College of Education

Wolfpack Readers Program

Reader Profile Pre-Tutoring Report

Reader: Allie Sigmon Examiners

Assessments administered by: Dennis Davis
Grade: 2nd Results and interpretations completed by:
Age: 7 Holly Benaissa, Laquita Covington, Katherine
Tatum

Date of Assessments: January 10, 2018 Date of Report: January 26, 2018

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 NC State. You can find more information about
this program at: https://sites.ced.ncsu.edu/the-literacy-space

1. Reading Interview and Parent Interview

Allie is a second-grade student who is currently being homeschooled. Allie enjoys reading silly
books that are short and funny. She likes reading many types of books using applications on her
tablet. She enjoys the Junie B. Jones series written by Barbara Park and many books written by
the author Mo Willems. She often goes to the local library to get books and has access to many
books at home. Allie’s mom and brother assist her in picking out books and read them with her.

According to Allie’s reading interview, she reports that when she gets to a word that she does
not know, she tries to chunk it first and then reaches out for help if she still does not
understand. Her personal goal for this program is to expand her vocabulary. She feels reading
is important because she wants to learn things that she hasn’t yet learned. Allie states that
sometimes when she is reading, she has double vision. Allie’s parents would like to see her
decoding skills improve, her desire to read increase, and for her to independently utilize the
strategies that she has been taught.

2. High-frequency Words Inventory

A random sample of words from the Fry list of high-frequency words was presented to the
reader one word at a time. This list is used to see how well a student recognizes common words
that are often seen in different texts. This assessment was administered in order to determine
the student’s ability to recognize and read these commonly seen words in a quick and accurate
manner.

Words read correctly out of 45: 36

Interpretation:
Allie is able to accurately recognize most of the words given. She generally tried to sound out
an unknown word from beginning to end. If she did not recognize the word, she still tried to
decode it before stating she did not know the word. She would benefit from additional
instruction in recognizing common words not only accurately, but also more quickly. These are
words that occur frequency in texts that Allie is reading and should be recognized automatically
(without needing to stop and analyze them).
3. Informal Decoding Inventory Results
The Informal Decoding Inventory (McKenna & Stahl, 2015) is a decoding assessment that is
made up of words that focus on spelling patterns. Each list contains 10 real words and 10 made-
up words to be read out loud as the student sees the words one at a time on a tablet screen.
There are two parts to this assessment; part one contains only one-syllable words, and part two
contains multi-syllable words. Allie was only administered the first part of this inventory.
The results of the inventory are as follows:

Part I Real Nonsense Mastery

Words Words yes/no

Short Vowels 5/10 5/10 No

Consonant 6/10 4/10 No

Blends and
Digraphs

r-Controlled 1/10 -/10 No

Vowel Patterns

Vowel 7/10 -/10 No

Consonant–e

Vowel Teams -/10 -/10 No

Interpretation:
Allie needs to work on accurate letter identification; she tends to mix up “b” and “d”. She will
also benefit from instruction in single syllable short vowel words before moving on to more
complex sound-spelling patterns in this inventory. Allie would benefit from practice with words
that contain r- Controlled Vowel patterns and Vowel Consonant-e words. The nonsense words
for r-Controlled Vowel Patterns and the Vowel Consonant-e words were not administered
(indicated by the – above in the results table). The test was discontinued after part one
because we were able to determine what types of decoding patterns are Allie’s areas of needs.
4. Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Results
The Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI; Woods & Moe, 2014) is an informal reading inventory
used to estimate a student’s reading level. This assessment helps provide the administrator
information to build an instructional plan for improvement for the student. The student is
assessed on word reading accuracy and comprehension. Based on the results, the administrator
determines if the text is independent, instructional, or frustrational for the reader.

Passage Word Comprehension

Name/Level Recognition Level (% of
Level (% of questions
words read answered
correctly) correctly)

First Text The Lost Candy 96.6% 100%

Preprimer Level Circle one: Circle one:
Frustrational Frustrational
(90%-) (75%-)

Instructional Instructional
(90.1%-98.9%) (75.1%-89.9%)

Independent Independent
(99%+) (90%+)
 Second Text Pat Hides Out 93.3% 100%
Primer Level Circle one: Circle one:
Frustrational Frustrational
(90%-) (75%-)

Instructional Instructional
(90.1%-98.9%) (75.1%-89.9%)

Independent Independent
(99%+) (90%+)

Third Text The Crowded Car 86% 50%

Level 1 Circle one: Circle one:
Frustrational Frustrational
(90%-) (75%-)

Instructional Instructional
(90.1%-98.9%) (75.1%-89.9%)

Independent Independent
(99%+) (90%+)
Instructional Level: Primer Level (corresponds approximately to Kinder/low first grade level
text)
Interpretation: Allie displays exceptional comprehension for texts that have recognizable
words, level preprimer and primer. She needs additional support with word recognition; which
will in turn, improve her comprehension of more difficult texts. Allie’s current estimated
instructional reading level is primer because this is the level at which she can accurately read
and understand texts comfortably with teacher support. This level is the starting point for
determining texts for Allie’s instruction, but it is not the only factor that should be considered
when choosing texts for her.

5. Elementary Spelling Inventory Results

This inventory (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2016) is an assessment used to identify
the student’s stage of spelling development and knowledge of specific sound-spelling patterns.
It is administered by a teacher calling out words, along with a sentence, to a student who will
write down the spelling to the best of her/his ability. The first 8 words of this inventory were
administered to Allie.

Results are as follows:

 Spelling Features Total Correct Mastery yes/no

Initial/Final Consonants 6/7 Yes

Short Vowels 2/4 No

Digraphs 2/2 Yes

Blends 2/5 No

Long Vowels 2/4 No

Total Words Spelled 1/8 No

Correctly

Spelling Stage Letter Name- Alphabetic (Early)

Interpretation:
Allie displayed strengths in initial and final consonants and digraphs. Her instructional needs
include short vowels, long vowels, and blends. Her spelling stage is Letter Name - Alphabetic
because of the assistance needed on short vowels. The test was discontinued when Allie spelled
six words incorrectly in a row.

6. Listening Comprehension Results

A text aligned with the frustrational level one level above the student’s determined
instructional level (from the ARI, part 4 above) was used in this assessment. The text was read
aloud to the student, and then she was asked comprehension questions orally. This test helps
determine if students are able to comprehend better when they are not required to decode the
text on their own.

Passage Name The Surprise Party

Passage Level Level 1

(approximately 1st
grade)
 Comprehension 100%
Level
Frustrational (75%-)

Instructional (75.1%-
89.9%)

Independent (90%+)

Passage Name The Soccer Game

Passage Level Level 2

Comprehension 83%
Level
Frustrational (75%-)

Instructional (75.1%-
89.9%)

Independent (90%+)

Interpretation:
When a text is read to Allie, she is able to demonstrate comprehension strengths in a higher
level of text. She comprehends better when she is read to and does not need to decode words
on her own. She needs additional support with comprehension at level 2 which is where her
instructional support will begin during listening comprehension practice.

7. Fluency Assessment Results

The reader’s fluency was assessed using two text levels: a grade-level expository text (ARI Form
S - Science) and the reader’s instructional level (ARI, Form A, as above). We scored reading rate
using the words correct per minute (WCPM) score, which was interpreted using 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).
Grade level text:
 Passage Name / Why We Hear Fluency Rubric Ratings
Level Sounds -Level 2 (2nd
Expression and 1/4
grade)
Volume
Words Correct Per 13 words Phrasing 1/4
Minute (WCPM) Appr. 10th
percentile Smoothness 1/4

Word Recognition 89.2% Pace 1/4

Level
Frustrational (90%-) Total Score on 4/16
Multidimensional
Instructional (90.1%- Fluency Rubric
98.9%)

Independent (99%+)

Instructional level text:

Passage Name / Pat Hides Out Fluency Rubric Ratings
Level Primer Level
Expression and 1/4
Words Correct Per 30 words Volume
Minute
Phrasing 1/4
Word Recognition 92%
Smoothness 1/4
Level
Frustrational (90%-) Pace 1/4

Instructional Total Score on 4/16

(90.1%-98.9%) Multidimensional
Fluency Rubric
Independent
(99%+)

Interpretation:
Allie tends to have frequent extended pauses and sound-outs while reading. Her pace is slow
and laborious when reading grade-level texts and instructional level texts. It seems difficult for
Allie to read at a pace which is used in oral language. In terms of fluency, Allie’s accuracy and
rate (as measured by WCPM) are below average compared to grade-level norms. When reading
at her instructional level, she reads more words correctly per minute, but still does not reach
grade-level expectations.

Summary and Interpretation of Results

Based on the assessments provided, Allie shows strength in response to primer level text
comprehension, recognition of “ch” and “th” digraphs, and initial and final consonant
recognition. Areas showing Allie will need more support include word recognition, letter
identification, and decoding short vowel and controlled r words.

Instructional Recommendations

The Wolfpack Readers program is organized around five instructional segments. Here we detail
the instructional recommendations for Allie, based on the assessment data, for each segment.

High-frequency words and sentence building

Allie will increase her automaticity with high-frequency words. Allie’s assessment shows
accuracy with most of the primer words, but she needs to increase and extend her recognition
to be able to read them automatically, without a need to stop and analyze them. While
practicing her automatic reading of high-frequency words, we will also practice common
multisyllabic words in order to increase the child’s automatic recognition of more complex
words that occur frequently in academic texts. Allie will also practice using these words to build
and read sentences. Instruction will begin with a focus on simple sentences and then move on
to more complex sentence structures.

Systematic decoding/encoding through interactive word work

Using an explicit and systematic approach to decoding and encoding (spelling) instruction, Allie
will practice the following sound-spelling patterns:
 Short vowel CVC words, such as cub and pad
 R-controlled words, such as term and card.
She will learn these patterns through an approach that includes three parts: 1) Using letter tiles
to build and manipulate words that include these patterns; 2) sorting words based on their
sounds and spellings; and 3) writing words.

Scaffolded reading
During the assessment session, Allie indicated an interest in animals. She 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 Allie 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., a few sentences or short 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 Allie will learn to use with increasing independence
during the 10-week session. Allie will keep an inquiry journal where she will write about what
she learns from each text. Based on these notes, Allie will give a short informal presentation on
the last night of tutoring, explaining what she learned about animals.

Repeated reading for fluency

In this segment, Allie will read short texts on animals. Unlike the authentic texts read and
discussed in the Scaffolded Reading segment above, these texts will be created by NC State
faculty and tutors and customized for her instructional reading level. The tutors will use a
repeated reading approach (McKenna & Stahl, 2015) that consists of the following 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. During the repeated reading process, the tutor will
use various techniques to support the student’s fluent reading, including echo reading, choral
reading, and alternated reading.

Structural analysis and syllabication

The tutor will help Allie read and write complex words 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). Allie’s instruction will focus on the
following common prefixes and suffixes:
un- , re-, -s (or -es), -ing, and –ed.
 College of Education

POST-TUTORING REPORT

Reader: Examiners
Assessments administered and interpreted
Grade: by:
Age:

Date of Assessments: Date of Report:

This report was completed by graduate students in the College of Education at NC State
University. This report summarizes the student’s growth during the Wolfpack Readers tutoring
program.

____ received __ hours of intensified reading instruction in the Wolfpack Readers program (__
sessions x 1.25 hrs/session). Instruction included the five evidence-based instructional
segments described in the initial report. While participating in these segments, ___ read and
learned about the topic of _____. At the end of the program, ___ shared __ new knowledge
about __ during the Inquiry Showcase at the NC State Literacy Space.

Assessment Results

1. Informal Decoding Inventory

The assessment is described in the initial report. Only sections that were not previously
mastered (prior to tutoring) were administered for this report. Post-tutoring results of the
inventory are as follows:

Part I Real Nonsense Mastery Part II Real Nonsense Mastery

words words yes/no words words yes/no

Short Vowels /10 /10 Compound /10 /10

Words

Consonant /10 /10 Closed /10 /10

Blends and Syllables
Digraphs
r-Controlled /10 /10 Open Syllables /10 /10
Vowel Patterns

Vowel /10 /10 Vowel /10

Consonant–e Consonant–e /10
Syllables

Vowel Teams /10 /10 r-Controlled /10 /10

Syllables

Vowel Team /10 /10

Syllables

Consonant-le /10 /10

Syllables

[note for tutors: for any section that was already mastered, enter the same numbers from the
pre-assessment in this table and in the mastery column write: “mastered at pre-test”]

Interpretation:

2. Analytical Reading Inventory

The assessment is described in the initial report. The results from Form B of the ARI post-
tutoring are as follows:

Passage Name/Level Word Recognition Comprehension Level

Level (% of words (% of questions
read correctly) answered correctly)
 First __% __%
Text Circle one: Circle one:
Frustrational (90%-) Frustrational (75%-)

Instructional (90.1%- Instructional (75.1%-

98.9%) 89.9%)

Independent (99%+) Independent (90%+)

Second __% __%

Text Circle one: Circle one:
Frustrational (90%-) Frustrational (75%-)

Instructional (90.1%- Instructional (75.1%-

98.9%) 89.9%)

Independent (99%+) Independent (90%+)

Third __% __%

Text Circle one: Circle one:
Frustrational (90%-) Frustrational (75%-)

Instructional (90.1%- Instructional (75.1%-

98.9%) 89.9%)

Independent (99%+) Independent (90%+)

Instructional Level:

3. Spelling Inventory

The assessment is described in the initial report. Post-tutoring results are as follows:
Spelling Features Total Correct Mastery yes/no

Initial/Final Consonants /7

Short Vowels /5
Digraphs /6

Blends /7

Long Vowels /5

Other Vowels /7

Inflected Endings /5

Syllable Junctures /5

Unaccented Final Syllables /5

Harder Suffixes /5

Bases or Roots /5

Total Feature Points /62 -----

Total Words Spelled /25 -----

Correctly

Spelling Stage

Interpretation:

4. Fluency Assessment
The reader’s fluency was assessed using two text levels: a grade-level expository text (ARI Form
SS – Social Studies) and the reader’s instructional level (ARI, Form B, from above). We scored
reading rate using the words correct per minute (WCPM) score, which was interpreted using
oral reading fluency norms for the grade-level text (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).
Grade level text:
Passage Name / Fluency Rubric Ratings
Level
Expression and /4
Words Correct Per __ words Volume
Minute (WCPM) Appr. __ percentile
Phrasing /4
Word Recognition __%
Level Smoothness /4
 Frustrational (90%-) Pace /4

Instructional (90.1%- Total Score on /16

98.9%) Multidimensional
Fluency Rubric
Independent (99%+)

Instructional level text:

Passage Name / Fluency Rubric Ratings
Level
Expression and /4
Words Correct Per __ words Volume
Minute
Phrasing /4
Word Recognition __%
Level Smoothness /4
Frustrational (90%-)
Pace /4
Instructional Total Score on /16
(90.1%-98.9%) Multidimensional
Fluency Rubric
Independent
(99%+)

Interpretation:

Summary and Recommendations

[clearly summarize areas of growth, using specific data comparisons-- for example… ___
increased his instructional reading level from level 2 to level 3 on the ARI. He mastered three
additional sections on the decoding inventory: closed syllables, ….; ___ also increased his
spelling accuracy by __ words.. ; His fluency improved in the areas of… by… ]

[Based on the final results, list two or three recommendations for future instruction. (don’t
overlist – just a few recs is fine. Link them back to specific data points)]
 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.

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.

Woods, M.L., & Moe, A.J. (2014). Analytical reading inventory. Boston, MA: Pearson.

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