page to emphasize the importance of text-specific assessment analysis.

To facilitate further instruction and deeper reading, Affirm offers transparency into assessment content, allowing teachers and students to return to an assessment and its stimulus text(s) after the assessment is completed. Because the assessments are based on Wit & Wisdom® texts and content, students benefit from repeated engagement, providing a powerful learning opportunity to reexamine the content and deepen knowledge and skills. This type of review is also more engaging and purposeful for students than traditional test preparation focused on practicing specific question types or skills-based drills.

While Wit & Wisdom Affirm reports can provide helpful insight, they cannot provide a definitive explanation of why students struggle with a certain text, their gaps in understanding, or their challenges with writing. As always, teachers should interpret assessment results in light of a wide range of evidence of student performance.

 

Data Analysis for Single Assessments

Teachers can use single-assessment report data as one of many measures to evaluate students’ understanding.

For assessments that center on reading comprehension, such as New-Read Assessments and Question Sets, it can be helpful for teachers to focus on the following:

• Item analysis: Which questions, or items, proved most challenging? Examine how individual students answered specific items, and identify patterns that demonstrate common misunderstandings of the text. The focus should be on the text and its meaning, not on isolated standards or skills reflected in the item. (To see how different students answered individual items, select a student’s name in the student-level performance table to view the student-level report. Then find the relevant assessment in the Assessment Results table and select See Assessment.)

• Sequence analysis: How might performance on one item inform your analysis of another? Items build upon one another in a deliberate progression. For instance, if students do not know what a text-critical vocabulary word in item 1 means, they may struggle to determine a larger central idea in item 3. Use the sequence to gain insight into where gaps in student understanding may begin.

• Stimulus text analysis: What complex aspects of the stimulus text(s) may have led to misunderstandings? Review the text(s), annotating for potential sources of confusion or challenging paragraphs, sentences, phrases, or words.

For writing- or performance-based assessments, such as Focusing Question Tasks and End-of-Module Tasks, teachers should focus on specific criteria of the task:

• For items scored with checklists: Which criteria did students struggle with?
• For items scored with rubrics: Which traits (rows of the rubric) did students struggle with? Note that the Meets Expectations (ME) performance level is based on the relevant grade-level Writing and Language standards. Students who receive ME or EE (Exceeds Expectations) have demonstrated proficiency in the relevant grade-level standards for the given task.

During future lessons, teachers can address gaps by supporting students’ development of the identified criteria or traits as they work on upcoming writing tasks.   

 

Data Analysis for Multiple Assessments

For data on multiple assessments, see the Performance Over Time chart at the bottom of the Reports home page. 

Look for patterns:

• Does the class tend to perform better with informational or literary texts?
• Does the class tend to perform better or worse with assessments that require writing?
• Are there certain texts that proved most challenging? If so, what made those texts challenging?

Based on this information, teachers might plan further support or additional instruction, such as the following:

• If students struggle with informational texts, teachers might choose additional informational texts from the module’s Volume of Reading appendix for students to read and respond to.
• If students struggle with writing-focused assessments, such as Focusing Question Tasks, teachers might provide additional scaffolding—such as model responses to study, sentence stems, or extra opportunities for targeted revision—for the next writing task.

 

Post-Assessment Instruction

Assessments can be most effective when teachers and students analyze the content afterward. An effective way to follow up is by having students reflect on their responses, discuss with partners, and justify their answers. 

For Question Sets and New-Read Assessments, one of the most powerful ways to follow up is with a reading assessment review protocol, which promotes small group discourse on specific items and texts. Teachers can use the protocol to target areas of a text where students’ comprehension may have broken down. Before engaging in the protocol, teachers should review the relevant single assessment report to decide which items to review. (See Data Analysis for Single Assessments above for tips on what to look for.)

1. Reread: Students reread the stimulus text(s). Prompt students to use the same strategies and routines they used in the module’s lessons, such as annotation or other instructional routines aligned to the Content Stages (e.g., Notice/Wonder T-charts, Boxes and Bullets for summarizing). If needed, provide support and scaffolds to help students understand the text.
2. Reflect: Display the item to be reviewed. (To do so, go to the assessment’s listing on the Library page, select the vertical ellipsis menu icon, and select View as student.) Allow students to reflect on the item before committing to an initial answer. Option: Ask students to write a brief justification for their answer or annotate the text for evidence supporting their answer.
3. Discuss: In pairs or small groups, students discuss the item and attempt to reach consensus on the correct answer.
4. Justify: Lead the class in a discussion to reach consensus on the correct answer. (To see an answer key, go the Library page and select the assessment name.) Ensure that students justify their responses with a text-based explanation. This can be done in a variety of ways, including the following:
   • Each pair or small group records their answer and a justification on chart paper or small white boards. These can be posted on the wall or shared with the whole group for other students to weigh in and respond to with their own thinking.
   • Ask each small group or pair to vote for their preferred answer. If answers differ, lead the class in a debate to come to a consensus, encouraging students to respond to, reinforce, or challenge each other’s text-based arguments.

When implementing the protocol, consider the following:

• The protocol does not need to be used for every assessment or item. Target the texts and items where students struggled the most or that are most essential for upcoming lessons, Focusing Question Tasks, or the End-of-Module Task.
• The protocol is not a strict formula. Treat it as a menu, selecting and adapting components to meet students’ needs.
• The protocol should be framed as an opportunity for deepening understanding and knowledge of a text and its key vocabulary, not for practicing test-taking skills or reviewing a particular standard.
• The protocol can also be used for individual or small group intervention:
  • Provide scaffolds for rereading, such as a read-aloud or a glossary of text-critical vocabulary, to help striving readers access grade-level texts
  • If students need further practice in foundational skills, enhance the protocol.
    • During the reread step, use the text to reinforce phonetic concepts or to provide practice in targeted foundational skills.
    • Have students practice reading the text aloud. Use a fluency tracker from a fluency homework assignment to evaluate their progress.
• Make the protocol accessible, rigorous, and fun by creating ongoing contests among tables or different groups and allowing students to share their answers in creative ways:
  • Hold up a precoded card, popsicle stick, or whiteboard with the answer choice.
  • Move based on a predetermined system. For instance, when the teacher says “Go!”, students who selected “A” sit on the floor, students who selected “B” stand next to their chairs, etc.
  • Go to a corner of the room labeled A, B, C, or D.