College of Education

Wolfpack Readers Program

Reader Profile Post-Tutoring Report

Reader: Robert W. Examiners:
(pseudonym) Assessments administered by:
Corrie Dobis and Yan Zhou
Grade: 4th Results and interpretations completed by:
Corrie Dobis and Yan Zhou

Date of Assessments: 3/21/2020 Date of Report: 3/28/2020

This report was completed by graduate students in the College of Education at NC State
University. The report is primarily intended to inform the intensified reading instruction
provided in the Wolfpack Readers program at the NC State Literacy Space. You can find more
information about this program at: https://sites.ced.ncsu.edu/the-literacy-space. Questions about
this report or the Wolfpack Readers program can be directed to Dr. Dennis Davis at
ddavis6@ncsu.edu.

*Assessments*

1. Informal Decoding Inventory

The Informal Decoding Inventory (McKenna & Stahl, 2015) is an assessment of
decoding skills, in the sequential order in which these patterns are typically learned. Part 1
focuses on one-syllable words and Part 2 on two-syllable words. Each section includes real
words and nonsense words. A student demonstrates mastery of a section by correctly reading at
least 8 of the real words and 7 of the nonsense words. The assessment is discontinued once the
teacher identifies a few key areas where mastery is not achieved. Students are not asked to
complete Part 2 until they have mastered or nearly mastered all of Part 1.

The results of the inventory are as follows:

Part 1 Real words Nonsense words Mastery yes/no

Short Vowels 10/10 10/10 Yes

Consonant Blends and 8/10 10/10 Yes

Digraphs

R-Controlled Vowel 10/10 10/10 Yes

Patterns

Vowel-Consonant-e 10/10 9/10 Yes

 Vowel Teams 9 /10 8/10 Yes

Part 2 Real words Nonsense words Mastery yes/no

Compound Words 9/10 10/10 Yes

Closed Syllables 10/10 9/10 Yes

Open Syllables 9/10 5/10 No

Vowel-Consonant-E 9/10 9/10 Yes

Syllables

R-Controlled Syllables 8/10 8/10 Yes

Vowel Team Syllables 10/10 8/10 Yes

Consonant + le Syllables 9/10 8/10 Yes

Data Interpretation:
After reviewing the data and comparing the pre-tutoring assessments for Part 1, Robert
has learned to grasp the magical “e” sound of nonsense words after working in the program. He
would benefit from more instruction in developing his skills with “cl” consonant blends and the
“oa” vowel team. In the post-tutorial assessment, we assessed Part 2 with Robert . The data from
Part 2 of this assessment shows that Robert has not yet mastered open syllables in the
multisyllable words such as the V/CV initial open syllable with various long vowels including
the single consonant -le (such as “bugle”).

2. Placement Inventory for Wolfpack Readers Decoding Instruction

Based on the results of the Informal Decoding Inventory, above, Robert was
administered a placement test to determine which specific sound-spelling patterns should be
targeted for instruction. The inventory includes words corresponding to many of the common
patterns found in English words. A child has to read at least 8 words correctly (out of 10) and
effortlessly to master a pattern.
The results of this placement test are as follows:
Part 5: Contractions and Multisyllabic Patterns
Pattern Example of the # of words read Mastery (yes or
pattern correctly (out no)
of 10)

5.01 - initial unaccented adapt 8 /10 Yes

syllable (schwa) spelled a
 5.02 - Long - e bugle 9 /10 Yes

5.03- v/cv - initial open paving 9/10 Yes

syllable with various long
vowels (extension of 5.01)

5.04 - Short u - ou double 10/10 Yes

5.05 - /er/ spelled or humor 9/10 Yes

5.06 - /er/ spelled ure in sure nature 9/10 Yes

and ture

5.07 - /zh/ spelled s Asia 10/10 Yes

5.08 - tion as suffix invention 9/10 Yes

5.09 - vc/cv - initial closed funny 10/10 Yes

syllable, with doubled c's at
juncture

5.10 - consonant + le crimple 10/10 Yes

5.11 - vc/cv - initial closed conduct 10/10 Yes

syllable, with different c's at
juncture

5.12 - er/or as suffix painter 10/10 Yes

5.13 contractions didn’t 10 /10 Yes

5.14 -ed suffixes with and decorated 10/10 Yes

without adding syllable to base

Data Interpretation:
While analyzing the pre and post tutorial assessment data, we resorted to the Excel’s Pivot
Tables. The two Pivot tables in the following graph provided us with a specific view of how
many total miscues and how many miscues per pattern the reader made.
 (The comparison between post-tutorial miscues and pre-tutorial miscues Pivot Tables )

We found Robert made 17 miscues out of 140 words in the pre-tutorial assessment Pivot
table. He made 3 miscues in the sub-areas of 5.03 (V/CV- initial open syllable with various long
vowels ) and 5.14 (-ed suffixes with and without adding syllables to base). Meanwhile, he made
two miscues in the sub-area of 5.10 (consonant + le).
In the post tutorial assessment data, we discovered that Robert made significant progress
in the subarea of 5.14 and 5.10. Robert did not make any miscues in the sub-area of 5.07 (- /zh/
spelled s), 5.09 (VC/CV - initial closed syllable, with doubled c's at juncture) and 5.11 (VC/CV -
initial closed syllable, with different c's at juncture). This data shows that the Wolfpack Reading
Program contributed a lot to Robert ‘s ability to decode multisyllabic words. We are glad to see
that Robert has developed the awareness of segmenting multisyllabic words. Although Robert
has shown mastery in all skill sets, he would still benefit from instruction in patterns such as
initial unaccented syllable (schwa sound), long /ē/, and V/CV- initial open syllable with various
long vowels because both Pivot tables show that Robert made miscues in the sub-area of 5. 01,
5.02, and 5.03.

3. Elementary Spelling Inventory

Authors Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston (2016) designed the Elementary
Spelling Inventory as an assessment that could be administered to a student in order to find their
developmental spelling stage. The word list continues to progress in levels of difficulty in order
of early, middle, to late in each stage. These progressions begin at the emergent stage and end at
the derivational relations stage. By giving a student the qualitative spelling inventory, an
instructor can see what letter and word patterns a student needs further instruction with, in their
reading and writing practices.
The results are as follows:

Features Total Correct: Mastery

(Yes / No)

Initial/Final Consonants 7/7 Yes

Short Vowels 5/5 Yes

Digraphs 6/6 Yes

Blends 7/7 Yes

Long Vowels 4/5 Yes

Other Vowels 6/7 Yes

Inflected Endings 4/5 Yes

Syllable Junctures 4/5 Yes

Unaccented Final Syllables 5/5 Yes

Harder Suffixes 4/5 Yes

Bases or Roots 3/5 No

Total Feature Points 55/62

Total Words Spelled 20/25

Correctly
Derivational Relations
Spelling Stage:

Data Interpretation:
Robert has made progress in spelling multisyllabic words since starting the Wolfpack
Readers program. He is currently in the derivational relations stage of spelling. This means that
Robert is continuing to learn how to use semantic relationships between words. Robert needs
continued instruction with adding inflectional endings to base words such as taking away the y-,
and adding -ies(carries). Supporting Robert with base and root words will be helpful as he
continues to work in this spelling stage.
 4. Qualitative Reading Inventory
The Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI-6; Leslie & Caldwell, 2017) is an informal
reading inventory used to estimate the child’s instructional reading level. The child is presented
with a series of texts, increasing in difficulty. The assessment continues until the examiner
identifies the highest level at which the child meets the instructional level criteria. The
instructional level is defined as the highest grade level at which the child can successfully read
with sufficient word reading and comprehension accuracy to meaningfully learn from the text.

The results of the QRI are as follows:

The QRI-6 text suggests that in selecting the post-assessment passages, instructors should
choose the same passages as in the pre-assessment. Due to the short time slot (about 10 weeks)
between pre tutorial assessment and post tutorial assessment we chose to administer different
passages in the same expository text genre (QRI-6; Leslie & Caldwell, 2017).

Passage Name/Level Word Recognition Level Comprehension Level (total

(percent of words read correct/total # of questions)
correctly)

Title: Plant Structure 94% 88%

for Survival Underline one: Underline one:
Frustrational (89%-) Frustrational (69%-)
QRI grade level: 4.6 Instructional (90%-97%) Instructional (70%-89%)
Lexile: 930 Independent (98%+) Independent (90%+)

Title: Farming on the 94% 88%

Great Plains Underline one: Underline one:
Frustrational (89%-) Frustrational (69%-)
QRI grade level: 5.4 Instructional (90%-97%) Instructional (70%-89%)
Lexile: 810 Independent (98%+) Independent (90%+)

Data Interpretation:
After reviewing this assessment, we found that Robert has reached an independent level
when reading 4th grade texts and is reading at the 5th-grade instruction-level after the Wolfpack
tutoring program. The Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) also provides examiners with the
opportunity to specifically examine the student’s knowledge and use of frequently used vowel
patterns, often called phonograms (Beck, 2006; Fry 1998; Gaskins et al. 1997). The QRI Word
inventory not only showed Robert ’s instructional level but also allowed us to see the reasoning
behind Robert ’s miscues and his mastery skills in the multisyllabic words decoding and
automaticity in the 6th/ 7th grade level word lists. After glimpsing at the data, Robert received a
score of 11/20 total words correct in the 6th grade word list and surprisingly 16/20 total number
correct in the 7th grade word list. This data we found that the 4 out of 9 miscues on the 6th grade
word list are due to his lack of attention to inflectional endings, which lead to his more miscues
in the 6th-grade word list. We then analyzed the words such as “usurped and helium” in the 7th
grade Word List, and to our surprise, he read them correctly and automatically. We concluded
that he inconsistently grasped the sub-area of 5.03 (V/CV- initial open syllable with various long
vowels) compared to the previous word placement data. Overall, Robert ’s automaticity and
accuracy were hindered by his inflectional suffixes’ miscues.
Robert ’s post assessment data is similar to the pre assessment data collection. In both
assessments, the reader gave teachers the impression that his reading performance of word
recognition and comprehension was at the 5th-grade level, and was more advanced than that of a
grade level 4 text. When we administered Robert ’s assessment, we had the same question as Dr.
Davis initially did with Robert ’s pre-assessment. We wondered why the data did not reflect
Robert ’s real reading performance in a 4th-grade level text (see the following graph). In the post
assessment, Robert made 16 miscues and omitted 15 words in a row in the grade 4 level text. All
of these 16 miscues were made with words containing inflectional suffixes. We estimated that
his inflectional suffixes miscues really hindered his word recognition accuracy and
comprehension. At this time, we think Robert would benefit from instruction using both 4th and
5th grade level texts. Robert is capable of reading higher lexile leveled texts, such as the 4th
grade expository passage read in the post-assessment. In his future instruction, the teacher will
need to be mindful of the 4th or 5th grade level text chosen, based on lexile measures such as the
ones analyzed in this assessment. He demonstrates a great ability to retell what he has read but
could use support with using text evidence to show his mastery in text-dependent comprehension
questions.

Post Tutorial Assessment Pre Tutorial Assessment

 5. Listening Comprehension
A text aligned with the frustrational level, which is one level above the student’s
determined instructional level, (from the QRI, above) was used in this assessment. The text was
read aloud to the student. This assessment helps us determine if Robert can comprehend more
accurately when he does not have to decode the text.

Passage Name Temperature and Humidity

Passage Level/Lexile # 6th; 1,030

Comprehension Level 45 %
Circle one:
o Frustrational (75%-)

o Instructional (75.1%-89.9%)

o Independent (90%+)

Data Interpretation:
After listening to the 6th grade level passage, Robert scored in the frustrational level
after answering the comprehension questions. The key vocabulary such as “humidity, relative
and dew” in the passage prevented him from fully comprehending the text. As an English
Language Learner, Robert needs continued support with content-specific vocabulary.

6. Oral Reading Fluency

Reading fluency is characterized by three criteria: accuracy, rate, and expression. The
reader’s fluency was assessed using the two leveled QRI texts used to find her best instructional
level of reading. Accuracy was scored using the QRI guidelines. We scored a reading rate using
the words correct per minute (WCPM) score, which was interpreted using published oral reading
fluency norms (Hasbrouk & Tindal, 2017). In order to score aspects of fluency related to
expressive reading, we used the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Zutell & Rasinksi, 1991;
adapted by McKenna & Stahl, 2015).
Text 1: QRI Reading Passage

Passage Name / Plant Structure for Fluency Rubric Ratings

grade level Survival/
Expression and 3/4
Level 4
Volume
Words Correct 118 words Phrasing 3/4
Per Minute <50th percentile
(133 Spring Smoothness 3/4
WCPM)
Pace 2/4
Word 94 %
Total Score on 11/16
Recognition
Multidimensional
Accuracy Level
Fluency Rubric

Text 2: QRI Reading Passage

 Passage Name / Farming on the Fluency Rubric Ratings
grade level Great Plains
Expression and 3/4
/Level 5
Volume
Words Correct 114 words Phrasing 3/4
Per Minute <50th percentile
(146 Spring Smoothness 3/4
WCPM)
Pace 2/4
Word
Total Score on 11/16
Recognition 94 %
Multidimensional
Accuracy Level
Fluency Rubric

Data Interpretation:
According to oral reading fluency norms, a student in the Spring of 4th grade should be
able to accurately read 133 words correctly per minute and 146 words correctly per minute in a
5th grade level text. After looking at the data, Robert read 118 and 114 WCPM in the 4th and
5th grade level texts, which are far below the 50 percentile for the Spring semester. This data
reminded us of what Schwanenflugel and Kuhn (2016) have argued about the national norms for
fluency. They state that these fluency norms fail to take a students first home language into
account and are not valid for use with English learners. As mentioned above, the miscues Robert
made are all around inflectional suffixes. In Robert ’s native language-Chinese, there are no
inflectional endings. We have concluded that this may be the main reason behind his low
accuracy in fluency. In the future, Robert will benefit from fluency instruction that supports his
attention to these inflectional endings. While doing this, his instructors need to be aware of the
analysis in English language learners’ fluency skills.

7. Morphology
We administered the derivational morphology decomposition task (Kieffer & Lesaux,
2008) to assess the student’s ability to use common word endings to transform words. This
serves as a measure of morphology and vocabulary depth and helps identify students who need
additional support with word endings or language structure. Students are given a word and asked
to provide the correct form of the word to complete a sentence. For example, when given the
word driver, the student has to complete the sentence: Children are too young to ____. The
correct answer for this item is drive. The assessment is administered verbally and does not
require the child to write the words.
Results are as follows:
Number of items answered correctly 25/ 25 = 100%
Data Interpretation:
Robert does not demonstrate a need for additional support with word endings and word structure
as a component of his vocabulary instruction. Overall, Robert has a good understanding of
derivational morphological awareness in listening and speaking.

8. Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR-2)

The DAR-2 (Roswell, Chall, Curtis, & Kearns, 2005) is a comprehensive assessment of
the major reading skills needed for literacy success. On the various subtests (which include
phonological awareness, word recognition, oral reading, comprehension, spelling, and
vocabulary), the child is asked to read words, short leveled texts, and answer questions that
increase in difficulty. The assessment is used to pinpoint areas of mastery and difficulty for the
reader and to complement the findings from the other assessments reported above. Your child
completed the subtests listed below in the results table.

Skill area Highest level of mastery

Word recognition Level 4

Oral reading accuracy Level 3

Silent reading comprehension Level 5

Data Interpretation:
According to the DAR’s polysyllabic words criterion, Robert read 7 of the 8 polysyllabic
words correctly and reached mastery in polysyllabic words. This statistic shows that the
Wolfpack Readers program really assisted with Robert ’s ability to decode multisyllabic words.
Robert needs support with words containing more than one affix such as “ir-revers-ible”. Robert
has made progress in his oral reading accuracy compared to his Level 2 score in the pre-
assessment, which also echoed his word decoding progress in the above section. He has
demonstrated mastery in his word recognition and silent reading comprehension skills. Robert
currently shows a need to continue practicing his oral reading abilities to improve his overall
accuracy of the text he reads.

Summary of Assessment Results

Robert is a 4th-grade student that has participated in the Wolfpack Readers Program for
10 weeks. His first language is Chinese, which is also spoken in his home. When looking at the
Qualitative Reading Inventory, Robert ’s estimated instructional reading level is between a 4th
and 5th grade level text. He will benefit from future instruction that focuses on using text-
specific evidence to support his overall comprehension of a text. After analyzing the Informal
Decoding Inventory, Robert has shown mastery of single-syllable words that contain patterns
such as short/long vowels, r-controlled vowels, and consonant digraphs. Although he has shown
mastery in all subcomponents on this assessment, he could continue his practice with“cl”
consonant blends and the “oa” vowel teams. In addition to these patterns, Robert ’s results from
the vocabulary placement test, show that he would benefit from explicit word work instruction
with multisyllabic words containing the following spelling patterns: initial unaccented syllable
(schwa sound), long - /ē/, V/CV- initial open syllable with various long vowels. When reading
instructional leveled texts at the 4th and 5th grade level, Robert ’s accuracy is hindered due to his
lack of attention to words containing inflectional endings. Supporting his attention to reading
these words accurately can be done by completing repeated fluency readings and working with
the structural analysis of words.
In addition to this, Robert has gained knowledge of academic vocabulary and word
meanings, according to the Morphology Decomposition Task and through his work in the
Wolfpack Readers Program. After completing an additional listening comprehension assessment
at the 6th grade level, Robert s shows a need for instruction with content-specific vocabulary in
order to fully answer implicit and explicit comprehension questions. This concludes that using
4th and 5th grade level texts is the best place to begin instruction.

Instructional Recommendations
Based on the pre and post tutorial assessments data, We recommend that Robert will
receive the following further instruction:

Structural Analysis and Syllabication of Academic Words

While Robert participated in the Wolfpack Readers program, the “Breaking Words”
workstation played an important part in increasing Robert ’s improvement of decoding and
writing multisyllabic words. The Breaking Words section includes breaking multisyllabic words
into pronounceable pasts by learning about syllable types. We suggest Robert receive this
explicit morphology instruction, especially with derivational suffixes, in the future. For this
instruction, the teacher will use the Graphosyllabic analysis approach (Bhattacharya & Ehri,
2004). The words used in this section should be taken from an inquiry unit Robert is working
on, or a unit text set so that he can begin to master the structural analysis of words. This should
be a 5-10 minutes daily instructional activity. Ideally, we would like Robert to begin with the
following inflectional suffixes: (-s / -es to pluralize a noun) & -ed to make a verb past tense.

This is what the instructional sequence should look like:

Say it! Teacher says the word aloud, without showing it to the student; student repeats
 Count it! Count the number of syllables in the spoken word
Read it! Show the written word card; student reads it.
Use it! Use the word in a sentence; discuss meaning (quickly)
Divide it! With a marker, mark the syllable junctures on the card
Break it! Student cuts the card on the syllable junctures; read the syllables
Map it! Teacher picks one generalizable syllable and uses the Map It! Approach
Expand it! Think of other words that have this syllable (with same spelling and sound)
Assemble it! Put the syllable parts back together to form the word; scramble and repeat
Write it! Student writes the word from memory
Spell it! Student spells the word orally from memory
Transform it! Add affixes to make new words; use the new words in a sentence and discuss

Systematic Decoding/Encoding Using Interactive Word Work

Using an explicit and systematic approach to decoding and encoding (spelling)
instruction, Robert will practice the following sound-spelling patterns in this segment:
● initial unaccented syllable (schwa sound), long - /ē/, V/CV- initial open syllable
with various long vowels
● “cl” consonant blends and the “oa” vowel team

In order to continue building mastery in this spelling patterns, he will be studying them
using this approach that includes four parts: 1) Using letter tiles to build, manipulate and analyze
words that include these patterns; 2) sorting words based on their sounds and spellings; 3)
writing words; 4) and reading lists of words that represent the patterns being studied. These
activities are designed to promote the development of high-quality lexical representations
(memory) of words that include these target spelling patterns so that Robert can read them with
automaticity in texts and spell them correctly and efficiently in his own writing. These words can
additionally be used in his structural analysis or “Breaking Words” workstation instruction.

Scaffolded Reading Discussions

In order to help Robert continue his progress with the use of text-specific evidence to
support comprehension questions, he should continue to read a variety of authentic texts. While
reading these, and depending on the difficulty of the text being read, the instructor will use a
variety of reading scaffolds to help Robert. These will allow him to successfully comprehend and
learn new information from these texts, including read alouds, echo reading, repeated reading,
and choral reading. The text will be broken down into short chunks (e.g., 1-2 paragraphs). After
each chunk is read, the tutor and reader will engage in a structured discussion using Reciprocal
Teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), a research-based method for text-based discussion that
focuses on helping children learn to monitor and repair comprehension difficulties. For each
chunk of text, the instructor will take turns with Robert doing the following: 1) paraphrasing
what they learned in their own words; 2) asking each other questions about the text; 3)
monitoring and repairing their understanding of challenging concepts or ideas; and 4) predicting
what they might learn in the next chunk. Practicing these strategies with authentic texts through a
variety of repeated reading formats will help Robert to monitor his comprehension. He will be
more able to gather supporting evidence to answer text-dependent questions. To further help
Robert ’s ability to gain knowledge from the texts he reads, we suggest having Robert frequently
write about what he is learning in a variety of question formats.

Repeated Reading/ Read Alouds

We suggest Robert have independent read aloud sessions for 10-15 minutes at least three
times a week. While he is reading, we suggest having him record his reading so that he can
complete a rereading of the texts while listening to himself. We hope that by listening to his own
recorded readings will help him realize the differences between the words in the text and the
miscues he made while reading aloud. The miscues might include words with inflectional
suffixes such as his deletion of an (-s) or an (-ed). Continuing to explicitly instruct Robert in the
differences between the English and Chinese languages will support these efforts as he continues
his reading journey (Beeman 2012).

References

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2016). Words their way: Word study
for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Beeman, Karen (2012).Teaching for Literacy: Strengthening bridges between languages.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Caslon Publishing.

Bhattacharya, A., & Ehri, L. C. (2004). Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling
readers read and spell words. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(4), 331-348.
Cooter, R.B., Flynt, E.S., & Cooter, K.S. (2013). The Flynt/Cooter comprehensive reading
inventory-2. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Hasbrouck, J. & Tindal, G. (2017). An update to compiled ORF norms (Technical Report No.
1702). Eugene, OR, Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading
comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners. Reading and Writing,
21(8), 783-804.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J.S. (2017). Qualitative reading inventory-6. Boston, MA: Pearson.

McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, K.A.D. (2015). Assessment for reading instruction (3rd edition).
Guilford: New York.

Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.

Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Newton, J., & Newton, E. (2011). The Latin–Greek Connection. The
Reading Teacher, 65(2), 133-141.

Roswell, F. G., Chall. J. S., Curtis, M. E., & Kearns G. (2005). Diagnostic Assessments of
Reading (DAR)(2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Schwanenflugel, Paula J., & Kuhn, Melanie R. (2016). Handbook of individual

differences in reading: Text and context. NY: Routledge Publishing

Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading
fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 211-217.