ESL- First Grade Language Arts, Small Group Instruction/Comprehension

Assessment Plan:
To assess student learning and achievement of the lesson objectives for this unit and if
they are meeting the standards of the Maryland College and Career Readiness Standards,
students were given a summative assessment. The summative assessment evaluated the
students ability to use the strategies they learned throughout the unit. Students reread The Fox
on the Box and Maria Counts Pumpkins, while using the various strategies demonstrated
from the previous lessons including using prediction, background knowledge, rereading, and
retelling. After reading each story, students were to complete quizzes, which had cloze sentences
that were accompanied with matching or fill in the blank. Students were required to match or fill
in the blank to assess students ability to accurately comprehend each story in sequential order.
For the Fox on the Box quiz students were required to fill in the blank to complete an
accurate statement of what happened in the beginning, middle, and end of the story. In order for
students to show their mastery, they were asked to go back to the story and use any strategies
that they may find useful to determine an accurate answer including, prediction, background
knowledge, rereading, and retelling. For the story Maria Counts Pumpkins, students were
given a quiz that required them to match what happened in sequential order after rereading the
story. This story integrated cross- curriculum background knowledge associated with Math.
Given the same directions, students were to use their acquired knowledge of reading strategies to
accurately complete the quiz.

In order to determine what prior knowledge and learning needs students had, students
were given a pre assessment using the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System
(BAS). This tool assesses students by identifying instructional and independent reading levels as
well as documenting their progress through a variety of one-on-one formative and summative
assessments. Due to the fact the lesson unit focuses on guided reading, including comprehension
and their abilities to use various strategies to assist in reading fluently, this assessment was
deemed an appropriate tool to verify what leveled reading would be obtainable and appropriate
for these struggling readers. Students were individually assessed, clarifying their ability to
comprehend and their ability to read the appropriate leveled reading. To determine what the
student was capable of, data including accuracy, comprehension, and whether they were on an
independent level, instructional level, or if they found the leveled reading hard were documented.
After reviewing student assessments, I could conclude that all students were struggling
and needed more intensive and small group instruction. Students were all on a level A guided
reading level, ranging from 65% to 98% in accuracy for their ability to decode as they read
aloud. The area in which all students were extremely limited in was in their ability to
comprehend what they were reading. With this in mind, the lesson will focus on using multiple
strategies to address comprehension deficits.

Students were evaluated using a variety of formative assessment tools that determined if
students were able to meet learning objectives within each lesson of the unit. For all three
objectives/lessons, students were evaluated using checklists, through observations, interviews,
and questioning, which determined if they were able to comprehend what they were reading.
Students knowledge was assessed for their ability to apply appropriate strategies of using
background knowledge and prediction before reading the text. Questioning and asking students
to explain their thinking as I introduced the text and examine the title, cover, and illustrations
together assesses this ability. Students demonstrated their ability to apply strategies of rereading
and/or confirming and adjusting their predictions to monitor their understanding during reading,
viewing, or listening as I engaged in informal conversation with each individual student to assess
their abilities. For students to demonstrate their understanding of the text after reading, viewing,
or listening, students engaged in a grand conversation to discuss key elements of the text and
determine the main idea. One-on-one interviews were used to determine if students could retell
the story in their own way. To assess the student that is non verbal and has limited motor skills,
she was given two options to choose from to assist her in demonstrating her knowledge when
asked the same questions as the rest of the group. She used eye movements to determine her
answers and understanding. Anecdotal notes as well as checklists were used to collect data and
assess whether students were able to demonstrate whether they have obtained the appropriate
skills and knowledge for this unit lesson plan. The checklist addresses their ability to use
strategies of prediction, background knowledge, rereading, retelling, decoding, and if they were
able to comprehend the material. Students were rated using NA (not observed), N (needs
improvement), P (progressing), and M (meets expectations).

Students demonstrated all three lesson objectives for the unit in each lesson. For day one,
students read The Fox on the Box. In addition to checklists, observations, anecdotal notes,
interviews, and questioning, students were required to complete a comprehension worksheet.
This worksheet requires students to list new words reviewed in the story, draw and label the
main character of the story, as well as write and draw a picture about what they believed to be
the most important part of the story. This worksheet and various other assessments gave students
multiple means of expressing their comprehension of the story verbally, through illustrating,
and/or writing. Four out of the five students for this small group instruction completed the
worksheet. The fifth student in this small group has little to no motor skills and was assessed in
an alternative way. Two out of the five students completed the worksheet with 90-100%
accuracy. The third student relied on copying a sentence from the book while also including
additive/repetitive words before and after the sentence. She utilized her rereading strategy, which
stimulated her comprehension proving she had 70% accuracy in completing the assignment. The
fourth student had much difficulty completing the assignment. While she could verbalize her
understanding with 80% accuracy, recording her answers proved to be extremely difficult as she
took advantage of her accommodation of extended time. Therefore, this student completed the
assignment with 70% accuracy.

The alternative assignment for the fifth student, who is non-verbal and lacks motor skills,
included a series of index cards. These index cards included two options with images for each
page. Two options for this student are an appropriate and obtainable amount as she has become
overwhelmed and non-compliant when more than two options have been given that are more
complex. To assess her comprehension, she was directed to look at the index card that depicted
what was being read to her on each page. She completed the assignment with 70% accuracy,
which met her learning objective on her IEP.
When assessing students with the checklist, I observed that one out of the five students
met the expectations for the majority of the areas assessed. The fifth student that had the
alternative assignment was only able to be observed on comprehension and is continuing to
progress. All other students struggled, receiving a P or an N in all areas besides prediction.

With this data, I can conclude that approximately 50% of the students are meeting the set
objectives and goals for this lesson. Students within this group are in need of more focused
instruction in all areas besides prediction. This small group of students has been assigned to the
lower reading group and is being pulled for instruction so it can be intensified and specified to
their specific needs.
On day two, students reviewed and reread The Fox on the Box, as it was a difficult
book for them to comprehend. Students also read a new text, Maria Counts Pumpkins.
Students continued to be evaluated through checklists, anecdotal notes, interviews, and
questioning. Utilizing these assessment tools, students were evaluated on comprehension by
verbalizing the sequence of the story. Data compiled from day two concluded that students had
progressed or met expectations for the text The Fox on the Box. Students also had a better
understanding of how to use strategies of prediction, background knowledge, rereading and
retelling as 3/5 students received a mark of M (meets expectations) or P (progressing). The other
students were either unable to display strategies (non-verbal student), or failed to progress and
make improvement in using these strategies. Comprehension came much easier for this story as
3/5 students met expectations and the fourth student continued to progress.

The non-verbal student was given an alternative assignment, which included numbers 1
through 7 written on index cards. To assess her comprehension, she was directed to look at the
index card that displayed the correct number of pumpkins that was being described on each page
as we read aloud. She was able to accurately choose six of the seven numbers, which proved she
met expectations for her comprehension skills.

All assessments used for this unit were aligned with the selected MCCRS and
Essential Skills and Knowledge. Each lesson objective is directly aligned to the essential
skills and knowledge within the MCCRS. The essential skills are scaffolded throughout each
lesson to build upon one another to aid students in achieving the overarching goal of
applying appropriate strategies to strengthen students reading and comprehension
abilities.
To address all students various learning preferences and needs through the appropriate
principles of UDL, students were able to show what they know in multiple ways. The various
assessments used to evaluate student learning, including the pre assessment, formative, and
summative assessments, are differentiated and aid in obtaining valuable information on the
students capabilities. Students were given multiple opportunities to make personal connections
to the stories, work with others as well as independently, and have exposure to multiple means of
engagement by utilizing learning stations to continue engagement if finished early. Students
were able to verbalize and/or record their understanding. Students unable to verbally express
thoughts were able to do this with alternative assignments including drawing or using eye
movement to provide responses.
To collect data throughout the unit, quizzes, anecdotal notes, checklists, and worksheets
were compiled. Additional data was collected through numerous observations, interviews, and
conversations.