Running head: ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 1

Analysis of Student Work – ASW

Tanner Boley

4/27/18

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 2

Student Background

I have completed my ASW on the student I tutor every Wednesday for my EDRL 442

class. C is a first grade student at Paradise Elementary School in Las Vegas, Nevada. She is 7

years old. Based on the Interest Inventory and through discussion with her, I know her favorite

subjects include reading, art, and writing. Some of her favorite books are Fancy Nancy, Pete the

Cat and His White Shoes, and Piggy and Elephant. She enjoys books with nice, colorful

illustrations as well. She says that a good reader is someone who learns and gets smarter from

reading.

The results of the Reading Attitude Survey I administered show that she enjoys reading

very much. She gave smiley faces to all questions except 3. She even put a heart around the

smiley face for the question about reading science and social studies books. My student is

between mixed phrasing and being a fluent reader but seems to struggle some with

comprehension. She will sometimes rush while reading and is easily distracted. She is capable

of spelling well for her grade but does struggle with long vowel words. She also confuses her

b’s and d’s. C is very concerned with doing well and worries about her grade. Even though I tell

her we don’t do any grades for the tutoring, she will still ask if she got an A. While it is good

that she cares, sometimes it can be distracting for her. Overall she is a great student who wants

to succeed.

Grade Level Standards and Expectations

Lesson 1 – High Frequency Word Knowledge Survey (HFWKS)

I administered a High Frequency Word Knowledge Survey to assess C’s ability to

immediately recognize and read high-frequency words, which includes sight words.

Standards:
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 3

RF.1.2a: Distinguish long from short vowel sounds in spoken single-syllable words.

RF.1.2b: Decode regularly spelled one-syllable words.

RF.1.2c: Know final –e and common vowel team conventions for representing long

vowel sounds.

Lesson 2 – Primary Spelling Inventory (PSI)

I administered a Primary Spelling Inventory in order to assess my student’s ability to

spell untaught words using a variety of spelling features at increasing levels of difficulty. This

allowed me to assess C’s stage of orthographic development and identify certain digraphs,

blends, and letter-sound pairing that she may need help improving on.

Standards:

RF.2.3: Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

L.2.2d: Generalize learned spelling patterns when writing words (e.g., cage  badge; boy

 boil).

Lesson 3 – Narrative Reading Comprehension and Miscue Analysis

The purpose of this assessment was to assess various levels and types of reading

comprehension for my student. This also assessed silent reading comprehension and fluency. I

was able to analyze which decoding and phonics strategies were used and not used by C.

Standards:

RF.2.3: Know and apply grade level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

RF.2.4a: Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding.

SL.2.3: Ask and answer questions about what a speaker says in order to clarify

comprehension, gather additional information, or deepen understanding of a topic or

issue.
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 4

Analysis of ASW Student Performance Overview

Lesson 1

The High Frequency Word Knowledge Survey (HFWKS) was administered to assess C’s

ability to recognize and read high frequency words. The student is given a list of 100 words and

must read them all out loud. The student is given a few seconds for each word, and then must

move on. The teacher checks for accuracy of the words and notes mispronounced or incorrect

words. This gives immediate insight into the student’s basic word recognition level and prior

knowledge.

C only got 1 word incorrect out of 100. This means she scored 99% on the HFWKS.

Her lone mistake was on the word “than.” C said “that” instead. However, I believe this error

was related to speed and pacing because C was reading the words quickly and I had to remind

her a couple of times to slow down and take her time. Further, reading 100 words in a row can

be challenging in itself. Two times during this initial lesson C asked, “How many words are

left?” I feel this shows that while the HFWKS supplied me with valuable data and information,

it was also a bit strenuous for the student. From this lesson I learned that C is excellent at basic

word recognition, but struggles with taking her time and pacing herself. The initial strategy I

used was “Break it Down (Technique 35)” from Lemov (2015). This technique had me supply

enough time after a student makes an error to allow her to correct herself as best as she can.

While she only made one error, I still applied the strategy as best I could. This allowed her to

learn from her own mistakes and help show her it is natural to make errors.

Re-Teach Strategies Lesson 1

1. “Finger Pointer” – This simple strategy has the student use a finger or other device to

point to each word as they read it.

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 5

2. “Without Apology” – This Lemov (2015) strategy has the teacher embrace rather than

apologize for rigorous assignments and academic challenges.

3. “Own and Track” – This Lemov (2015) technique has students correct their own work,

creating a setting of accountability for the appropriate answer.

Re-Teaching Lesson 1

For Lesson 1 I essentially chose two of the re-teach strategies I mentioned above. I

utilized “”Finger Pointer” to help C slow herself down and “Without Apology” to show her that

sometimes we have to work hard to get what we want. Through my time with her, I noticed C

could be tough on herself and always wanted to get the correct answer or say the right thing.

While I attempted to minimize this harshness on herself, I also played off of it a bit. I

encouragingly said things like, “If we want to get better, we have to work hard and complete

this.” This was my motivation for using the “Without Apology” strategy. To help her improve

further we completed word sorts and sight word Bingo games. These helped to keep C

motivated in a fun, interactive way while still engaging her mentally and working on improving.

I encouraged C to use her finger to point to each word while completing these activities and also

while she read books out loud. I wanted to make the finger pointing natural for her, almost so

she did not even have to think about it. This seemed to slow her down some.

Reflection Lesson 1

I feel that my chosen strategies for Lesson 1 were effective and overall successful. When

I administered the HFWKS a second time to C, she completed it with 100% accuracy. This

second time, she read the words in a much more controlled manner and did not seem nearly as

rushed as the first time. C used her finger to point to each word she read and was still able to

complete the HFWKS in a timely manner. I was able to notice that she felt more comfortable
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 6

taking the HFWKS a second time. Lastly, she did not complain about the length of the

assessment. Rather, she said encouraging statements, such as, “I know that word!”

Lesson 2

The Primary Spelling Inventory (PSI) allowed me to get more in depth with C’s spelling

and determine what stage of spelling she was at. The PSI is an assessment for spelling, which

tests 26 words that get progressively more challenging. Students are not graded on whether or

not they spelled the words completely correct. Rather, the score is based on the whether or not

the student identified feature points of the words, which I will break down next. The first words

focus on initial and final consonants, as well as short vowels. The next words focus on digraphs,

blends, and common long vowels. The final words focus on other vowels (ew, aw, ou, etc.), and

inflected endings. Since this assessment focuses on the various feature points used when

spelling, it supplies more useful information that just a memory-based spelling test. I was then

able to use this information and tailor it specifically to C’s areas of need. The PSI is from the

textbook Words Their Way (2016).

After the initial PSI was given, C correctly spelled 12 out of the 26 words. She scored

43 out of the available 56 feature points. She struggled most with long vowel patterns, other

vowels (specifically long u and long i), and inflected endings. This placed her in the Middle

Within Word Pattern spelling stage. The initial strategy I chose for Lesson 2 was “Culture of

Error” (Lemov, 2015). This technique has the teacher work with students to create an

environment where students know and feel it is safe to make mistakes. This way, we can

concentrate more on improving and learning from mistakes rather than dwelling on them and

letting them bring us down. This strategy was crucial because, as I stated before, C was often

tough on herself and unhappy with even small errors she made. I remained positive with her and
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 7

stated that all I wanted was for her to try her best. I told her that even I make mistakes, and that

it is something that everyone does. While she still had some anxiety, I honestly feel this helped.

Re-Teach Strategies Lesson 2

1. “Do Now” – Have a short warm up activity students can complete on their own without

any instruction. Allows the lesson to start without having to even teach yet (Lemov,

2015).

2. “Exit Ticket” – End the lesson with a quick assessment of the objective for the day to

evaluate the lesson’s success and student understanding (Lemov, 2015).

3. “At Bats” – Give students lots and lots of practice to master skills and knowledge

(Lemov, 2015).

Re-Teaching Lesson 2

For Lesson 2, I chose the Lemov (2015) strategy “At Bats.” I chose this strategy because

I knew my student needed to work specifically on other long “u” and long “i” words. To

improve on these skills, I used several exercises that would fall under the “At Bats”

description. One exercise was having letter cards. I would tell C to spell a word by

combining the individual letters to make the word. Then, I would tell her to switch a letter or

two out in order to create a new word (ex: brought  bright). We completed this exercise

several times and with many different word combinations. Another exercise was simply

giving her various spelling tests on words and word patterns she needed to work on. To

make these more entertaining and engaging, I allowed her to draw a picture to accompany

each word if she wanted. C loves to draw and look at illustrations, so this worked out well.

She actually wanted to take spelling tests, which was great. If she spelled a word incorrect,

she would write it down on a paper and take it home to study. I would also ask her to tell me
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 8

the word in a sentence, to ensure she knew what it meant (while this is not spelling, I still felt

it was important to do).

Reflection Lesson 2

I feel my strategy worked and I know C’s spelling improved greatly during my time

working with her. The second time I administered the PSI to C, she spelled 24/26 words

correctly. She also got 54/56 feature points correct. Her two mistakes were on inflected endings

(-ies and –ding). Her new spelling stage was Late Within Word Pattern. I was very impressed

with her new score and extremely proud of C’s improvement. Initially she was a little sad she

still spelled the two words incorrectly. However, after I explained to her how much she had

improved and helped her realize that she spelled twelve more words correctly than last time, she

brightened up. If I could go back, I would have focused more on the inflected endings as well.

We did not really work on those and focused more on the other long vowel sounds. Even though

I undoubtedly saw improvement, I know we could have done more. In the end, I feel the “At

Bats” strategy helped C improve so much because of the repetition. Much of her improvement is

simply credited to her though. She wanted to improve and worked really hard on her spelling

while showing passion and tons of effort.

Lesson 3

The purpose of the Narrative Reading Comprehension and Miscue Analysis was to assess

the student’s reading comprehension and fluency. I was also able to observe which decoding and

phonics behaviors C displayed or did not display. The assessment referred to these as “Word

Attack Behaviors.”

C was given a chosen passage level (I chose Level 3). She then read the passage silently

and afterward I asked her 10 comprehension questions about the passage. I noted whether or not
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 9

she answered these questions unaided (by herself), aided (help from me), incorrectly, or did not

answer at all. This was to help determine C’s comprehension. Next, I had C read the first 100

words in the passage out loud to help determine fluency. I listened and noted any

mispronunciations, substitutions, insertions, teacher assists, or omissions. For any of these errors

she made, I then determined if these errors were related to syntax, visual, or meaning. Then, I

filled out the Miscue Analysis page. This is where I noted the “Word Attack” behaviors I

observed C use. Some Word Attack behaviors I observed C use were repeating, asking for help,

substituting, sounding out, skipping/reading on, and attempting to self-correct. Lastly, I

completed the Performance Summary to analyze whether the Level 3 passage was at an

independent level, instructional level, or frustration level for C in regards to both comprehension

and fluency. For comprehension, C answered 3 of the 10 questions incorrectly, meaning she was

at frustration level for this passage. For fluency, C made 6 total errors out of 100 words. This

means she had 94% accuracy for this passage. This also put her in the frustration level for

fluency.

Re-Teach Strategies Lesson 3

1. “Mental Movie” – Have student create a movie or pictures in their mind about what is

happening in the story as they are reading it.

2. “Control The Game” – This Lemov (2015) strategy has the student read out loud

frequently while the teacher manages to ensure engagement and expressiveness.

3. “Frequent Questioning” – The teacher asks questions about the text being read frequently

throughout the reading instead of waiting until the end.

Re-Teaching Lesson 3
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 10

For lesson 3, I again basically chose a combination of two of the above-mentioned

strategies. I used both “Mental Movie” and “Frequent Questioning” to help improve C’s

comprehension level. I chose to focus more on comprehension level rather than fluency because

C really struggled with the comprehension questions. To help her improve, we read two books

during each tutoring session together. We would read one book to begin our session and one

book to end it. I chose books that were at DRA levels 18-20 to push her a little bit out of her

comfort zone. Before our readings, I would ask C a few questions about what she thought the

story would be about or to make predictions. I would encourage her to pay attention to certain

events or characters. Also, I reminded her to make pictures in her mind of what was happening

in the story or pretend the book was a movie taking place in her head. During the reading, I

would ask her questions at certain points, ask her to recap what happened or why something

happened. After she finished reading, always had four questions prepared about the story. Two

were direct questions and two were open-ended questions. The direct questions were meant to

ensure she knew what was happening in the story. The open-ended questions were intended to

help her think more deeply and make connections with what she read. I truly felt that these

strategies helped her comprehend the stories at a higher level and she would answer most of my

questions correctly. Unfortunately, when I re-administered the Narrative Reading

Comprehension and Miscue Analysis, C scored about the same as the previous time. She was

able to get more questions correct, but still needed to be aided for many of the answers. I feel if I

had more time with her or could meet with her more often we could have seen more

improvement.

Reflection Lesson 3
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 11

Overall I feel that the strategies I chose were excellent choices and focuses largely on

building comprehension skills. I chose those strategies because I wanted C to be able to

successfully comprehend stories she read independently. I wanted to supply her with the skills

she would need to succeed. With “Mental Movie,” she can picture any story she reads in her

head without guidance or assistance. With “Frequent Questioning,” I tried to show her the value

of being able to ask different questions and think outside of the box at times. While I did see

improvement, I had hoped to see more. If I had more time with her I could have tried other

strategies or may have been able to get more out of her with the same strategies I chose. C

worked very hard and I know she will succeed if she keeps her mind to it and remains positive.

ASW Future Application

Completing the ASW provided me with some valuable insight into how I as a teacher can

individualize and tailor certain exercises or lessons for certain students. Prior to this, the only

read individualized part of a lesson plan I had completed was related to accommodations or

modifications. However, these were fairly general and were not intended with a specific student

in mind. Overall, my lesson plans had focused on the whole class reaching set objective and

standards. The ASW allowed me to focus on one particular student, identify her needs or areas

of struggle, and come up with ways to help her improve in these areas. This will be extremely

important for me in my future teaching because I will actually have to do this for my students.

All students are unique and all students are individuals. What works amazingly for one student

may simply fall flat for another. Knowing this, I will be willing to try various strategies and

approaches until I find one that is successful for that particular student. I am willing to admit

that this does sound a bit daunting to me because of the number of students I may have in my
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 12

future classes. By completing this ASW and having the opportunity to go in depth one-on-one

with C, now I at least have some experience with all of this.

Another important concept the ASW helped me understand is that formative assessments

can be just about anything. A formative assessment does not have to be fully written up and

have the appearance of a test. To formatively assess, I can simply ask the student a question and

determine if they are correct or not. If they seem to grasp the idea or concept, we can move on.

If the student seems lost or confused, then I should go back and re-teach. Throughout my ASW

experience I was formatively assessing all the time and I did not even realize it. This is a

powerful but quick way to determine students’ understanding in a low-pressure environment.

Philosophy Teach, Check, Re-Teach, Recheck

There is no doubt that checking, re-teaching, and rechecking are crucial parts to ensuring

students are successful. If we as teachers were to simply move on as soon as we finish a lesson,

we would run the risk of students becoming very confused and ultimately falling behind (or

failing). By checking for understanding and determining whether or not students understand

what is being taught, we can make sure we do not move on prematurely. Many concepts, and

especially those in the elementary grades, build off of each other or are the foundation for even

greater ideas. If we progress over these concepts too quickly before students fully grasp them,

we are not setting students up for success.

If we check and determine students did not understand the lesson that was taught, we

must go back and re-teach. The ASW showed me the importance of utilizing alternate strategies

and trying new approaches. By trying these new methods and techniques, we can hopefully

reach more students and more varying styles of learning. Different strategies can also help

access deeper levels of thinking/questioning, which would make the lesson more effective.
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 13

Lastly, rechecking is critical to making sure students truly understand what was taught and can

reach the set objectives for the lesson. We should not assume that because we taught or said

something multiple times students will automatically understand it. That is just not how it

works. As I mentioned earlier, checking and rechecking do not need to be full on tests. These

assessments can be as easy as an exit ticket, asking questions, having students share, and so

much more. Our job as teachers will be to help our students learn and succeed to the best of our

abilities. That means every individual student, not just a majority of them. Teaching, checking,

re-teaching, and rechecking will be a vital part to helping all students reach these goals, as well

as helping us as teachers reflect on what we must improve.

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 14

Artifacts

HFWKS
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 15

PSI
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 16
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 17

Narrative Reading Assessment and Miscue Analysis

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 18
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK - ASW 19