College of Education

Wolfpack Readers Program

Reader Profile Pre-Tutoring Report

Reader: Danna Examiners:
Assessments administered by: Dennis Davis
Grade: 5th grade and Courtney Samuelson
Age: Results and interpretations completed by:
Laura Sloan and Mariah Jackson

Date of Assessments: Jan 11, 2020 Date of Report: Jan 19, 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.

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.

The results of the inventory are as follows:

Part I Real words read Nonsense words read Mastery

correctly correctly yes/no

Short Vowels 9/10 5/10 No

Consonant Blends and Digraphs 9/10 9/10 Yes

r-Controlled Vowel Patterns 9/10 8/10 Yes

Vowel Consonant–e 7/10 7/10 No

Vowel Teams 8/10 4/10 No

…
Interpretation:
Danna was able to decode real words when reading with greater accuracy than nonsense
words. She showed overall mastery with consonant blends and digraphs as well as r-controlled
vowel patterns. This assessment indicates that she would benefit from more focused
instruction on vowel patterns, specifically long vowel teams and vowel consonant-e to
recognize the patterns with automaticity.

2. Placement Inventory for Wolfpack Readers Decoding Instruction

Based on the results of the Informal Decoding Inventory, above, the child 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:

Pattern Example of the # of words read Mastery (yes

pattern correctly (out of or no)
10)
Long a - aCe fake 9/10 Yes
Long o - oCe rose 9/10 Yes
Long i- iCe nice 9/10 Yes
Long e- ee meet 10/10 Yes
Long u- uCe - with and without /y/ tune 8/10 Yes
Long a - ai pain 8/10 Yes
Long o - oa coat 8/10 Yes
Long e - ea leaf 8/10 Yes
Long i - y shy 10/10 Yes
Long u- oo room 8/10 Yes
st stack 8/10 Yes
sc scan 5/10 No
cl click 7/10 No
wh whale 7/10 No
gr grin 7/10 No
 sp spend 6/10 No
ph phase 4/10 No
wr wrong 6/10 No
kn knot 6/10 No
sk task 8/10 Yes
nd grand 8/10 Yes
tch batch 8/10 Yes

Interpretation:
During this assessment, Danna showed mastery of the long vowel patterns and mastery of
some digraphs and blends, specifically those that occurred as endings. Many of her errors
recorded in the table above were due to using long vowel sounds instead of the necessary short
vowel sounds when reading nonsense words; Danna often did not actually make errors with the
blends indicated. The test indicates that she would benefit from targeted instruction on the
blends ph-, kn-, and wr- to decode words with greater accuracy.

3. Spelling Inventory
The Elementary Spelling Inventory (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2016) assesses a
student’s ability to spell according to spelling patterns and stages. The child is asked to write a
series of words chosen to display the child’s knowledge and understanding of spelling features
(short vowels, long vowels, blends, etc.) The words gradually become more difficult to spell as
the list progresses. It is administered in a similar fashion as a spelling test, except the child has
not studied these specific words beforehand.

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 6/7 Yes

Long Vowels 5/5 Yes

Other Vowels 6/7 Yes

Inflected Endings 4/5 Yes

 Syllable Junctures 4/5 Yes

Unaccented Final Syllables 3/5 No

Harder Suffixes 1/5 No

Bases or Roots 0/5 No

Total Feature Points 47/62

Total Words Spelled 14/25

Correctly

Spelling Stage Syllables and Affixes:

Unaccented FInal Syllables

Interpretation: Danna is able to spell words correctly using her knowledge of short and long
vowels, digraphs, and blends. The focus of her instruction moving forward should be to help her
to correctly spell endings and final syllables, as well as to start work on learning common
suffixes and root words to spell multisyllabic words.

4. Informal 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:

Passage Word Recognition Level Comprehension Level (total

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

Title: The Friend 94% 88%

QRI grade level: 3 Underline one: Underline one:
lexile: 710 Frustrational (89%-) Frustrational (69%-)
Instructional (90%-97%) Instructional (70%-89%)
Independent (98%+) Independent (90%+)

Title: Early Railroads 91% 38%

QRI grade level: 4 Underline one: Underline one:
lexile: 810 Frustrational (89%-) Frustrational (69%-)
 Instructional (90%-97%) Instructional (70%-89%)
Independent (98%+) Independent (90%+)

Interpretation:
An estimate of Danna’s instructional reading level is third grade. Danna tends to drop endings
of words when reading, but generally is able to retell the main ideas of the story. She also
tends to interchange words (can't for cannot, etc) or interject additional words that don't really
affect meaning but affect her accuracy score. When presented with multisyllabic words in
more difficult texts, Danna often makes a quick approximation of the word and moves on with
the story without thinking about meaning and making self corrections. Due to this, she has a
more difficult time answering directed questions about the text though she understands the
“gist” of it.

5. Oral Reading Fluency

Reading fluency is characterized by three criteria: accuracy, rate, and expression. The reader’s
fluency was assessed using multiple texts levels, including: 1) a lower level text from the
Wolfpack Readers fluency passages, 2) the text at the reader’s instructional level (from the QRI,
above), and 3) the remaining texts that were read during the QRI. Accuracy was scored using
the QRI guidelines. We scored 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: Wolfpack Reader text on the child’s

topic of choice: Fluency Rubric Ratings
Passage Name / A Brand New
1st grade level School Expression and 4/4
Volume
Words Correct Per 163
Minute Phrasing 3/4

Word Recognition 97% Smoothness 4/4

Accuracy Level
Pace 3/4

Total Score on 14/16

Multidimensional
Fluency Rubric

Text 2: QRI text at 4th grade level

 Passage Name / Early Railroads Fluency Rubric Ratings
Level
Expression and 1/4
Words Correct Per 111 words Volume
Minute
Phrasing 3/4
Word Recognition 91 %
Accuracy Level Smoothness 2/4

Pace 3/4

Total Score on 9/16

Multidimensional
Fluency Rubric

Text 3: Instructional level text from QRI (3rd)

Passage Name / A Friend Fluency Rubric Ratings
Level
Expression and 2/4
Words Correct Per 123 words Volume
Minute
40th percentile for Phrasing 3/4
5th grade
Smoothness 3/4
Word Recognition 94 %
Pace 3/4
Accuracy Level
Total Score on 11/16
Multidimensional
Fluency Rubric

Interpretation:
According to oral reading fluency norms, a student in the middle of 5th grade should be able to
accurately read 183 words correctly per minute. Danna does not meet this criterion. She reads
with appropriate volume, decent phrasing and pace on texts below her grade level. When texts
become more complex, Danna’s reading expression falls flat and her phrasing becomes more
choppy as she wrestles with multisyllabic words and irregular sentence structures. Her accuracy
rate falls into the 40th percentile for her grade level. She will need intensive fluency
intervention to increase her accuracy when reading aloud.

6. Academic Vocabulary Familiarity and Knowledge

This inventory helps us learn about the child’s knowledge of key concepts they will read about
in the books on the topic they selected for the Wolfpack Readers program. We assessed
familiarity by asking the child to rate their knowledge of 15 academic vocabulary words they
will encounter. We assessed word knowledge by asking the child to provide a sentence with
each word.

Familiarity ratings: Space Exploration

Rating Number of Percentage
words
I have never seen or heard this 0/ 15 0%
word
I have seen or heard this word but I 2/15 13%
don’t know what it means
I know a little bit about this word 2/ 15 13%
I know a lot about this word 11 / 15 73%

Knowledge:
Correct meaning in the sentence
Incorrect meaning = 5/ 15 words
Partial meaning = 6/ 15 words
Correct meaning = 4 / 15 words
Word was used with correct structure (part
of speech and grammar) in the sentence
No = 4/ 15 words
Yes = 11/ 15 words

Interpretation:
Danna is familiar with many of the vocabulary words in her chosen topic area, but only shows
clear understanding of a few. In tutoring, Danna will gain more knowledge of these academic
vocabulary words through reading and discussing multiple texts on the chosen topic. At the
end of tutoring, we will re-administer this inventory to track changes in knowledge of these
words.

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 24 / 25 = 96%

Interpretation:
Danna showed a clear understanding of word structure during this assessment and was
successful with changing the endings of words to fit the syntax and context of the sentences
given.

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 2
Silent reading comprehension Level 5

Interpretation:
These assessments illustrate the fact that Danna is able to comprehend more difficult texts
when she reads silently to herself. Her oral reading accuracy was a level 2 while her silent
reading comprehension level was a level 5. She would benefit from lessons that focus on
fluency and accuracy through repeated readings of an instructional level text. Danna needs help
to use self-monitoring skills and fix up strategies to self correct her errors when reading.

Summary and Interpretation of Results

As a reader, Danna shows knowledge of common vowel patterns and many digraphs. She reads
independent level texts with prosody and can give detailed retellings. Her current instructional
reading level is 3rd grade, her oral reading accuracy is 2nd grade, and her silent reading
comprehension is 5th grade. During this tutoring session, Danna needs instruction in fluency to
increase her accuracy with more difficult texts when reading aloud. She also needs focused
instruction on breaking apart multisyllabic words to be able to decode them when reading and
to spell them accurately. Danna also should receive coaching to better self monitor her
comprehension when reading and apply fix up strategies to aid her comprehension.

Instructional Recommendations
The Wolfpack Readers program is organized around multiple instructional segments. Here we
detail the instructional recommendations for NAME, based on the assessment data, for each
segment that [he/she] will complete.

Discovery Reading
During the assessment session, Danna indicated an interest in the topic titled: Space Junk.
Space junk includes old parts of rockets, satellites, and tiny pieces of paint and water. Some of it
is large and some of it is tiny. But it is all very dangerous for astronauts. Some people think we
might one day have so much space junk that it will no longer be possible to travel to space. In
this unit, your child will read and learn about the space junk problem, how it got so bad, and
what scientists are doing to solve it. Danna will read books, websites, and other authentic texts
on this topic with instructional support from a tutor. Depending on the difficulty of the text
being read, the tutor will use a variety of reading scaffolds to help Danna 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 tutor and reader will take turns 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. These are
strategies that Danna will learn to use with increasing independence during the 10-week
session. Danna will keep an inquiry journal where she will write about what she learns from
each text. Based on these notes, Danna will give a short informal presentation on the last night
of tutoring, explaining what she learned about Space Junk.

Teach a Teacher
Danna will write about the new ideas she has learned from the books read during the Discovery
Reading segment (above). The tutor will use a variety of scaffolds to help her plan and organize
short expository texts, using consistent text structures, to communicate new knowledge to the
other teachers in the program.

Reading with Expression

In this segment, Danna will read short texts on the topic of Space Exploration. These leveled
texts provide practice with high-accuracy reading of controlled texts. The tutors will use a
repeated reading approach (McKenna & Stahl, 2015) that consists of the following flexible
steps: 1) the reader reads a new text with minimal assistance (a “cold” read); 2) the tutor
provides feedback on the accuracy and expression of the child’s reading (e.g., helps with any
words that were misread; models a few sentences that were challenging); 3) the tutor and
reader collaboratively set a goal for the next reading of the text (i.e., increase number of words,
accuracy, and expression); and 4) the reader re-reads the text, trying to incorporate the tutor’s
feedback. This cycle continues multiple times until the reader is able to comfortably read the
text with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression. The tutor will use various techniques to
support the student’s fluent reading and to provide explicit feedback on word reading accuracy,
including echo reading, choral reading, alternated reading, and modeling of code-based word
attack strategies.

Word Workshop
Using an explicit and systematic approach to decoding and encoding (spelling) instruction,
NAME will practice the following sound-spelling patterns in this segment:
● kn
● ph
● wr
She will learn these patterns to mastery using an 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 Danna can read them with automaticity in texts and spell them
correctly and efficiently in her own writing.

Breaking Words
The tutor will help Danna read and write complex words (with two or more syllables) by
analyzing their structure through a process of graphosyllabic analysis (Bhattacharya & Ehri,
2004). This includes breaking multisyllabic words into pronounceable parts by learning about
syllable types. This also includes learning to recognize common prefixes and suffixes and using
this knowledge to break apart and understand multisyllabic words (Rasinski et al., 2011). She
will learn about these word parts while also learning to analyze academic words found in texts
on the selected inquiry topic.

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.

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.

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