INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT

Context Currently I am placed at an elementary school servicing kindergarten through 5th grade. The majority of the school population consists of African American and White students and lacks language diversity. There are no ESL students in my classroom. In terms of the physical setup, Mrs. Smith created a class library in the front left corner of the room with a few bookshelves. The bookshelves have labels for fiction and non-fiction, as well as genres such as mysteries, realistic fiction, and historical fiction. Mrs. Smith also brought bean bags and butterfly chairs for students to sit and read in. Each of the six book bins contain anywhere from 10-15 books. Posters with literacy skills, such as making predictions, drawing inferences, and retelling are also displayed in the library area. In Mrs. Smiths classroom, reading levels range from kindergarten to sixth grade. Since an extensive gap exists, Mrs. Smith focuses on developing fundamental skills through wholegroup instruction. The skills she focuses on are the same ones displayed on the posters near the library. During reading class, which occurs in the morning, students work mainly on fluency and comprehension. Mrs. Smith often begins lessons with direct instruction of a literacy skill, such as retelling, and then uses read-alouds to practice the skill. After modeling and whole-group instruction, students typically complete an individual in-class assignment. For retelling, Mrs. Smith often uses short, cloze procedure worksheets. The student I chose for my observation is a female and was selected because she always asks to read with me. Because she seemed interested in reading and wanted to practice, I decided it would be best to work with her. Assessments After observing Jane, Mrs. Smith provided some insight. Currently, Jane reads at a mid-second grade level and has a DRA score of a 24. She enjoys reading fiction as opposed to

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT nonfiction because its easier. She excels in comprehension when writing, but is less proficient in fluency and making inferences when reading. Additionally, Jane struggles to self-correct. If faced with an unfamiliar word (i.e. beautiful), she recognizes the first letter and inserts any word with that same sound (i.e. bumblebee). Although the word does not make sense, Jane continues to insert unsystematic replacements. In contrast, Jane excels at writing. She writes stories in her free time about friends, family, hobbies, etc. According to Mrs. Smith, Jane produces welldeveloped thoughts in sequential order. Although her spelling needs work, she generally includes solid content with distinct organization. She often writes summaries about the books she reads independently, and Jane specifically enjoys the Shake it Up! book series by Disney. In terms of listening, Jane continues to be pretty good. At times, she struggles with paying attention and following directions. If she cannot hear verbal directions, she becomes frustrated and disinterested. However, through redirection, she typically pays attention and listens during instruction. Similar to writing, Jane exhibits excellent speaking skills. She talks comfortably with both teachers and peers. She uses expression with clear pronunciation and verbally expresses complete thoughts. However, she sometimes shies away from answering questions after being called on, even when she has her hand raised. After observing and interviewing both my student and Mrs. Smith, I used a reading assessment to find out more about Jane. To informally asses Jane I used a running record versus a test of print concept. The text used in the running record was an excerpt from Horrible Harry and the Locked Closet by Suzy Kline. According to Scholastic Book Wizard, the book has a DRA level of 20, which is slightly below Janes reading level. During the running record Jane often repeated certain words or phrases whenever she self-corrected. For example, when Jane omitted the word there from a sentence she went back to the beginning and repeated the whole

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT thing, rather than just inserting the word at its place and reading on. Jane did this again when she omitted the and substituted in for to. Instead of reading only from the corrected phrase, she went back to the beginning and read the entire sentence. Jane also omitted the s showing possession in the word shes. We read through the same passage once more after the running record, and Jane omitted the s both times. It is difficult to say whether the omission is an error or a part of her natural dialect. Additionally, although Mrs. Smith pointed out that Jane relies heavily on visual cues versus meaning and syntax, I did not see much of an issue during the running record. Many of errors came from omitting a word or making logical substitutions. For example, Jane omitted the word big as a descriptive word for picture. Although omitted, the sentence still made sense, and therefore, was an error related to meaning. Other substitution errors related to meaning and syntax include the following: out replaced with up; with replaced with in; this replaced with the. The last error might also be considered a visual mistake. When reading, Jane did not self-correct the errors listed above. However, when the errors changed the meaning of the sentence, such as substituting to with in and omitting the word the, Jane went back, reread the whole sentence, and self-corrected. I asked Jane who the characters were in the excerpt and she named Mary and Harry, but not Song Lee. She did know that they were drawing and building a volcano, but I did not ask about inferences. It seemed that Jane was able to comprehend the passage due to the fact that she could participate in a simple retelling about characters and main events. Addtionally, Janes errors made sense and were the correct parts of grammar for the sentence structure. Because of this, both the structure and meaning of the passage were not changed. It appears Jane is able make sense of the sentence even without reading some of the actual words. The end of Janes running

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT record showed the following results: Accuracy Rate- 95.05%; Error Rate- 4.95%; SelfCorrection Ratio- 4:9. According to Tompkins (2010), the excerpt was at Janes independent reading level due to the fact that her accuracy rate was 95% or higher (p. 76). Reading Conferences I administered two reading conferences during the same week. The first reading conference was about self-correction and decoding, while the focus of the second conference was on fluency and expression. The skills taught in the reading conferences were based on the running record and observations of Jane. I again used Horrible Harry and the Locked Closet, but chose a different excerpt with more difficult vocabulary. The same excerpt was used for both reading conferences. During the first reading conference I had Jane run her finger under the words to track the text as she read. With the tracking, she was able to self-correct more than in the running record. She corrected herself more often with omissions versus substitutions. For example, she would omit the first word of a sentence but backtrack with her finger and read it over again. However, with more difficult words (flowed, eruption, insisted), Jane relied on visual cues and either made a substitution (followed instead of flowed), stopped and asked for help (eruption), or said the beginning sounds and skipped the word (insisted). Jane was instructed to go back and break apart the words and use context clues. Once she did, she was able to figure out both eruption and flowed. Jane was able to figure out insisted based on phonics decoding. I repeated the words for her as well. Throughout the second reading, Jane pronounced the troublesome words correctly and read with more expression. During the second conference we used the same reading passage, but worked on fluency and expression. Because Jane had already read the passage twice before and reviewed the

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT difficult words with their definitions before starting, Jane could focus more attention on reading with expression and automatic recall rather than decoding. We looked at different punctuation marks, such as commas, quotations, and exclamation points, and discussed how each one should be read. We also talked about clues that the author gives to express emotion and guide how dialog should be read (ex. Tomorrow? Marys eyes got very watery). For the most part, Jane read with expression for exclamation points. However, Jane struggled to pause after periods and new paragraphs. Addtionally, if Jane switched the start of a question (Do I changed to I do) then she did not read the sentence as a question. However, Jane read with great expression for the most part and was able to retell that Song Lee made a volcano, while Harry and Mary had to come up with a different plan. Furthermore, Jane self-corrected more than before and tracked the words without being asked. She was enthusiastic about receiving feedback and used the suggestion to correct previous mistakes. Data Analysis, Reflection, and Recommendations Through observations, interviews, assessments, and conferences, I was able to analyze Janes strengths and weaknesses in literacy development. Overall, Janes comprehension in both reading and writing is very strong. Mrs. Smith noted that she writes well-organized and structured pieces in sequential order. Jane let me look at her reading journal to confirm this. Through observations during the running record and reading conferences I saw Janes ability to retell and comprehend short excerpts. Jane told me which characters were involved, such as Harry, Mary, and Mrs. Mackle, as well as the main events in correct order. Addtionally, the substitution errors during the running record did not hinder Janes retelling, but instead affected smaller details within the story. These small changes, however, might influence overall comprehension. According to Tompkins (2010), for reading the goal is comprehension,

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT understanding the text and being able to use it for the intended purpose (p. 42). Although the small substitutions did not affect comprehension for the short, fictional passage, they might affect Janes comprehension of more complex or nonfiction texts in the future. Furthermore, Jane still needs to work on reading fluently and with expression. Tompkins (2010) notes that fluency involves three components: accuracy, speed, and prosody (p. 207). For clarification, prosody is the ability to orally read sentences expressively, with appropriate phrasing and intonation (Tompkins, 2010, p. 208). As a result, two goals for Jane are to improve accuracy and prosody when reading and practice decoding through means other than visual reliance. In terms of strengthening fluency in relation to accuracy, one might have Jane read a text and complete a cloze procedure to draw attention to detail versus comprehension. In a cloze passage, every fifth word in a familiar passage is deleted, and only the exact word is considered to be a correct answer (Tompkins, 2010, p. 432). Instead of deleting the names of characters or plot details, which Jane was able to recall, deleting every fifth word requires Jane to play closer attention to the actual written text. However, Jane should first be able to comprehend the text before turning attention to accuracy. Once she can comprehend the text, then Jane should complete a cloze procedure. To go even further, Jane might complete the cloze passage and read a few more times before completing a second cloze passage. In this case, the goal is to determine accuracy, not judge or take away from comprehension. As stated previously, Jane uses much expression when she sees exclamation points. However, Jane struggles to change intonation based on context clues and sometimes misreads questions. For example, Jane read the sentence Tomorrow? in a happier, high-pitched tone versus with sad expression, even though the author provides clues to do so. Jane also has trouble pausing after periods and between paragraphs, as well as at the start of dialogue. In order to help

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT Jane practice reading with expression and pausing at the appropriate points, one might use choral reading. Tompkins (2010) notes that choral reading helps students read more expressively and increase their reading fluency (p. 430). In Janes case, I would suggest using echo reading or leader and chorus reading. By doing so, Jane would either hear the teacher model pausing and expression or the teacher and her peers. Furthermore, the text should be displayed so that Jane can see where each pause and expression occurs and why. Although commonly used with poems, Jane would benefit from using the procedure with a short excerpt to practice expression and phrasing. Jane and the teacher could also read through the passage once before, paying special attention to the punctuation marks and key phrases (ex. He said sadly, ..) prior to reading aloud. Lastly, Jane could improve her ability to decode words and move away from relying too heavily on visual cues. For example, Jane would benefit from reading a passage and marking unfamiliar words. Then, Jane could return to the word, break it apart into familiar syllables, and try the pronunciation. Jane has a strong phonics background, but she seems to rush through words or avoid decoding when reading. When she stops and takes time to decode words, she is generally able to do so. However, with more difficult words, Jane cannot simply rely on phonics decoding as the main strategy. Jane must also use context clues to determine the word. For example, Jane struggled during the first conference to read the word eruption. Instead of breaking the word into familiar sounds or syllables, Jane paused and asked how to say the word. Jane might have first tried phonics decoding, but then could have gone back and reread the passage, which referenced lava. If Jane continued to read on, the passage mentions volcanoes. Jane might have been able to determine the word based on phonics decoding and context clues, assuming she had prior knowledge about volcanoes and eruptions. One might use mini lessons to

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT specifically teach decoding strategies followed by teacher modeling and guided and independent practice (Tompkins, 2010, p. 449). By completing the Individual Child Project I gained experience determining the strengths and areas of improvement for a specific reader. Furthermore, I used information gathered in interviews, observations, and informal assessments to guide reading conferences and influence future instruction. I also witnessed firsthand literacy development as an ongoing process that needs continual monitoring. I was lucky enough to do the reading conferences back to back, and therefore, immediately gained significant information about my student. One of the most important lessons taken from the project was that all aspects of literacy are intertwined. Although my student has generally good comprehension, she struggles with decoding and accuracy. Later on, especially with informational text, Jane will need more accuracy for increased comprehension. The two work hand in hand. All the strands of literacy are tied together to create a fluent reader. Contrastingly, a seemingly fluent read with wonderful accuracy, speed, and prosody might struggle with comprehension. To determine what strengths and weaknesses a reader has, teachers must use multiple measures of assessment. One assessment, such as a running record, might only measure the accuracy of a reader and not their comprehension. Similarly, a cloze procedure could indicate a reader has good comprehension but fails to tell anything about reading with speed and expression. Teachers must use multiple forms of assessment, and often, to help readers become fluent in all aspects of literacy. In looking back at the project there are few things I would change. For one, I would administer two more running records with slightly longer passages. I would also use a computer to track the errors and self-corrects for more accurate records. Addtionally, I would try and use the procedures I listed in the recommendations portion during the reading conferences. Before I

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT was too scared to try them out, but now I think it would have been beneficial to practice the procedures with a familiar passage. Furthermore, I would have included Jane in my small group lesson. By doing so, I could see how she used the information from the reading conferences and further monitor her literacy development throughout the semester.

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT Appendix A A.1 Running Record

10

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT A.2 Miscue Analysis

11

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT Appendix B B.1 Reading Conference 1 (Self Correction & Decoding)

12

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT

13

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT B.2 Reading Conference 1 (Self Correction & Decoding) Notes

14

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT Appendix C C.1 Reading Conference 2 (Fluency and Expression)

15

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT

16

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT C.2 Reading Conference 2 (Fluency and Expression) Notes

17

INDIVIDUAL CHILD PROJECT Reference Tompkins, G.E. (2010). Literacy for the 21 century: A balanced approach (5th ed.). Boston,
st

18

MA: Pearson.