Examining the results of Mary’s QRI 5 Assessments
Word Lists (Word Identification out of context)
Mary scored at an independent level on word list level 1, reading 18 out of 20 words correct for a score of 90%; She seemed happy and confident while reading the list.
Mary scored at an instructional level on word list level 2, reading 15/20 words correct for a score of 75%; She was noticeably less confident with this word list, and did score on the lower end of instructional.
Mary did not complete word list level 3 as it was obviously too challenging for her.
Prior Knowledge Questions - Level 2 Expository Passage, Wales and Fish
Mary demonstrated very little prior knowledge about content in the passage, and responded "I don't know" to two of the concept questions. Her thoughts about what "baby animals staying with their mother" meant was limited to an example of how baby animals might get killed if they do not stay with their mother. She was not asked to make a prediction. Given Mary's limited background knowledge on this topic, comprehension may prove to be challenging for her.
Passage Reading, Level 2 Expository Text - Word Identification in Context, Oral Reading Rate, Comprehension
Mary read the passage about Whales and Fish at an instructional level, with 10 total miscues, 4 of which were self-corrected. Her self corrections indicate she is monitoring for meaning, and monitoring for accuracy at the word level. Mary consistently mispronounced “most” for must. This may be due to English being her second language. Some miscues were on word endings (“lived” for live, and “whales” for whale), which did not alter meaning dramatically. Two of Mary's miscues (“thought” for though, and “they” for through) point to weakness in her high frequency words/sight words; These errors changed meaning and possibly compromised text comprehension. She often paused before high frequency words indicating that she is not yet reading them automatically.
Mary's oral reading rate, including correct words per minute, fell within the ranges for level 2 text, however her rate was low (words per minute was 46 in a range of 43-89, and correct words per minute was 44 in a range of 19-77). This indicates that her reading fluency at this level is labored, and you could hear it in her reading which was sometimes choppy and had starts and stops. The starts and stops indicate hard work on Mary’s part at the word level with decoding unknown words. All of this impacts comprehension, which was demonstrated in her comprehension of the passage. At one point she lost her place in the reading and needed assistance with getting back to where she left off. She also started to track with her finger which some readers use as an aid to keep place and to focus on decoding each word. Mary was not reading this text at a fluency level that I would be comfortable with for independent reading. This is the kind of reading that I would want to be at her side for in order to coach, teach, and prompt. Mary was spending a lot of time and energy decoding the words and it appears that this may have limited her comprehension.
Mary's comprehension of the passage fell in the instructional to frustration level. Mary's retelling included the main idea with some supporting details, however, she left out important supporting details (for example key information about how whales and fish breathe, details about how fish and whales are born, and how fins and flippers are used). Mary's information and supporting details were accurate and sequential, but limited, and required additional prompting from the teacher. Without this prompting, I am not sure she could offer the structure independently, which points to a weakness in understanding expository structure. Mary's retelling and details were offered with brief statements and vague explanation, with the exception of information about how baby whales and fish feed. Her brief explanations could be a function of her speaking English as a second language.
Mary offered answers to some but not all comprehension questions with a score of 4 out of 8. I was curious why not all of the comprehension questions were asked? Mary was able to say what the passage was mainly about, and provide examples of how whales and fish are different (birth and baby feeding), and alike (fins and flippers). Her comparison of size indicated use of prior knowledge, as the passage didn't discuss this. Overall, Mary's discussion of the text reflected a basic understanding, but not a level of comprehension that I would be comfortable with. She is right on the border of instructional and frustration.
Mary’s Reading Level, Strengths and Weaknesses, and Implications for Instruction
At the word identification level, a level 2 passage is instructional for Mary; this is true both in and out of context (word list and passage). At the comprehension level, a level 2 expository text is at the beginning frustration level for Mary. I would heavily scaffold Mary’s readings of text like this to teach her essential comprehension strategies for reading nonfiction.
If I were to move forward with teaching Mary, I would want more information. I would want to hear her read a level 2 narrative passage. We know that expository text is generally more challenging for students, especially if the topic is unfamiliar to them, and this was true for Mary. I am interested to know how she would do on her oral reading rate and comprehension with a narrative structure. In my opinion, a level 2 narrative assessment is necessary to really determine Mary’s reading level. Depending on how she does on that, more information may be needed.
Mary's oral reading miscues and word list reading point to instructional opportunities to focus on high frequency words for level 2, and certainly level 3, and attention to word endings when reading. Mary is to be complimented for her attention to meaning while reading which serves her well, as indicated by self-corrections. She should also be complimented for word attack skills at points of error and unknown words. Mary is bringing prior knowledge to reading (information about fish and whale size) which is a good behavior, but she should know that when retelling it is important to only use information in the text. Mary clearly needs support with pre, during, and post reading comprehension strategies for reading nonfiction.
If the goal of these assessments is to determine Mary’s independent and instructional reading levels, more information is needed. I believe that a good starting point for gathering this information is an assessment of her word identification, oral reading rate, and comprehension at a level 2 narrative passage. Based on the findings of the assessments viewed, instruction could focus on level 2 and 3 high frequency words (with attention to /th/ high frequency words), accurate reading of word endings, and comprehension strategies (particularly in nonfiction). All of this would be supportive to Mary as a growing reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment