EDEX 546 Final Project

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Student name: Joe

Student age: 7 years of age as of December 2, 2017

Name of assessment given: DIBELS benchmark assessment 1 for first grade

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT AND TEACHER DISCUSSION

The first section of the assessment, Letter Naming Fluency, was implemented to analyze
Joes skills in recognizing letters by their name. As opposed to stating the names of the letters, he
spoke their respective sounds. Although this was not the goal based on the directions, this still served
as valuable information. Regardless of whether these letters were upper-case or lower-case, this
student articulated the letter-sounds accurately except for Q that was pronounced as the /y/ sound,
as well as V that was pronounced as the /w/ sound. The student completed four full rows of letters
and one on the fifth row within the one minute period. Given that the letter names were not stated at
all, I chose to score this students letter-sound accuracy. The total score for those spoken correctly
was 39/41 with two random errors. Per the scoring page analysis for response patterns, again, it was
noted that the letter sounds were stated rather than letter names. Joe was evidently fluent in letter-
sounds. Furthermore, Letter Naming Fluency does not have benchmark goals because the score is
used as an indicator of risk. However, since the student read the letter sounds instead, I felt it would
be helpful to still use the benchmark percentage chart to analyze Joes skills because letter-sound
fluency is important for the student to be able to identify phonemes. Therefore, in analyzing the data,
he scored a 95.1% in accuracy. This places him above benchmark such that the overall likelihood of
achieving subsequent early literacy goals is 90-99%. This would require that Joe receives effective
core instruction to reach the more advanced goals associated with letter-sound fluency.
The second section of the assessment, Phoneme Segmentation Fluency, was implemented to
analyze Joes skills in segmenting words by their phonemes. Within one minute, he was able to
complete two rows of words with a score of 10/13 on the first row, and 12/14 on the section row.
When segmenting the word hall, Joe disregarded the middle phoneme solely stating /h/ /l/. For
count, one of the middle phonemes again was disregarded by stating /k/ /n/ /t/. The word wave
was segmented as /w/ /k/ /v/ that showed an inaccurate middle phoneme. This incorrect /k/ phoneme
would show up again in the following assessment section. On the second row, the only word that the
student was challenged with was mind that he segmented as /m/ /n/. In identifying response
patterns, the errors were random because the like phonemes appeared in other words within which he
was capable of correctly identifying. Additionally, it could be analyzed that the fluency of
acknowledging middle and end phonemes of words was inconsistent and repeated on several
occasions. Overall, Joe scored an 81.4% in accuracy. This places him at the benchmark such that the
overall likelihood of achieving subsequent early literacy goals is 70-85%. This may require
monitoring and strategic support on specific component skills as needed. The accuracy percentage
associated with this subtest places the student in the mid-range of this benchmark. Thus, a more
individualized approach would be beneficial to attend to the segmenting challenges he presented in
order to prevent these struggles from progressing further.
The third section of the assessment, nonsense word fluency, was implemented to analyze
Joes skills in reading nonsense, or pretend words. The one-minute period enabled him to complete
six rows of words. Pertaining to letter sounds, within the first row Joe scored 14/14, the second was
12/14, the third was 12/15, the fourth was 13/14, the fifth was 11/14, and the sixth was 10/15.
Overall, the student was capable of reading 16/29 whole words correctly. The first mistake was when
the sounds of oj were reversed instead speaking jo. It was the remaining twelve mistakes that had
an interesting response pattern. The beginning and middle sounds were consistently spoken
correctly. However, the written endings were spoken with the /k/ phoneme. For instance, instead of
wav, mub, pim, or nil, A read these nonsense words as wak, muk, pik, and nik. This choice of A to
resort to the /k/ phoneme was similar to the example of the phoneme segmentation section where the
center phoneme of wave was replaced with /k/. Given the data, Joe scored an 83.7% in accuracy.
This places him at the benchmark such that the overall likelihood of achieving subsequent early
literacy goals is 70-85%. This may require monitoring and strategic support on specific component
skills as needed. Again, Joes skill development represented in this assessment is in his favor. Further
analysis can guide additional assessment implementation and corrective instruction.
Beyond the assessment data available from the DIBELS assessment, it is important to discuss
that from the fall Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment that was used for interventions two
through four. The classroom teacher implemented this based on the instructions for implementation
with notations that would lend to scoring and analysis. The student was texted with a level B non-
fiction text. Accuracy and fluency was strong, with results appropriate for this reading level. Of
importance was the comprehension section that involved questions pertaining to comprehension
within the text, as well as beyond and about the text. With the support that the assessment allowed,
Joe was still unable to articulate sufficient knowledge associated with his reading that resulted in a
score of 1. This limited proficiency signaled to the teacher the need for guided reading in order to
develop his abilities. Thus, my opportunity arose to intervene.

TARGET AREA OF INSTRUCTION

Based on the results of the DIBELS assessment, the target area was developing stronger
skills in phonemic awareness, particularly in segmenting and blending all sounds, beginning, middle,
and end, associated with a given term. However, based on the results of the first mini-lesson that is
to be discussed, the target area of instruction will transition to developing stronger comprehension
skills in weeks two through four. This target area was selected based on the reading challenges that
Joe presented on the Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment, and while working with the
classroom teacher. The focus will be on mastering the strategy of generating and responding to W
questions to enhance comprehension of a text.

WEEK 1- DEVELOPMENT OF PHONEMIC AWARENESS

Week 1: Goal

Joe currently identifies about 80% of phonemes in segmentation fluency activities. He

currently articulates about 80% of phonemes in blending fluency activities. Through the use of
Elkonin boxes, this student will develop stronger skills in phonemic awareness with a focus on cvc
words that will enable him to use these skills in both sounding out words and spelling. He will work
on listening to all of the speech sounds in words in order to build these phonemic awareness and
spelling skills. He will use segmenting and blending based on pictorial cues, which will be measured
from progress and development. Joe should independently identify 85% of phonemes while
segmenting and blending cvc words given through images.

Week 1: Summary of lesson

As mentioned, this lesson was complete with the use of Elkonin boxes and toy cars in order
to motivate the student through the consideration of his interests. The focus was on cvc words,
particularly those ending in -at. These terms included those such as mat, sat, bat, and hat. This choice
was made to apply an emphasis to the middle and end phonemes that were a challenge in the
DIBELS assessment. Scaffolding was intended to be used to gradually release independence to the
student. This would require the stages of modeling, guidance with prompting, and independent use
of the strategy. The student would used the pictures on the worksheet to create a mental association
to the relevant word. Once each term is segmented properly, the student identifies the letter-sound
correspondences verbally and then in writing by putting them in their correct places within the
Elkonin boxes. The student is to sound out the word once complete in a segmented manner, and then
identify the letter names. This process would be utilized for each term on the worksheet, and then
those that are covered within the students selected independent reading book should time allow for
this opportunity.

Week 1: Reflection of lesson

This lesson intended to develop Joes phonological awareness skills through the use of
Elkonin boxes. Such a tool was used to practice identifying the phonemes of three-sound words
because in two of the sections of the DIBELS assessment, he consistently struggled with end
phonemes. Therefore, this would allow there to be a focus on that area of challenge, while still
working with all sounds of words. Such an approach was important because speech sounds are the
basic building blocks of words (Moats, 2010). I utilized this lesson to work on the letter-sound
connection in his writing by having him write the appropriate letters in the boxes after the oral
practice. This correlates to the fact that alphabetic writing systems, such as English, more or less
represent language at the phoneme level (Moats, 2010). This mini-lesson solely focused on -at
words to remain consistent with the pattern in sounds, and to not overwhelm the child. I was very
surprised with the success of this lesson. Based on the DIBELS results and working with him on
reading and writing previously, I was amazed by the students ability to complete the activity without
evidence of challenge or any flaws. I modeled the first word with him, cat. I articulated the word so
that he could her its proper pronunciation. I had him repeat the word with me. As I segmented the
word to model, the student joined in. I asked him to tell me again the sounds that make up the word.
I then showed him the cars and how we would use them with the boxes. After placing one car in
each box for each sound, the student was able to successfully replicate this process when speaking
the phonemes. I had him repeat this several times. Once it was evident that the child knew the
phonemes and the word they were associated with, I have him write the correct letters in the boxes
for each phoneme. I watched him write c-a-t. He sounded the word out again, and then upon request,
he was able to tell me that the word spelled cat. He was able to complete the other eight words
independently with no problem at all. Since there was additional time available, I had the student
choose one of his silent reading books to work with per the request of the classroom teacher. I
allowed him to select a word on every page to use with the Elkonin boxes. After closing the book
each time, we would follow the same process, and again the student displayed to me exemplary
skills. From the book we used words such as and, the, said, and no. This success caused me to begin
reflecting on the intervention as it progressed to reconsider what skill areas I should work on with
the child.
When implementing this mini-lesson, it turned out that the scaffolding that I originally
planned was not necessary. With flexibility in my teaching, I acknowledged within the first modeling
example that this student fully understood the process I wanted him to go through when working
with the given terms. Therefore, the only prompting that followed the initial example was questions
to help him go through the step-by-step process such as What are the sounds that make up the word
bat?, or What letters do we write for the sounds of the word bat?.

Week 1: Result of progress monitoring

In comparison to the results of the DIBELS assessment, this student performed beyond what
would have been expected when tracking progress. The child could accurately and efficiently
segment the terms and write them based on the letter-sound correspondences. While he was in the
80-85% range for the DIBELS, this intervention would place him in the 95-100% range if referring
to the same scoring chart that resembles mastery of the skills. This is significant progress between
the implementation of the assessment and the mini-lesson during which no other individualized
instruction was taking place. As mentioned, given this significant progress, the intervention goals
had to be reevaluated.

Week 1: Plan for next lesson

It was evident that the student understood the process that the Elkonin boxes entailed.
Therefore, there were two directions I could take for following weeks mini-lesson. The one option
was be to continue to use this strategy since the student showed an understanding and interest in the
process, but instead more challenging, or nonsense words would be used, such as those with four
sounds or those that have consonant blends. This would be done in hope that the student would feel
more challenged within a familiar instructional technique, but would be able to continue working on
phonological awareness given that the DIBELS assessment proved it to be an area that should
receive extra attention. The other option would be to re-analyze this students assessment, other
examples of his work, and data available from assessments implemented by the classroom teacher to
develop a new motivation for intervention. Using my available resources that included writing
samples, results from the Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment, and observations during silent
reading, I could choose to modify the mini-lesson based on any information that I could gather when
I am in the classroom. I was aware that this child read the Fountas and Pinnell books in levels A-C,
which is the norm for kindergarten students. Although his reading is accurate and fluent, it is
comprehension that causes this inability to progress to higher level books. Therefore, this was an
alternative intervention approach for week two such that while we could work on sounding out
words within stories should an unfamiliar and challenging term be approached, the comprehension
aspect could also be instructed on using various strategies, such as asking and answering W
questions.

WEEK 2- COMPREHENSION OF NON-FICTION TEXT WITH W

QUESTIONS

Week 2: Goal

Joe currently provides answers to comprehension-based questions at a level that is equivalent to 0 on

the progress monitoring guideline that was utilized for the mini-lessons, which is a score based on an
analysis of his Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment. Through the use of a picture-based
activity, the student will develop stronger skills in comprehension. He will work on carefully reading
through a level B book during which pauses between the pages are emphasized as a time to discuss
meaning and use several resources to enhance ones comprehension. The focus will be on generating
and responding to W questions, which will be assessed for progress monitoring purposes. Joe
should generate and respond to W questions at a level 1 for all areas assessed on the checklist.

Week 2: Summary of lesson

Based on analyses of other resources for this student and per the suggestion of the classroom
teacher, the focus of the mini-lesson transitioned to working on reading comprehension. A book from
the students independent reading selection would be used given that these are texts deemed to be
appropriate for his level of abilities. The selected text would be read out loud, and the student would
pause on each page to respond to W questions prompted by myself. These would guide the student
to strategically take apart their reading rather than remaining at the surface. Follow an deep
conversation throughout the text using this strategy, it would again be used to review the text and
articulate comprehension in writing. A worksheet was created to supplement the activity that would
guide the students reflections of questioning on each page to comprehend the text to a greater extent
through the analysis of the words, illustrations, and relevant connections. The balloons on this
worksheet directed the attention of the student towards the main idea of the book, while reinforcing
the use of illustrations and prior knowledge to build upon his understand. The use of this worksheet
would not only reinforce the students comprehension, but would also provide him with a tool to use
independently.

Week 2: Reflection of lesson

 Comprehension development was approached for this mini-lesson based on results from the
Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment to strengthen the skills that were identified to be
challenging. I utilized a guided reading book that the student had been working with for at least two
weeks. Therefore, the student would be able to demonstrate fluency and accuracy in decoding the
text, so understanding could be tended to without the ability to read the text impacting his
comprehension. To address this, W questions were used when working to comprehend the text and
illustrations on each page, as well as make connections. These questions were created both
spontaneously and based off of the types of questions typically asked in the comprehension section
of the Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessments. This includes those that pertain to
comprehension within the text, as well as beyond and about the text. I was very surprised with the
success of this lesson given the initial results of the benchmark assessment. The student was able to
complete the activity without evidence of challenge that would likely be attributed to the repetition
of reading the text and the detailed prompts asked for each page and the book as a whole. After
questions were posed, the student was able to respond swiftly without the need for modeling, further
guidance, or hints. The following questions were asked, although in more detail based on the vehicle
being studied:

What is this vehicle we see on the page?

What size does the author describe it to be?
Why is the vehicle described as big based on the picture?
When have you seen this vehicle before?
Who uses this vehicle?
What do you think this vehicle is used for based on the picture and when you have seen it?
Why does the vehicle need to be big?

The following were some example responses from the student:

That is a tractor.
The tractor is big.
It has big wheels to plow the farm.
A tractor is used on a farm.
The farmers use it.
I saw a tractor used to plow the farmland near my house.
The tractor is big because there is a lot of land to work on.

These questions were successfully posed and answered for the vehicle on each page of the book. I
was intrigued by the knowledge the child had of these vehicles, as well as what he was able to
describe based on the books content. Before progressing to the worksheet part of the lesson, the
book was reviewed as a whole pertaining to the main idea of large vehicles and things the student
learned. His ability to follow this comprehension process signaled to me that he was ready to
enhance his understanding with the use of the worksheet. Not only did it serve as additional review,
but it helped continue these thought processes through the use of a physical reading tool. The student
completed the worksheet, which I documented as we talked about each part together to structure his
approach to the assignment. This was useful because I could then use the worksheet to recall his
work with me and further analyze his comprehension abilities that were presented in this mini-lesson
for assessment and progress purposes. This success within a structure comprehension approach
caused me to begin reflecting on the intervention to consider guiding him through strategies that
could be utilized independently in the future mini-lessons. Furthermore, due to the unexpected
success of this intervention, I do not see one particular area of improvement pertaining to its design
or implementation. This mini-lesson gave me a better sense of his comprehension abilities beyond
the Fountas and Pinnell assessment results. With this enhanced perspective, I could approach his
comprehension-based instruction in a manner that guided him towards more independent skills that
would be necessary for future assessments when there is not the opportunity to carefully analyze
each page with the use of prompts.

Week 2: Result of progress monitoring

Since this was the first week working on comprehension, progress was to be based off of the
results of the first Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment of the year. That original data showed
he received a 1 for within the text and a 1 for beyond and about the text that, as a whole, signified
unsatisfactory comprehension. Following the mini-lesson, the student showed significant progress in
developing these skills further. This was reflected in his ability to respond to the W questions
without the need for additional prompting. Therefore, I would determine that the student responded
well to this intervention because he proved to be fully capable of working with the comprehension-
questioning process. This allowed me to collect baseline data for these new interventions that I was
able to observe given that the information for the Fountas and Pinnell assessment was provided to
me. The need for modeling and early stage of developing independence resulted in the score of 1 for
checklist items 9-13. This represented the need for additional instruction for Joe to become a more
skillful user of this type of questioning that could be mastered with additional practice. The next step
would be to instruct him on the skills that will be useful for comprehending a text in an independent
or assessment setting. This guidance would have to help this student dig deeper into the text. A
gradual and scaffolded approach to this will likely produce further progress in the process of
becoming a stronger reader.

Week 2: Plan for next lesson

It was evident that the student understood how to use the books textual content and imagery
to respond to comprehension questions. Therefore, the next step would be to guide the student
through strategies of asking these W questions independently and finding the answers in the text
and with the help of prior knowledge. This entails a scaffolded approach that tends to the details in
order for this diverse learner to fully grasp the process. It would be ideal to use another familiar book
in the next mini-lesson that will ease the process of the student generating the questions on his own.
If that intervention would result in progress, but additional practice would be more beneficial before
transitioning to more advanced instruction, judgements will likely be made to replicate the process
during the fourth mini-lesson with a previously read book and tools that the student can utilize
during each reading opportunity. However, should the next intervention result in sufficient progress
towards the objective, the final mini-lesson of this project could use a new book to allow the student
to generate questions and devise answers with any necessary guidance and scaffolding within an
unfamiliar text. This would enhance his ability to comprehend a text independently, and it would
simulate the benchmark assessment experience.

WEEK 3- COMPREHENSION OF NON-FICTION TEXT WITH WHAT

QUESTIONS

Week 3: Goal

Joe currently provides answers to comprehension-based questions at a level that is equivalent

to 1 on the progress monitoring guideline that was utilized for the mini-lessons. This student will
continue to work to develop and exhibit stronger skills in comprehension. This will be done by
asking and answering what questions to further understand the text in a more structured manner. He
will practice pausing between the reading of pages and use the tim e to discuss meaning while
utilizing the provided resources. The student should begin to grasp this strategy, and evidence of
progress should be observed in the summarizing conversations. The focus will be on generating and
responding to what questions, which will be assessed for progress monitoring purposes. Joe should
generate and respond to what questions at a level 2 for all areas assessed on the checklist.

Week 3: Summary of lesson

In order to guide the student to more independent use of the questioning strategy for
comprehension, particularly the use of W questions, the choice was made to focus on a single W
question for mastery to develop per the suggestion of the classroom teacher. The student would be
instructed that the lessons focus would be on what questions. Following a structure similar to that
from week two, each page of the independent reading book would be read out loud and then
discussed. The teacher would model, and then the student would generate his own what questions
to which responses would be necessary. Using text evidence, illustrations, and text-to-world
connections, the student would be supported in generating and answering questions to comprehend
his reading. Once this process was complete for the entirety of the text, the worksheet would be
complete to encourage the student to review his comprehension and utilize the tool again for practice
and reinforcement. The balloons would contain sentence starters of what to which the student
would complete based on some questions asked throughout the text, and the correct answers could
be recorded. The student would then reflect on the purpose he has discovered in asking questions
during reading, as well as the aspects of the book and reading experiences that could contribute to
his ability to respond.

Week 3: Reflection of lesson

The student continued to work on asking and responding to W questions this week. I
utilized a guided reading book that the student had been working with for at least two weeks. To
address his developing comprehension skills, what questions were used when working to analyze
the text and illustrations on each page, as well as make connections. These questions were created
both spontaneous and based off of the types of questions typically asked in the comprehension
section of the Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessments. After modeling a single time, I guided
the student to formulate what questions on his own using the sentence starters that were provided
on the worksheet. Again, this included those that pertained to comprehension within the text, as well
as beyond and about the text. The student was able to complete the activity without evidence of
challenge and a higher level of proficiency in comparison to the greater reliance on prompting in the
previous week. After questions were posed, the student was able to respond swiftly without the need
for modeling, further guidance, or hints. Once the verbal discussion were complete and provided
evidence of development, the student transitioned to the use of a worksheet to practice using it as a
tool for learning. While completing the worksheet, the student was guided to again ask what
questions following the sentence starters that were to be written as well. He proceeded to write
possible answers based on the text as well. The following questions were asked and answered:

What is an animal with two legs? Ostrich

What will have four legs? Dog
What would have no legs? Snake

These questions were successfully posed and answered for the animals on each page of the book. I
was intrigued by the knowledge the child had of these animals and others that could be associated
with the content based on prior knowledge. He was able to consider that animals such as cheetahs
have four legs, or humans have two legs. There were useful text-to-world connections that could
help reinforce the meaning of the text. To complete the task, we discussed the purpose of asking
questions while reading. The student volunteered the response that he asked what questions while
reading to think and learn about the book. This response was articulated in writing on the worksheet
that he could reference when reading through other books independently. Finally, we discussed the
main topic of the book. Without having the book in sight, he was able to recall that the content
pertained to a discussion of numbers of animals legs.
I continued to find great use of this worksheet as a tool to supplement working through this
students comprehension skills. This mini-lesson required less guidance completing the worksheet,
as well as more importantly generating W questions. Progress was evident in that prompting was
not used throughout the entire intervention, but rather the student was able to generate questions of
his own. He was able to independently establish the purpose of such a lesson in determining that
questioning helps the reader learn about the text. With this knowledge and additional practice, it
would be likely that the student could begin to independently work through this process with the use
of the worksheet through which the teacher could continue to analyze his comprehension abilities,
progress, and consistency. Overall, it was useful focusing on a single W question that added the
necessary structure to the mini-lesson that would guide even more progress. For a child who
struggles with literacy, establishing a focal point is critical. With guidance through each W question
and review, the student can be led to be an independent user of this technique.

Week 3: Result of progress monitoring

 The previous week followed a format that mostly consisted of my frequent generation of W
questions that the student used on each page to further student the text, illustrations, and connections
that could be made. This week I wanted to give the student more independence in the process, and he
did very well. He was able to prove that he was not only able to generate spoken W questions, but
he was also able to write them that was intended to enhance his learning of the process. Prompting
was not necessary to receives answers to such questions that exhibited progress in this students
purposeful use of questioning. He was able to successfully work with what questions in a manner
that was different from those before. The need for some modeling, but increased independence
resulted in the score of 2 for checklist item 11. This represented the need for additional practice to
ensure that the skillful use of this type of questioning was retained and could be mastered for
independent use. With the success of this mini-lesson and progress that was evident, I would utilize
it to cover all W questions to guide mastery within the five directions of such questioning.

Week 3: Plan for next lesson

Evidence of the students understanding of how to use the books textual content and imagery
to respond to comprehension questions was maintained. Therefore, the next step would be to guide
the student through strategies of asking why questions as independently as in week threes mini-
lesson, if not more so. I would expect there to be no need for prompting for answers. It would be
likely that some modeling of why questions would be necessary for the student to be able to hear
the expectations of such inquiries. A book of the students choice within his book box could be used
to encourage him to maintain interest in reading and be motivated to continue working with me. If
that intervention resulted in progress, but additional practice would be more beneficial before
transitioning to another W question, judgements would be made to modify the procedure of the
fourth mini-lesson. However, should the next intervention result in sufficient progress towards the
objective, the final mini-lesson of this project could use a new W question. If there was more time
available, it would be ideal to conduct at least five more interventions to complete work with all of
the five W questions and encourage use in his independent reading. This would enhance his ability
to comprehend a text independently, and it would lead to progress on the benchmark assessment.

WEEK 4- COMPREHENSION OF NON-FICTION TEXT WITH WHY

QUESTIONS

Week 4: Goal

Joe currently generates and responds to what comprehension-based questions at a level that
is equivalent to 2 on the progress monitoring guideline that was utilized for the mini-lessons. This
student will continue to work to develop and exhibit stronger skills in comprehension. This will be
done by asking and answering why questions to further understand the text in a structured manner.
He will practice pausing between the reading of pages and use the time to discuss meaning while
utilizing the provided resources. The student should continue to develop skills towards mastery of
the use of this strategy, and evidence of progress should be observed in the summarizing
conversations. The focus will be on generating and responding to why questions, which will be
assessed for progress monitoring purposes. Joe should generate and respond to why questions at a
level 2, while continuing the progress for all other areas assessed on the checklist for this mini-
lesson.

Week 4: Summary of Lesson

To continue to focus on a single W question for mastery to develop, the student would be
instructed that the lessons focus would be on why questions. Following a structure similar to that
from week three, each page of the independent reading book would be read out loud and then
discussed. There would be less of a necessity for the teacher to model, so the student would be
supported to generate his own why questions to which responses would be necessary. Using text
evidence, illustrations, and text-to-world connections, the student would be reminded and supported
in generating and answering questions to comprehend his reading. Once this process was complete
for the entirety of the text, the worksheet would be complete to encourage the student to review his
comprehension and utilize the tool again for consistency and mastery. The balloons would contain
sentence starters of why to which the student would complete based on some questions asked
throughout the text, and the correct answers could be recorded. The student would then reflect on the
purpose he has discovered in asking questions during reading, as well as the aspects of the book and
reading experiences that could contribute to his ability to respond.

Week 4: Reflection of lesson

The student continued to work on asking and responding to W questions this week for our
final mini-lesson. I utilized a guided reading book that the student had prior exposure to. He selected
a non-fiction book about the winter. To address comprehension skill development further, why
questions were used when working to comprehend the text and illustrations on each page, as well as
make connections. As with the other weeks, these questions were created both spontaneously and
based off of the types of questions typically asked in the comprehension section of the Fountas and
Pinnell benchmark assessments. Modeling was used to get the student started, but limited help was
needed that was evidence of development in the questioning process. I guided the student to
formulate why questions on his own using the sentence starters that were provided on the
worksheet. Like the previous two weeks, this included those that pertained to comprehension within
the text, as well as beyond and about the text. They were to follow past, present, and future tenses to
encourage deeper reflections. The student was able to complete the activity without evidence of
challenge that was helped by practice with this task the previous week. After questions were posed,
the student was able to respond swiftly without the need for modeling, further guidance, or hints.
Once the verbal discussion was complete and provided evidence of development, I had the student
transition to the use of a worksheet that would be utilized as a tool in the future. While completing
the worksheet, the student was guided to again ask why questions following the sentence starters
that were to be written as well. He proceeded to tell me the text- and image-based answers. The
following questions were asked and answered:
 1 Why are the kids sledding? They are sledding because it is the winter and there is snow on
the ground.
2 Why will the kids make a snowman? They are making a snowman because there is a lot of
snow.
3 Why would the kids make cookies? They are making cookies because the book says that it
is raining.

These questions were successfully posed and answered for the activities on each page of the book.
Unlike previous mini-lessons, connections made between prior knowledge and the text was limited,
so that is something that I would choose to work on further. To complete the task, we discussed the
purpose of asking questions while reading. In the previous mini-lesson, the student responded with
ease that asking questions helps one learn about the book. This was the case again, which continued
to exhibit to me strengthening skills within this comprehension questioning process. Finally, we
discussed what the main topic of the book was. Without having the book in sight, he was able to
recall that the content pertained to a discussion of winter activities.

Week 4: Result of progress monitoring

The previous week followed a format much like this weeks, but with a new W question
that was to be used on each page to further study the text, illustrations, and connections. The student
continued to do well with less prompting and more independence in the process. He was able to
prove that he was not only able to generate spoken what questions, but he was also able to generate
why questions orally and in writing through the use of the balloon worksheet that was a tool he was
becoming a strong user of. Prompting was not necessary to receives answers to such questions that
exhibited progress in this students purposeful use of questioning. He was able to successfully work
with why questions in a manner that was different from those before our interventions began. The
need for less modeling and increased independence resulted in the score of 2 for checklist item 10.
This represented the need for additional practice to ensure that the skillful use of this type of
questioning was retained and could be mastered for independent use. With the success of this mini-
lesson and progress that was evident, I would utilize it in future mini-lessons to cover all W
questions to guide mastery within the five directions of such questioning. Therefore, the next step
would be to analyze progress of this student in the same approach with the question word of when.

Week 4: Plan for next lesson

It was evident that the student was becoming a stronger user of the books textual content and
imagery to formulate and respond to comprehension questions. Therefore, the next step would be to
guide the student through strategies of asking these when questions as independently as in this
mini-lesson, if not more so. I would expect there to be no need for prompting for answers. It would
be likely that some modeling of when questions would be necessary for the student to be able to
hear the expectations of such inquiries. A book of the students choice within his book box would be
used again to continue to encourage him to maintain interest in our literacy work together. With the
assumption that progress would follow, other weeks of interventions would include instruction
through the remaining W questions, and then more a summative approach to practice and reflect on
the use of all W questions. For independent use where the interventions were not taking place, a
laminated version of the worksheets would be useful for the student to refer to while reading each
page of a book in order to practice this comprehension technique on his own.

RESULTS OF INTERVENTION

To continue with a focus on Joes reading comprehension development, the results from
weeks two through four are to be analyzed. Based on the fall Fountas and Pinnell benchmark
assessment, his initial comprehension skills were very limited with a score of 1 that signaled the
need for interventions. It was necessary to utilize a specific strategy to instruct stronger skills. Thus,
the questioning method was used to produce reflective skills useful for comprehension. The progress
monitoring chart established to track development included list of 13 skills, some of which more
general skills that could be observed and should be tracked, but also those that were more critical to
analyze that were skills 6 through 13, which were related to using the W question strategy. With the
use of the detailed guideline created for these interventions, week twos intervention supplemented
the data from the benchmark assessment to establish a baseline for the students ability to use the
selected process. Joe scored ones on using the books illustrations to respond to the questions, as
well as independently formulating each W question. This lack of independence was addressed
through the use of consistent prompting on each page requiring questions. Thus, this week provided
information of Joes ability to respond to such questions through the use of the text, illustrations, and
connection-making. His answers were accurate and appropriate for comprehension purposes.
Sentence starters were offered to help the student initiate the formulation of his own questions.
However, due to the lack of success in offering a greater level of independence, a score of 1 was
necessary to represent the need for additional instruction and guidance. This led to the determination
to use a single W question the following week.
Week three was spent focusing on what questions as mentioned. Through the establishment
of this focal point, it was hopeful that less content and more attention to detail would advance the
skill level of the student associated with using this strategy for comprehension. This instance
required that a what question be modeled on each page, but no additional prompting was necessary
for the student to formulate his own questions. He was able to create at least three what questions
of his own for each page using the provided worksheet that he found to function as a tool. Due to the
need for limited modeling, but increased independence, he scored a 2. This represented the
developing proficiency, but need for additional practice with the teacher and independently for a
score of 3 to be received exhibiting mastery. If additional practice occurred in the following weeks
and review took place at the conclusion of studying each individual question, this mastery and
independence would likely take shape.
With the success of week threes mini-lesson that established a focal point to work on a
single skill at a time, it was necessary to continue this process in week four with why questions to
maintain the necessary structure that led to success. Due to Joes familiarity with this strategy, all
that was required was a reminder of the question word being utilized during the lesson, and one
example of a question. Prompting and modeling was not necessary. Joe was able to formulate several
original questions for each page to which he would automatically respond with the answers. It was
evident that independence was developing with this strategy, but it would be ideal for there to be
opportunities for additional practice with the specific question word in order to ensure that the
student had truly mastered and retained the ability to use it for comprehension. Therefore, the score
of 2 was given to provide evidence of his progress, but the usefulness for additional work with the
work.
Improvements could be seen in that Joes abilities progressed from a score of 1 during week
two, to higher scores of 2 for the use of what and why questions for reading comprehension.
These two results can be seen on the graphs titled Checklist Item 11 Progress and Checklist Item
10 Progress. An increasing blue slope can be seen representing the upward trend of progress. The
blue da ta points are those from the scores listed on the progress monitoring charts. The red data
points and slopes represent the perceived progress that one would be expected to see if instruction
and development continued in the following weeks. Both graphs show a plateau at the score of 2 that
would be associated with the continued practice to ensure retention of the skills and gradual
transition to mastery, which is represented at the data point (week 6, 3). Similar trajectories have
been determined for the other skills analyzed on the progress monitoring chart. A plateau and upward
trend are consistent to graphically display the additional practice and expected resulting progress.
These graphs would be built upon as interventions continue.

TARGETS FOR FUTURE INSTRUCTION

This discussion will maintain a focus on developing Joes comprehension skills. Over the
course of the three weeks that progress could be observed, the use of the W questioning strategy
proved to be a useful approach for this student. Joe was working with close reading, which means
reading to uncover layers of meaning that lead to deep comprehension (Boyles, 2013). Given that
improvements were made towards his ability to formulate and respond to what and why
questions, future instruction should continue the use of this strategy and the balloon worksheet to
cover the when, who, and where questions. Research makes a strong case for identifying (and
instructing) lagging students early (Goodwin, 2012). Therefore, it is critical that these interventions
continue. In order to make this possible, appropriate level texts needs to be selected that allow for
such questions to be devised, and are conducive to comprehension of the text. Studying short texts
is especially helpful if we want to enable (the student)... to practice closely reading demanding
texts (Boyles, 2013). The pattern should remain consistent that each week a new word is instructed
on through the use of the worksheet, but the verbal discussions should also allow for the student to
continue to practice the use of all previous questions covered, such as what and why. This
consistency in practice allows for the student to maintain and expand upon his level 2 abilities that
were observed. The frequent opportunities to use this strategy will allow for Joe to reach a level
three that exhibits mastery of the process, and stronger comprehension abilities. It would be ideal if
this instruction can occur at least once, and the remaining days of the week consist of tracking the
students independent use of the questioning strategy in independent reading with reminders and
prompting when necessary for additional support. Additional days of instruction in this area would
serve as more consistency and support of these skills, which would help to lead to maintenance and
improvement of them. The goal is for Joe to take what he has learned form the study of one text and
apply it to the next text that he reads (Boyles, 2013). Once all W questions have been individually
covered in instruction, they should be one or two days of instruction that revisit the use of them all.
If Joe takes the time to ask himself questions while reading and become skillful at answering them,
therell be less need for the teacher to do all the asking (Boyles, 2013). If this instruction with this
strategy continues through the next implementation of the Fountas and Pinnell benchmark
assessment, it would be likely that scores improve in the area of comprehension, thus enabling the
student to proceed to higher levels of texts. This is a strategy that can be useful for him in all levels
of text, so its use should be reinforced as he advances. The student should be urged to continue to
use this comprehension strategy beyond its relevant instruction, even as additional processes are
introduced. In order to ensure that the student utilizes this strategy independently, a copy of the
balloon worksheet should be made available to guide the thinking of the student. It will offer
structure to his reading experience to ensure that he is working to think deeply about the text. To
reinforce this and the necessity to pause after each page to ask and answer questions, sticky notes
can be placed on the pages of the texts read independently stating stop as a reminder to Joe. It
would be useful to explain this process to family members who can continue to work on this
questioning with him as he reads at home. This will serve to truly make it a skill, as opposed to a
tactic that is used solely in school and is not as purposeful as it can be. The more often that the
student utilizes the W questions while reading, the more proficient he will be with the process, and
the more advanced of a reader he can become.
Important to note is that the use of W questions for deeper reading purposes is not the sole
comprehension strategy. A stronger reader will have a wealth of tools available based on the
opportunities that instruction has offered. Therefore, once Joe has mastered the use of the W
questions that would be evident in his work with the teacher, as well as when being observed
independently, it would be ideal to continue the individualized instruction with him to expose him to
alternative comprehension tactics. This questioning could transition to an alternative approach that
asks the following questions: What is the author telling me here? Are there any hard or important
words? What does the author want me to understand? How does the author play with language to
add to meaning? (Boyles, 2013). Beyond questioning, additional strategies can include instruction
on making connections, or visualization. Visualization would be useful for this student given his
initial struggles to understand and interpret the text. He would be instructed on using the following
statements within his reflections on each page: I could see, I could hear, I could smell, I could feel,
and I could taste. This would be a useful approach to reading comprehension given his previous
exposure to the use of the sense for elaboration in writing. This would teach the student to become
more involved with the text through closing his eyes and allowing the words and imagery to take
shape in his mind related to the senses. Such visualization entails taking a deeper look at the contents
of the book that reinforces a comprehensive analysis as opposed to the acceptance and moving on
that previously occurred.
The final focus of instruction should be on maintaining and developing the skills in the other
areas listed on the progress monitoring chart that are not associated with W questions. Of those that
should be supported with discussions and questioning relevant to their purposes, instruction should
particularly work on rereading text when necessary for accuracy and instruction and asking for help
when it is needed. These are two skills that contribute to the abilities of a strong reader. Rereading is
a tactic the student can use to review information, clarify ideas, and address any misconceptions due
to inaccurate reading or misunderstanding of the text. This can be done by asking the student to
pause on each page and either read the entire page, or reread a sentence for practice. Prompting
should be included to establish purpose for this activity. On the other hand, asking for help allows
the student to seek additional assistance from the most useful resource in the classroom, which is the
teacher. The teacher will have the tools and prompting abilities to help the student overcome tricky
words, guide through phrasing that may be confusing, or instruct a more accurate interpretation of
the text. Pausing and prompting can again be used to guide the student towards understanding the
usefulness and purpose of such a process. Helping the student learn to use these methods while
reading will reinforce his comprehension skills as well by exposing him to alternative strategies that
support his during-reading thought processes.

PROGRESS MONITORING DATA AND GRAPHS

Please see the other documents on the assignment submission. The rubric utilized for progress
monitoring is that which was provided for the mini-lesson assignment submission.

REFERENCES

Goodwin, B. (2012, March). Research Says Address Reading Problems Early.

Boyles, N. (december 2012-january 2013). Closing in on. Educational Leadership, 36-41.

Moats, L. C. (2010). Speech to Print (2nd ed.). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.