1

6th Grade Data Project: Reviewing the Plot Diagram and Context Clues

Gabriella Erestain

Regent University

UED 496.01

Dr. Flannagan
 2

6th Grade Data Project: Reviewing the Plot Diagram and Context Clues

Part I

The assessment project was completed in Salem Middle School with Mrs. Williams’ 6A

and 6B courses. The 6A course was an Advanced English 6 class with 30 students, and the 6B

course was a Core English 6 class with 30 students. Because the students were in the middle of a

unit during this time, Mrs. Williams suggested the contents of the pre-assessment should be

based on the results of the Unit 2 division assessment. Mastery Connect provided the SOL

standard for each question and displayed whether each student was at a novice, developing,

proficient, or advanced level for each standard. To determine which standards the pre-assessment

needed to cover, I created a spreadsheet for the 6A and 6B classes. Each standard from the Unit 2

test was a page in the spreadsheet and listed which level each student was at. For example, the

6.6.c sheet showed that Lilith B. was a novice, Noah B. was proficient, Ally D. was advanced in

this standard, and so on. I then compared the results of each standard for both classes and

determined the most-missed SOL standards to be those with the highest number of novice and

developing students. These standards included 6.4.c, “Use context and sentence structure to

determine meanings and differentiate among multiple meanings of words,” and 6.5.a, “Identify

the elements of narrative structure, including setting, character, plot, conflict, and theme.”

In addition, multiple other factors went into creating the pre-assessment. Rather than

creating a pre-assessment about these concepts from scratch, Mrs. Williams suggested I model

the questions after an SOL assessment. For the pre-assessment, the students read a 5th-grade

level, released SOL passage, “A Fun Way to Start the Day.” This passage was chosen because

many students from both classes had low reading levels, and the story had clear elements of

narrative structure. Mrs. Williams also suggested the assessment be short with each question
 3

following the format of having two obvious incorrect answer choices, one good answer choice,

and one best answer choice.

I created the first six questions of the pre-assessment by referencing questions found in

division and released SOL assessments, which provided me with many sentence stems. These

questions were also a mix of having students use context clues to define vocabulary terms, as

well as identify elements of the plot diagram in the passage. The final five questions focused on

SOL standard 6.5.a and required the students to identify each part of the plot diagram. To ensure

I got the most accurate data, I added an “I am not sure” option to each question. I explained to

the students that this was an answer choice because I did not want them to accidentally guess

correctly then not learn the content in the following lessons.

The results of the pre-assessment revealed that there were four most-missed questions,

each relating to SOL standard 6.5.a. These questions included the topics of identifying the

passage’s central idea, resolution, central conflict, and climax. Surprisingly, almost 100% of the

students correctly identified each part of the plot diagram. This showed me that the students had

a grasp on the basics of narrative structure, such as labeling a plot diagram, but they struggled

when applying this information to a text.

Part II

After learning these results, I understood that the following lessons were to primarily

focus on elements of narrative structure. The first lesson included a review of the parts of a plot

diagram, using the film Frozen as an example. The differentiation of this lesson was of the

product, for the content and process in the lesson itself were the same; however, students learned

in both whole and small groups. There were moments of Turn and Talk in which students had to
 4

answer a question related to narrative structure with a shoulder partner. For example, I reviewed

the definition of a resolution and had students discuss whether or not a resolution has to be

happy. After a minute, we would regroup and discuss the question as a class.

Similarly, I reviewed the most-missed questions on the pre-assessment, explaining why

the most popular answer choice is incorrect. Students also had a chance to work in small groups

for this review. I would read the question aloud, and students had one minute to review the

passage and write the correct answer on a whiteboard. Afterwards, each group raised their

whiteboard, and we discussed the reasoning behind the correct answer. For instance, one

question asks what the central conflict of the passage is, and most students chose an answer that

only relayed a minor conflict. I explained that, although a story can have multiple conflicts, the

central conflict is the main problem. Although the lessons and activities based on the pre-

assessment reviewed this content, I thought it would be best for the students to also review the

most-missed questions directly. Doing this activity allowed me to help students understand

which words to focus on in the questions, as well as how to use testing strategies, such as slash-

the-trash.

Additionally, the differentiated activity in this lesson was centered on the plot diagram

and the short film “Hair Love.” For this activity, I sorted each class into four groups—novice,

developing, proficient, and advanced—based on their pre-assessment score. Because some

groups were quite large, I divided groups with more than five students into two. By doing so, the

6A class had eight small groups, and the 6B class had seven small groups; however, each group

was homogeneously based on the pre-assessment data.

The students watched the short film as an entire class then moved to their assigned group.

The differentiated activity had students practice drawing and filling out a plot diagram based on
 5

scenes in the short film. The novice groups received pre-written summaries of each major scene

of the short film, printer paper, and a question worksheet. On the printer paper, they were to draw

and label a plot diagram then glue the summaries of “Hair Love” onto the correct spot of the plot

diagram. Each question on the question sheet asked them to identify and explain why they placed

those passages onto each part of the plot diagram in two to three sentences. The novice groups

practiced applying their knowledge of plot diagrams but received the help of having the major

scenes identified for them.

Similarly, the developing group had to draw and label a plot diagram on a sheet of printer

paper. They then had to write each major scene of “Hair Love” next to the correct spots on the

plot diagram. Afterwards, they were to complete their question sheet, which had them identify

the antagonist, the central conflict, and a theme of “Hair Love.” Students in this group were

tested on the basic concepts of a plot diagram, yet they had to think of the major scenes of the

short film and sort them correctly themselves. The question sheet also focused on elements of

narrative structure, which required students to recall and apply information other than only the

plot diagram.

The proficient groups had to draw and label a plot diagram on a sheet of printer paper.

They then had to fill out each part of the plot diagram based on the conflicts in the video. Rather

than simply recalling where each scene of the short film fits on a plot diagram, the proficient

groups had to identify the various conflicts in the exposition, rising action, climax, and so on.

Their question sheet then had them identify whether Zuri and her father are static or dynamic

characters, as well as the short film’s point of view. Once again, the students in this group had to

understand the foundational elements of a plot diagram and narrative structure, yet they applied

it on a deeper level.
 6

Lastly, the advanced groups had to draw and label a plot diagram then explain how Zuri

and her father evolved in each part of the diagram. After identifying the major scenes of each

part of the diagram, they were to explain how each character changed. On their question sheet,

they were to identify the tone of the short film, explain if the tone changes, and discuss whether

the mother is a main or minor character. In addition to the students doing the foundational steps

of labeling a plot diagram and identifying the major scenes, they also had to analyze the

evolution of the two main characters in each part of the diagram.

The data from the pre-assessment revealed that most students needed to review elements

of narrative structure and had difficulty applying the simple concepts of a plot diagram to real

stories and texts. This differentiated activity allowed students to practice these skills at their

ability level to ensure they mastered the standard or were challenged to apply the information

even further.

Furthermore, the second lesson plan was quite similar, for it consisted of a mini-lesson,

small groups, and a differentiated activity. The mini-lesson was centered around standard 6.4.c,

“Use context and sentence structure to determine meanings and differentiate among multiple

meanings of words.” Mrs. Williams clarified that this standard should have students practice

using context clues to determine the meaning of unfamiliar vocabulary words. During this mini-

lesson, I held a whole class review of context clues. With the IDEAS acronym (Inference,

Definition, Example, Antonym, Synonym), which provides five types of context clues, I used the

term “unabashed” to provide examples of each of the IDEAS context clues. For example, when

teaching the inference context clue, I provided the example sentence, “He was surprisingly

unabashed after his parents showed his friends his baby pictures.” I explained to the students that

this is a situation one normally feels embarrassed about, so we can infer that unabashed means to
 7

be embarrassed. This process would continue for each context clue, and I would ask clarification

questions along the way, such as “What is a synonym? Can someone raise their hand and give

me an example of two synonyms?” Afterwards, I did a quick guided practice in which I read an

example sentence with an unknown word, modeled how to find the kind of IDEAS context clue

being used, and identified the definition of the unknown word. During the final part of the

instruction, I read aloud another released SOL passage, “The Fish Story” since the independent

practice would have students review the SOL standards 6.5.a and 6.4.c with this text.

The independent practice is where students reviewed using context clues and elements of

narrative structure in stations. Students completed a total of four stations during the remainder of

the class period. At Station One, students played a Blooket about “The Fish Story” in which they

answered SOL-based questions about context clues and narrative structure. For example, one of

the questions has students identify the climax of the story, and another has students identify the

deifnition of “thoughtful” in a sentence from the passage.

The second station had students create a two-question multiple choice quiz; one question

had to ask about elements of narrative structure, and the other question had to ask about context

clues. This quiz was to have general questions about both topics, not about “The Fish Story.” I

provided an example question for each topic and modeled how to use their class notes to make

the quiz.

The third station had students review context clues with the IDEAS acronym. This

station’s worksheet was almost identical to the guided practice. Students had three example

sentences with an unfamiliar vocabulary word, and they were to identify the IDEAS context clue

used, write the definition of the vocabulary term, and come up with a synonym for the
 8

vocabulary word. I encouraged students to not use the internet for this activity, for they are not

allowed to research during the SOL assessment.

The fourth station was a differentiated small group with me in which we reviewed “The

Fish Story” and elements of narrative structure. I had students complete the stations in their pre-

formed groups based on the pre-assessment, so I could differentiate my station. For the novice

group, I gave them a four-question quiz about “The Fish Story” with questions structured

similarly to those found in the post-assessment. For example, one question asked, “Which words

help the reader understand the meaning of dreading?” I gave them around three to four minutes

to complete the quiz on their own, then we came together as a group and walked through each

question.

The developing group used a dry erase marker to draw and label a plot diagram on their

desks. I then gave them small puzzle pieces with summaries of the major scenes of “The Fish

Story.” Students had to place the puzzle pieces onto the correct spot of their plot diagram. As

they sorted the cards, I would monitor and review the definitions of each part of the diagram.

Because most students had trouble identifying the climax, I would ask clarifying questions, such

as, “What is the central conflict in the story? When is the central conflict introduced? What is the

definition of the climax?” During the last few minutes, I called on different students to read

which cards they placed in each spot of the diagram, explaining why they were correct or

incorrect.

The proficient group also drew and labeled a plot diagram on their desks, but they had to

write down the major scenes of “The Fish Story” next to each part of the diagram without the

help of puzzle pieces. To assist them, I had them identify the climax first, which made it easier

for them to write the preceding and following events on the diagram.
 9

Likewise, the advanced group drew, labeled, and wrote down the major events of “The

Fish Story” on the correct places of the plot diagram. Students then identified a central idea and

theme of the story, explaining the difference between the two. Time did not permit them to

formulate a question answered in the resolution of the story.

Similar to the “Hair Love” activity from the first lesson, students applied their knowledge

of narrative structure elements in different ways based on the pre-assessment results. This

activity was helpful because I could work with students on a close level since there was a set

time for me to meet with each group. Because students were divided based on their readiness

level, I could also adjust my questions and activities to ensure I reached each student where they

were at.

On the other hand, after teaching the 6A course, I realized there were some adjustments

that needed to be made because students were struggling to complete the work in twelve minutes.

I first changed station two to include two questions, which originally had students create a four-

question quiz. This was meant for students to simply look at their notes and quickly create a quiz,

similar to the process of making flashcards. However, many students were unaware of what

“multiple choice” meant and were unsure of how to turn their notes into a quiz, even with my

examples. I then changed station 3, which initially required students to analyze five example

sentences for context clues. Because the students’ knowledge of vocabulary is limited at this

grade, they had trouble when thinking of synonyms without a thesaurus. Because of the time

constraint and the students’ limitations, I changed the worksheet to only include three questions.
 10

Part III

The post-assessment for this project was slightly different than the pre-assessment. For

this test, students read “Foolish Choice, Wise Lesson,” which is a 6th grade level, released SOL

passage of ten short paragraphs. The structure of the questions was the same, for I used the same

SOL sentence stems. For example, the first question in the post assessment asks, “Read the

sentences below…Which words help the reader understand the meaning of peddler?” The first

six questions asked students to use context clues and identify elements of narrative structure

using the passage, and the final five questions had students label a blank plot diagram.

Like the pre-assessment, the post-assessment was aligned to SOL standards 6.4.c, “Use

context and sentence structure to determine meanings and differentiate among multiple meanings

of words,” and 6.5.a, “Identify the elements of narrative structure, including setting, character,

plot, conflict, and theme.” Once again, these SOL standards were chosen to be reviewed based

on the most-missed questions from the Unit 2 division assessment.

Upon examining the data results, I found that many students of 6B had difficulty

completing station two and three, even after I modified them. Some factors that may have

contributed to this is because they are the Core English students and need one-on-one help with

activities. The 6B class also misbehaved the most, which meant they were off task during many

of the stations.

If I were to change the station activities to ensure the students were the most prepared for

the post-assessment, I would take an entire class period for the stations. Because Mrs. Williams

needed to follow a strict pacing guide, I could only use two class periods to teach the lessons for
 11

this assessment project. On the second day, I needed to conduct the context clues mini-lesson,

stations activities, and post-assessment in the same class period.

Additionally, I enjoyed having one-on-one time with each group in the fourth station, but

this prevented me from floating around the class, ensuring students were staying on task, and

assisting with questions. All in all, the pre-assessment results helped me to focus the

differentiated activities on elements of narrative structure, and the stations allowed me to hold a

small group with each differentiated group.

Another dilemma I encountered is the fact that there was not a large amount of growth

between the pre- and post-assessment; some students even performed better on the pre-

assessment than the post-assessment. As stated above, one cause of this may be the time

constraint of the lessons. An additional reason is that the post-assessment included a different

passage. Although the structure and difficulty level of the questions stayed the same between the

two assessments, the students read a 5th grade level passage for the pre-assessment and a 6th grade

level passage for the post-assessment. Because many students in the 6B class were reading below

grade level, the 6th grade passage was quite a challenge to them. I am unsure if making the post-

assessment different than the pre-assessment skewed the data of student growth. I made the

assessments different because I wanted students to perform at reading level after having focused

lessons and completing differentiated activities.

Near the end of my placement, Mrs. Williams disclosed to me that when students read

Achieve3000 articles, they were presented with a specialized version of the article that matched

their reading level; however, all passages on the SOL assessment are the same reading level. The

reality of testing and having students master objectives is by asking them to apply their

knowledge to new contexts. Despite the data being unclear as to whether some students truly
 12

mastered the two SOL standards, having students read a 6th grade level passage was not

unreasonable.

If I were to continue with these lessons, I would follow the post-assessment data, which

clearly shows that students need to read more challenging passages. Mrs. Williams explained that

many of the students’ grades were dropping during this time because the length and difficulty

level of their passages increase as the year continues. After my placement ended, the students

would begin a novel study. The students were already being introduced to more challenging

passages, but many of them needed assistance when it came to close analysis of the text. A good

guided practice for these lessons would have been to hold a Think Aloud with an SOL passage

by reading it aloud and answering questions similar to those on the pre- and post-assessments.

By doing this, the students could observe how they should use context clues and break a passage

into a plot diagram structure. Although the lessons reviewed these concepts, it would have been

best if I modeled how to answer the questions in the context of reading a passage. The station

activities attempted to have the students practice this, but I could not assist students along the

way because I was running a station myself.

In conclusion, these lesson plans and assessments were an acceptable start to collecting

student data and providing remediation in an engaging manner. There are many elements that can

be improved, such as the pacing and level of remediation. However, the data from this project,

and general observations from my time with these students, show that the students need help

mastering the SOL objectives when it comes to application on a deeper level.