Hope Winburn

EDUC 6420
April 15, 2016
Puzzle Child Part II
Introduction
In my Action Plan, I created the following goals for instruction based on my
students assessment data. McKenna & Stahls Informal Decoding Inventory (A-1) as
well as the San Diego Quick Assessment (A-2) revealed that Lucy (pseudonym) is
proficient at decoding words, but my goal to build on this strength was for Lucy to read
with prosody in order to reflect her comprehension of the text. I learned from the
Adolescent Motivation to Read Profile Survey and Interview (A-3) that Lucys second
strength is her motivation to do well in school and the high value she places on reading.
However, I wanted Lucy to become more motivated by interest and learning rather than
grades and right answers. Both the QRI and BRI Reading Passages (A-4) informed me
that Lucys comprehension was a weakness that my instruction needed to address. My
goal for Lucys comprehension was that she would be able to identify and independently
use comprehension strategies based on the type of text she was reading. I created this
goal so that Lucy would have a starting point for approaching a text that she did not
initially understand. I learned from the Developmental Spelling Assessment (A-5) that
Lucy has difficulty spelling and determining the meaning of polysyllabic words. For
spelling and vocabulary, I wanted Lucy to break words into smaller parts so she could
determine their meaning. Focusing instruction on these four goals would allow me to
both build on the strengths Lucy already had as well as work towards growth in the areas
that impeded her reading ability.
Summary of Instruction and Response to Instruction
The goals from my Action Plan allowed me to focus my instruction first on
Lucys strengths so that I could increase her confidence before tackling the areas that
caused problems for her when reading. In order to motivate Lucy by interest, I used the
Interest Inventory (A-6) and I Am poem (A-7) from our first session to choose texts that
related to topics she identified as important to her. She indicated that she enjoys reading
mysteries, she prefers narratives to informational text, and she wants to learn more about
being a dancer. Based on this information, I chose Chasing Redbird by Sharon Creech as
our focus text for the semester. This narrative has a Lexile level of 860, which
corresponds to a 5th grade reading level, which is at the upper-end of Lucys instructional
reading level. I knew some of the vocabulary and metaphorical language would be
challenging for Lucy, but these were areas I wanted to work on and I thought the content
would be accessible and engaging for Lucy. The main character is Lucys age, she
discovers a trail with an unknown destination, and there is an element of romance, which
all relate to what Lucy normally reads recreationally. We also read two informational
texts because Lucy needed practice with expository text structures. However, the texts we
read were still about topics of interest to Lucy, including one on Misty Copeland and one
on Earths largest animals.

While text selection allowed me to motivate Lucy through her interests, I also
wanted her to be motivated by learning for the sake of learning because she was often
most concerned with finding the right answer. I found that how I framed tasks as well as
the language I used when praising her helped to change her perception of the purpose of
reading. Rather than reading to be able to answer my questions, I modeled reading
because I was curious about the content and I wanted to understand what was happening
in the text. Instead of praising her for answering a question correctly, I would provide
feedback such as I know that passage had some challenging words in it, but you used the
context clues and the prefixes we learned to help you figure out what they mean which
helped you understand the rest of the story. I wanted to point out what strategies she was
using and what she was doing well so that she would continue using what we had learned
to help her while reading.
The next strength I wanted to build on in my instruction was getting Lucy to read
out loud with prosody. The best way to encourage prosodic reading was for me to read
out loud with inflection and expression. At first I would over-emphasize my oral reading
in order to make prosody more noticeable to Lucy. I used a gradual release of
responsibility model to practice prosody in which I first modeled it while reading out
loud, we then took turns reading together, and ultimately she read out loud on her own,
trying to replicate how she heard me read. Lucy also responded well to rereading a text
out loud after we had talked about what it meant. She read with prosody once we had
worked on tasks that increased her ability to comprehend the text. While modeling how
to read with prosody initially helped Lucy with her own oral reading, throughout my
instruction it became evident that multiple readings were the most effective way to
improve Lucys prosody.
Lucys biggest area for improvement was both literal and inferential
comprehension for narrative and informational texts. For narrative texts, I focused on
predicting, questioning, and visualizing strategies. Before we began reading Chasing
Redbird, I used Gallaghers (2004) Word Scramble Prediction strategy (B-1) to get Lucy
to think about how key words could help her make an inferential prediction of what the
text was going to be about. Lucy was able to use vocabulary words to make a partially
accurate prediction about the first chapter of the novel. This strategy was engaging for
Lucy because she was eager to read the text to see if her prediction was correct. After
reading the first chapter, we wrote a quick summary of the text in order to add to and
revise her initial prediction. Lucy was particularly responsive to predicting what was
going to happen when I provided words to base the prediction on. This was also a way to
preview vocabulary that she would encounter in the text and gave her a comparison point
for her after-reading summary.
The next strategy we used to tackle literal comprehension of narrative texts was
visualizing what was happening in the text. I used the Sketch to Stretch strategy (B-2),
which allowed Lucy to listen while I read aloud, and we would stop periodically to draw
what we understood from the text. Out of the three strategies I used to improve Lucys
comprehension, Lucy was most responsive to visualizing smaller chunks of text because
she was able to focus on drawing the most important idea from what we read rather than
trying to remember every single detail (B-3). This strategy was also effective because she
could look at previous pictures she drew to inform her next picture, which improved her
ability to sequence the text and follow themes across chapters.

For informational texts, we primarily focused on creating questions about the text
as a during-reading strategy for comprehension. For our first informational text (Earths
Largest Animals) I first did a think-aloud (B-4 & B-5) to model how I create questions
while reading (Schoenbach, 2012). Once I modeled asking questions for the first two
paragraphs, I asked Lucy to help me come up with questions. When reflecting on the
effectiveness of this strategy, Lucy responded that she liked it because it made her think
about the question later and try to find out how to answer it, but she did not like that
some questions were not answered. After reading this text and creating questions, Lucy
was able to identify something she learned from the text (B-6). However, she still
struggled to determine the main idea, which made this strategy less effective for Lucy.
When we read the Misty Copeland article (B-7), we focused on text structure to
improve comprehension. After our first reading of the text, Lucy used a graphic organizer
to sequence the events in the text in consecutive order (B-8). After completing this task,
we read the text again and used the events Lucy already identified to determine which
events could be categorized as causes and which were effects (B-9). Lucy struggled with
both of these activities and I realized she did not respond well to these tasks because I did
not provide enough scaffolds for this text (B-10). The vocabulary was difficult and the
article did not happen in chronological order, so I should have chosen a less complex text
to introduce these two text structures. The following graph shows Lucys progression in
the number of comprehension questions she was able to answer for both narrative and
expository texts.

Points Earned

My final goal was to work on Lucys spelling and knowledge of polysyllabic

words. I decided to focus on morphology and teaching Lucy how to break words into
smaller parts that are familiar to her. We spent the majority of our time working on
common prefixes and suffixes. I created an affix go fish card game in which the player
had to ask the opponent for the affix or meaning of the affix in order to put them together
correctly as a match. Lucy enjoyed this game and was engaged through her competitive
nature. We played this game during multiple sessions before I reassessed her knowledge
of prefixes and suffixes as well as her ability to spell words with vowel and consonant
alternations, Latin-derived suffixes, and assimilated prefixes. A comparison of Lucys
DSA results from the beginning (January) and end (April) of the semester is displayed in
the chart below by word feature. For the DSA there are 25 words total, with five words
focusing on each of the five word features. For words spelled correctly, the student gets
two points, for words with the feature spelled correctly but some other error, the student
is given one point, and the student gets zero points if the feature in the word is
misspelled. Thus, per feature, there are 10 points available for the student to earn.

(Total words spelled correctly for pre-test: 8/25- 32%; post-test: 11/25- 44%)

Overall, the biggest strength of my instruction were getting Lucy to visualize

what was happening in the text in order to improve her understanding of metaphorical
language and how themes develop across a longer text (C-1). Lucy also benefitted from
multiple readings of the text to improve prosody when reading out loud. Next steps for
Lucy should include more instruction on the text structures of informational text as well
as more work on breaking words into smaller parts to improve both spelling and
vocabulary. Lucy showed the least growth in her ability to comprehend informational text
as well as to use word parts to help with vocabulary. However, Lucy did make gains in
her comprehension of narrative texts and her prosody, so she should continue using
visualization and multiple readings to enhance her reading ability in these areas.
Strategies Chart
Strategy
Predicting
(Gallagher,
2004)

Text
Chasing Redbird

Purpose
To prepare Lucy for what to
look for while reading, and to
motivate her to engage more
fully with the text by wanting
to determine if her prediction
was correct

Visualizing

Chasing Redbird

Due to Lucys struggles with

metaphorical language, I
thought visualizing would
create a more concrete
representation of what was
happening in the text to
improve her comprehension

Questioning
(Duke &
Pearson,
2002)

Chasing Redbird
and Earths
Largest
Animals

Enable Lucy to articulate

what she does not understand
while reading as well as how
her questions can be
answered in the text when
you continue reading

Think-Aloud

Earths Largest
Animals

Before Lucy could create her

own questions, I wanted to

Student Response
Lucy was more
motivated to read the
chapter because she
wanted to find out how
close her prediction
was to what actually
happened in the text
Lucy enjoys drawing
and connected most
with this strategy. She
used her drawings as a
support for discussing
and summarizing the
text. She was able to
better understand
metaphorical language
and connect smaller
chunks of text together
to comprehend the
story as a whole
Lucy liked when the
text answered her
question, but became
frustrated when it did
not provide an
adequate answer to her
question; she stated
that she was less likely
to use this strategy
independently
Lucy appreciated
having me model what

model how I create questions;

I also wanted to show Lucy
that questions help you
determine what to look for as
you continue reading
Improve prosody once Lucy
better comprehended the text;
introduce new text structures
with familiar content

Multiple
Readings

Misty Copeland
is Promoted to
Principal Dancer
at American
Ballet Theater

Identifying
text structure

Misty Copeland
is Promoted to
Principal Dancer
at American
Ballet Theater

Use text structure to improve

comprehension

Breaking
words into
morphemes

Chasing Redbird

Use familiar word parts to

determine the meanings of
unfamiliar words to improve
both spelling and vocabulary

I was going to ask her

to do so this strategy
should be used more
often when teaching
Lucy a new skill
Lucy stated that she
understood more of the
text when she read it
more than once and
she was glad we
learned a new text
structure with a text
she was already
familiar with
Lucy struggled with
how to sequence the
text as well as how to
determine which
events in the text were
causes and which were
effects; She got caught
up in the difficult
vocabulary, which
hindered her ability to
use text structure to
improve her
comprehension of the
text
Lucy enjoyed playing
games to learn
common prefixes and
suffixes, but we did
not have enough time
to then apply this
knowledge to in-text
unfamiliar words

Challenges and Successes

I was able to fully address three of the four goals I created in my action plan. In
my instruction, Lucy and I worked on changing the source of her motivation, reading
with prosody, and using strategies such as predicting, visualizing, and questions to
comprehend both narrative and informational text. While we were able to learn common
prefixes and suffixes, I had to narrow the scope of the goal for improving Lucys spelling
and vocabulary. Within our time frame, I realized that it was unrealistic to expect Lucy to
break words into word parts while reading when we practiced learning affixes in
isolation. However, our work with prefixes did positively influence Lucys ability to
correctly spell words with assimilated prefixes, as seen in her DSA post-test (B-11).
Thus, the greatest success of our tutoring sessions was improving Lucys spelling
of words with consonant alternations, Latin-Derived Suffixes, and Assimilated Prefixes.
Lucy and I played card games with prefixes and suffixes throughout our sessions so
ensure repeated exposure and practice with these word parts. Her growth in spelling can
be attributed to her engagement with these games as well as the simple fact that we
revisited prefixes almost every session, which kept them fresh in her mind. I also
encouraged her to use words with prefixes and suffixes in her writing (B-12), so she
would have a chance to apply her knowledge of affixes in an authentic setting. Lucy was
more confident in her writing ability than her reading ability so practicing using words
with common affixes in written personal responses was more accessible and beneficial
for Lucy.
We also found success in improving Lucys ability to read orally with prosody.
Fluency was already a strength for Lucy, so it was easier to build on this skill to add
prosody to her reading. In order to accomplish this growth, I modeled prosodic reading,
and we did multiple readings of texts. Repeated readings of the text were an effective
strategy because Lucys comprehension improved once she had the chance to become
more familiar with the text. In turn, when her comprehension improved, her prosody
followed. Instead of having to use all of her concentration to decode words or think about
what the text means, she could focus on reading with expression on second and third
readings of the passage (Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985). The best indicator of Lucys
progress in reading with prosody was her increased attention to punctuation and change
in tone when reading dialogue. If Lucy continues to do repeated readings of texts her
prosody should continue to improve, which will reflect the strength in her fluency and her
ongoing growth in comprehension.
Two challenges occurred throughout the intervention. First, Lucy and I were
unable to work on vocabulary to the extent that I had originally planned. While reading
Chasing Redbird I found that it was easy for us to end up spending the majority of our
time together going over vocabulary words, which meant that at first we did not get to as
many comprehension strategies as I wanted. Once I realized this dilemma, I knew I
would have to prioritize my instruction. I decided that comprehension was a more
pressing need for Lucy so spent more time on visualization and questioning strategies
than word-learning strategies. I know that Lucy still struggles with vocabulary because
even on our last day together, she was asking me the meaning of grade-level words.
When I would try to define words for Lucy by using synonyms or analogies she was
often still confused. Even using words in a sentence did not always help because there

would be more words she was unfamiliar with. Her future vocabulary instruction will
need to start at a lower level and build up so she can use prior word knowledge to make
more connections to new vocabulary.
Another challenge during instruction was improving Lucys comprehension in
general, but especially with inferential questions and expository texts (C-2). As seen in
the comprehension graph, Lucy started the semester at an instructional reading level of
4th grade, but ended the semester at a 3rd grade instructional reading level (B-13). She
dropped a level in her comprehension between the QRI pre and posttests (B-14). Due to
this data, it is clear that the comprehension strategies we employed were not effective for
Lucy. I think the strategies I used were not effective because I did not provide enough
scaffolds for these strategies. For example, when I asked Lucy to make a prediction about
the text I did not first model how I would make a prediction and I also did not provide a
mentor example. I simply explained the instructions and let Lucy try it on her own.
Similarly, when we worked on sequencing and cause and effect for informational text
structures, I gave Lucy a graphic organizer and thought that talking through the handout
would be enough support (C-3). Instead, I should have provided examples of these terms
and helped Lucy determine the main ideas of the text before asking her to organize these
ideas. I thought I was only focusing on one skill, but there were proficiencies Lucy
needed to have before she could work on text structure. In the future I will make sure
these foundational skills such as main idea and summarization are addressed before
introducing more complex skills (Keene, 2006).
Based on these challenges, next steps for Lucy include continued work on both
vocabulary and comprehension. Lucy responded well to games for vocabulary and
visualization for comprehension so she should continue to employ these strategies. To
work on vocabulary, Lucy should also use texts that are appropriately difficult so that she
is not overwhelmed by unfamiliar words (Kucan, 2012). In retrospect, I would have
chosen an easier text so that vocabulary was not as big of an obstacle to our work on
comprehension. This way she can focus on a few key words to learn well rather than
trying to tackle too many words (Graves, 2006). In terms of comprehension, Lucy needs
to first work on identifying the main idea of informational texts before she can work on
text structures. I would have approached text structure instruction differently by first
introducing Lucy to signal words for the structures. I also should have first showed Lucy
how I would determine the text structure of a passage. Next steps for expository text
comprehension instruction should include working on summarizing the text and
identifying signal structure words. Once Lucy has mastered these two skills she will be
more able to focus on the actual structure of the text. These next steps should address the
challenges we faced during tutoring and allow Lucy to continue to grow in her
vocabulary acquisition and ability to comprehend what she is reading.

Conclusion and Critical Self-Reflection

Through tutoring I have learned the importance of text selection when trying to
increase student motivation and I have also learned that students need appropriate
scaffolds in place before they can be successful on more challenging reading tasks.
Furthermore, the same type of scaffold that works for one student might not be effective
for another student. While working on text structures of informational texts, I thought my
incorporation of graphic organizers would suffice as a scaffold, but I quickly discovered
that this support was not enough for Lucy. We revisited the Misty Copeland article in our
following session. This time, rather than having Lucy fill in the graphic organizer with
the order of events from the passage, I provided slips of paper with the events on them
that she had to arrange in the correct order. Originally, Lucy had to both identify the main
events and then sequence them, whereas in my second try she could solely focus on how
to sequence the events.
Lucy showed me that students really do care about their learning and they only
behave badly or become disengaged when their reading difficulties do not receive
attention from their teachers. Going into the classroom next year, I will assume that all
students know that reading is important and that they want to become proficient readers.
Behavior that suggests otherwise is likely due to embarrassment or frustration from past
failures with reading. Once I can get past this initial reluctance, I will be able to
determine the specific areas that my students are struggling with and in turn cater my
instruction to these needs. I also learned from Lucy that as teachers, we have to meet
students where they are. While it is good to have high expectations and goals in mind, we
have to take reasonable steps to achieve these goals. Change is gradual, but not
impossible. In the future, I will break my goals into smaller steps so that they are more
attainable. Rather than saying, I am going to help Lucy with word-learning strategies in
general, I should have said I am going to help Lucy learn five common roots during our
time together that will in turn help her learn other new words. Specificity in planning can
greatly increase the likelihood of success when implementing instruction.
As a future literacy teacher, I have learned that ongoing progress monitoring is
essential in meeting the changing needs of the student. While initial assessments provide
insights into next steps for instruction, we have to keep checking to see if these
interventions are effective. I also learned that as a literacy teacher, before I can even
begin to work on reading difficulties with students, I have to build a relationship with the
student. Students motivation and engagement increases as their trust is gained. I
dedicated our first few tutoring sessions to getting to know each other and doing activities
that I knew Lucy both excelled at and enjoyed. Once I had established a rapport with
Lucy, she was more willing to try new activities with me and work on skills that were out
of her comfort zone. She knew I was there to help her, not judge her. We worked together
to try to understand the text, and I know that we would not have gotten as far as we did if
she did not trust me. In the future, it will be a priority to build these relationships with
students, which will allow effective reading instruction and improvement to follow.

Works Cited
De Koning, B.,B., & van, d. S. (2013). Becoming part of the story! refueling the interest
in visualization strategies for reading comprehension. Educational Psychology
Review, 25(2), 261-287.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to
say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Gallagher, K. (2004) Deeper Reading. Stenhouse Publishers ISBN-10: 1571103848.
Ganske, K. (2014). Word Journeys, Second Edition. The Guilford Press.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Johns, J.L. (1988). Basic Reading Inventory: Pre-Primer-Grade Eight. Dubuque, Iowa:
Kendall/Hunt, 6th Edition
Keene, E. (2006). Assessing Comprehension Thinking Strategies. Huntington Beach, CA:
Shell Educational Publishing.
Kucan, L. (2012). What is most important to know about vocabulary? Reading Teacher,
65(6), 360-366.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J.A. (2011). Qualitative Reading Inventory 5. Boston, MA:
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McKenna, M., & Stahl, K. (2015). Assessment for Reading Instruction, Third Edition.
The Guilford Press
Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K.. (1985). Repeated Reading and Reading Fluency in
Learning Disabled Children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 180188.
Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C. L. & Murphy, L. (2012). Reading for Understanding: How
Reading Apprenticeship Improves Disciplinary Learning in Secondary and
College Classrooms, 2nd Edition ISBN 978-0-470-60831-9