stephanieberry.weebly.comstephanieberry.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/0/1/16019168/... · Web viewI chose to complete my action research with ... is a structured intervention ... Students

Stephanie Berry

University Supervisor: Betsy GreenSchool: Bridgeview Elementary SchoolCooperating Teacher: Susan NelsenSubject: Reading InterventionGrade Level: Second Grade

Number Tested: 6Average Pretest Score: 66.6% of the group has improved since Beginning of Year Assessment.Average Posttest Score: 100% of the group has improved since Beginning of Year Assessment.Average Gain: 33.4%

School/Classroom Description:

I completed my 6-week placement in a Title 1 Reading group at Bridgeview Elementary in South Charleston. The surrounding community is mostly urban. Bridgeview Elementary is a diverse school.

All students in kindergarten through third grade are given a DIBELS assessment at the beginning of the school year. The Beginning of Year DIBELS scores determines students’ placement in reading intervention groups. All students in fourth and fifth grade are placed in reading intervention groups based on their WESTEST scores.

Students are coded red, yellow, or green based on their score. Students who are “in the red” are pulled out during reading intervention to work with the Title 1 Reading Interventionists. Each teacher has a maximum of six students during these intervention pullouts. If there are extra spaces available, students “in the yellow” can also be pulled, but students who are considered to be “in the red” are given priority because of space and group size limitations. Monitoring Meetings are held once during each nine-week period to allow Interventionists, Classroom Teachers, and Administrators the opportunity to discuss students’ progress and reevaluate their placement. Students can be taken out of the groups and new students can be added at this time.

I chose to complete my action research with our second grade intensive group. This group is comprised of six students: one black male student, one white male student, one biracial female student, and three white female students. These students are all considered to be “in the red.”

Instruction/Assessment Description:

Second grade intensive intervention focuses on improving vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension skills. We use the Read Naturally curriculum to provide the instructional practice that students need to help improve these skills. Read Naturally is a structured intervention program that combines teacher modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring. Students work with what the program considers high-interest material for their skill level to improve fluency and comprehension skills. Repeated reading is a strategy that research has shown improves fluency. Daily monitoring of student progress has also been shown to improve student achievement. The Read Naturally Program uses these strategies to help prepare students for biweekly DIBELs Progress Monitoring assessments.

When each new story is passed out at the beginning of the week, we begin by introducing the listed vocabulary. We read the definitions and briefly discuss the meaning of each word, relating it to students’ prior knowledge. Students then make a prediction based only on the title of the story and the vocabulary discussion. While students are completing their predictions, students are timed while they individually read their story as a cold read, meaning that they are reading the story for the first time without receiving any assistance or hearing the story in advance. Students read the story for one minute and I record their words-correct-per-minute score.

On the second day of instruction, we begin by reviewing the vocabulary and then reading the story aloud. While I read, students circle any words or phrases they don’t understand. We then go over those words and phrases to help improve student’s comprehension of the story. Students are timed while they individually read their story for the second time; I will record the words-correct-per-minute score. Because students have already read and listened to the story, their words-correct-per-minute score is expected to improve. While one student is reading, the other five students practice their Dolch and Fry Sight Phrase Cards. These are phrases that students are expected to recognize in the second grade and read without sounding out. Students are timed, usually twice each week, to assess how many of the twenty phrases they can read in one minute. There is no set schedule for receiving new cards; students receive a new set of cards to begin learning when he or she can successfully read all twenty phrases in less than a minute.

On the third day of instruction, we begin by briefly reviewing the vocabulary and the story. After a short review, we begin the comprehension questions by first restating the short response question. After all students have that written, we use discussion to find the answer, citing examples from the text. Students will then work independently to finish the answer to the short response question before moving on to the multiple-choice questions. While students are working, students will be called up one at a time to be timed while they individually read their story for the third time; I will again record the words-correct-per-minute score. Again, because students have had more exposure to the story, their words-correct-per-minute score is expected to improve.

On the fourth day of instruction, students work to complete their comprehension questions while I time them one at a time them reading their story as a warm read, meaning that they are reading the story for the final time after receiving instruction and working with the story awhile and after reading it several times. Students read the story for one minute and I record their words-correct-per-minute score. Because of the amount of exposure students have had to the story, their words-correct-per-minute score is expected to be significantly higher than the score on their cold read. After each student reads, I look at the answer to their short response question and help them correct any misspelled words or guide them in the right direction if they are struggling. If time allows, after all students have completed their warm read, we go over the multiple choice comprehension questions to check students understanding of the story. If not, this is completed on the fifth day.

On the fifth day of instruction, we go over the answer to the short response question together as well as the multiple-choice questions if we did not finish the day before. The remaining of the class period is spent reviewing Dolch and Fry Sight Phrase Cards. Students are timed while they individually read their phrase cards. If the majority of students can successfully read all twenty phrases in less than a minute, students receive a new set of cards to begin practicing.

Instruction was designed in this way each week except for the week of November 12th because November 11th was a holiday, so it was a four day week. In cases like this, daily instruction was altered slightly to fit all activities into the four days. Otherwise, this is the normal routine for this group of students.

Weekly stories are as follows:Week 1 (October 21-25, 2013): The Day of the Mermaid (118 words)Week 2 (October 28-November 1, 2013): Amelia Earhart (129 words)Week 3 (November 4-8, 2013): George Washington Carver (123 words)Week 4 (November 12-15, 2013): Sailors in Space (119 words)Week 5 (November 18-22, 2013): Susan B. Anthony (116 words)

Berry 4

Link to Standards:

Each lesson and activity that I used was connected to the same objectives and standard. These objectives and standards, which are listed below, are used every week as students work with Title 1 Interventionists to improve

Unit Objectives:

Students will understand the following:1. Sound out words they do not know.2. Understand what they read.3. Read fluently.

WV Content Standards & Objectives:

ELA.2.R.C7.1 Know and apply grade level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

ELA.2.R.C8.1 Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension with on-level text.

National Content Standards

2.1 Reading, Writing, and Oral Language—Candidates demonstrate a high level of competence in use of English language arts and they know, understand, and use concepts from reading, language and child development, to teach reading, writing, speaking, viewing, listening, and thinking skills and to help students successfully apply their developing skills to many different situations, materials, and ideas;

Materials:

DIBELS Assessments (administered by Mrs. Nelsen)Weekly Read Naturally Stories and Activities

General Materials:paperpencilswhite boardmarkersetc.

Berry 5

Results of Assessments:

Pretest Data Analysis

DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills) is used at Bridgeview Elementary to assess early literacy skills for students in kindergarten through third grade. DIBELS consists of short (one minute) fluency measures used to monitor the development of early literacy and early reading skills. Students’ Reading Placements in Title 1 are determined by their scores on the Beginning of Year DIBEL Assessment. Progress Monitoring DIBEL assessments are usually administered every two weeks unless something arises (absences, conflicting plans, etc.). My Pretest Scores were based on the results of students’ Beginning of Year (BOY) DIBELS scores and the last Progress Monitoring Assessment that was administered before I began teaching in this placement. The Beginning of Year assessments were administered by Mrs. Nelsen and the other reading interventionists. Progress Monitoring assessments were administered by Mrs. Nelsen, the reading interventionists, and classroom teachers. Results are as follows:

Student # Beginning of Year DIBELAugust

Progress MonitoringOctober

Percent Gain/Loss

1 31 63 +51%2 34 16 -53%3 34 37 +8%4 38 23 -39%5 29 34 +15%6 29 47 +38%

The scores represented in the chart above reflect the number of words-per-minute the student read correctly. These scores show that 66% of the group has improved since the beginning of the year.

Classroom Monitoring Analysis

The Read Naturally program was used to provide the instructional practice that students need to help improve vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension skills. All six students showed improvement from the cold read to the warm read each week. This shows that’s added exposure to the content through predictions, daily reading practice, and comprehension questions. Improvement from week to week, however, fluctuated a great deal. There was no pattern of improvement for individuals or for students as a group. Some students improved on particular stories while others did not. It was common for students to show a lower percentage of improvement one week and then a greater percentage of improvement the following week, and so on.

Cold read fluctuated from week to week as well. Some students improved by multiples of tens one week and decreased almost the same amount the next week. When I discussed this fluctuation with Mrs. Nelsen, she said that the difficulty level of each story varies from week to week for some reason, so it is rare for students to establish a pattern of improvement that is visible in such a short period as 5 weeks. Individual students’ progress is shown in daily and weekly results on the charts and graphs on the following pages.

Berry 6

Student No. 1

The

Day

of th

e M

erm

aid

(10/

21)

Amel

ia E

arha

rt10

/28)

Geor

ge W

ashi

ngto

n Ca

rver

(11/

4)

Sailo

rs in

Spa

ce(1

1/12

)

Susa

n B.

Ant

hony

(11/

18)

Read 1 42 72 49 52 70Read 2 52 72 86 83 67Read 3 67 93 91 97 81Read 4 81 96 91 97 88

Improvement 48% 25% 46% 46% 20%

The scores represented in the chart above and the graph below reflect the number of words-per-minute the student read correctly.

Read 1 Read 2 Read 3 Read 430

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

The Day of the Mermaid (10/21)Amelia Earhart (10/28)George Washington Carver (11/4)Sailors in Space (11/12)Susan B. Anthony (11/18)

Berry 7

Student No. 2

The

Day

of th

e M

erm

aid

(10/

21)

Amel

ia E

arha

rt10

/28)

Geor

ge W

ashi

ngto

n Ca

rver

(11/

4)

Sailo

rs in

Spa

ce(1

1/12

)

Susa

n B.

Ant

hony

(11/

18)


Improvement 39% 45% 53% 15% 55%



10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Berry 8

Student No. 3

The

Day

of th

e M

erm

aid

(10/

21)

Amel

ia E

arha

rt10

/28)

Geor

ge W

ashi

ngto

n Ca

rver

(11/

4)

Sailo

rs in

Spa

ce(1

1/12

)

Susa

n B.

Ant

hony

(11/

18)

Read 1 47 33 32 39Read 2 51 66 52 53Read 3 59 69 66 68Read 4 63 89 66 78

Improvement 25% 63% 52% 50%



30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


There was not enough data collected for this student during the week of October 28 th when we worked on the Amelia Earhart story, so the scores are not reflected in this data.

Berry 9

Student No. 4

The

Day

of th

e M

erm

aid

(10/

21)

Amel

ia E

arha

rt10

/28)

Geor

ge W

ashi

ngto

n Ca

rver

(11/

4)

Sailo

rs in

Spa

ce(1

1/12

)

Susa

n B.

Ant

hony

(11/

18)


Improvement 25% 46% 57% 42% 60%



35

45

55

65

75

85

95

105


Berry 10

Student No. 5

The

Day

of th

e M

erm

aid

(10/

21)

Amel

ia E

arha

rt10

/28)

Geor

ge W

ashi

ngto

n Ca

rver

(11/

4)

Sailo

rs in

Spa

ce(1

1/12

)

Susa

n B.

Ant

hony

(11/

18)


Improvement 44% 39% 48% 19% 40%



30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Berry 11

Student No. 6

The

Day

of th

e M

erm

aid

(10/

21)

Amel

ia E

arha

rt10

/28)

Geor

ge W

ashi

ngto

n Ca

rver

(11/

4)

Sailo

rs in

Spa

ce(1

1/12

)

Susa

n B.

Ant

hony

(11/

18)

Read 1 18 27 24 31Read 2 36 64 49 47Read 3 45 70 59 55Read 4 55 70 59 67

Improvement 67% 61% 59% 54%



10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


There was not enough data collected for this student during the week of October 28 th when we worked on the Amelia Earhart story, so the scores are not reflected in this data.

Berry 12

Posttest Data Analysis

Title 1 Intervention down not often result in predictable patterns of short-term progress. Progress is shown long-term, however, often over the course of several months.

As I stated before, my Pretest Scores were based on the results of students’ Beginning of Year (BOY) DIBELS scores and the last Progress Monitoring Assessment that was administered before I began teaching in this placement, both administered by Mrs. Nelsen, the other reading interventionists, and classroom teachers.

Five of six students showed progress from the last Progress Monitoring Assessment. All students, however, showed progress from the Beginning of Year Assessment. Posttest results are as follows:

Student # BOY DIBELIn August

Progress MonitoringIn October

Progress Monitoring

In November1 31 63 492 34 16 413 34 37 474 38 23 685 29 34 376 29 47 61

Student # Percent Gain/LossSince Last Progress Monitoring

Overall Percent Gain/LossSince the Beginning of the Year

1 -22% 37%2 61% 17%3 21% 28%4 66% 44%5 8% 22%6 23% 52%

The scores represented in the charts above reflect the number of words-per-minute the student read correctly. These scores show that 83% of students have shown improvement since the last Progress Monitoring Assessment. 100% of students, however, have shown individual improvement by different percentages since the Beginning of Year DIBELs Assessment.

Reflection and Data-Based Decision-Making:

The structure of the reading program at Bridgeview is determined by the Strategic Plan that was devised by the teachers and administrators. This determines how students are placed in intervention groups, what materials are used for intervention, and how often students are evaluated. Because of this Strategic Plan, I was required to maintain the structure and planning of the current program.

Read Naturally is a very structured program, which I think is good for an intervention setting. The continued combination of teacher modeling, repeated reading, and progress monitoring provides students with the necessary consistency they need to improve their skills. In my experience working with the program, I can tell that the students respond well to the structure. However, I question the choice of the material, specifically the use of strictly nonfiction material. Read Naturally considers the selections “high-interest material” for these students’ skill level. While the articles are informative and the skill level accurate, the subject matter is not necessarily high-interest.

I think students should also have practice reading fictional selections. I think it’s important that students be able to predict and comprehend material of a fictional nature. Students will encounter both fiction and nonfiction, so I think it’s important that they be able to execute these skills with either type of selection and this program doesn’t do that. Otherwise, I like the way Read Naturally is structured and designed to focus on specific skills.

In the short amount of time that I’ve been able to work with these students, I have gained a great deal of experience. I saw minimal improvements and deteriorations of daily and weekly scores. Students’ scores fluctuate a great deal, but I can easily attribute that to the variance in material with both the Read Naturally Program and the DIBELS Assessments. If a student struggles with one passage, they still move on to the next passages, which are increasingly difficult. If a student receives a more difficult passage when they’ve not mastered the skill from the previous passage, it’s not surprising when their scores decrease. Prior knowledge, or lack thereof, can also play a role in a student’s ability to read more fluently. From my experiences and from discussion with Mrs. Nelsen, I have learned that this is the norm in this type of classrooms setting. A few of the students stay fairly on target with some fluctuation, but maintaining the consistent level of growth that is expected. Others, however, fall outside of that normality.

Students No. 1, 3, and 5 for example tend to read more words per minute than other students. However, their reading is often choppy and mechanical. They can read over the material with few mistakes, but their ability to comprehend the material is not what it should be. They rush through the passage when reading, but these three students are rarely able to retell the main points in order to answer the short answer comprehension question. I think this shows that students are rushing to simply get through the passage rather than actually reading for facts and information, as they should be when reading a nonfiction passage.

Student’s No. 2 and 6, however, are quite the opposite. I think Student No. 2’s scores can be attributed to a struggle with paying attention. Mrs. Nelsen has told me that this student is supposed to be on ADD medication, but the teachers are not sure that any is actually being taken this year. If that were the case, it would explain the difficulty this student is having. Weekly monitoring scores were very scattered, but the student’s DIBELS scores have improved drastically from October to November and the student’s efforts during the last week or two seem to be more focused. If in fact the student’s lack of focus was the result of not having medication, it would seem that that problem has been resolved and the student is now on the right track.

Student No. 6 has shown a slight but steady decrease in improvement since I began working with this group of students. The number of words read per minute usually seems to be lower than that of other students. I originally attributed this to her ability to read more fluently with expression. It may take a few seconds longer to recognize certain words, but if the passage is read fluently, I thought it was sort of a trade off. However, when the scores began to fall, I began to question that theory. I spoke with Mrs. Nelsen; she said she believes that this student is memorizing the passages when reading and hearing it read by other students. Her comprehension skills seem solid, but this student’s reading skills are deteriorating and it is beginning to affect her in other academic areas, especially in math. Mrs. Nelsen informed me that this student is being referred for testing to determine if the student needs special education services.

Mrs. Nelsen said that the results of classroom instruction and biweekly progress monitoring usually fluctuate, but students are expected to show a significant improvement on Beginning, Middle, and End of Year assessments. Based on the results of assessments administered by Mrs. Nelsen, the other reading teachers, and the classroom teachers before and after my weeks of instruction, students seem to be showing the necessary gradual improvement, which maintains the goal of the program. Overall, this was a good experience and I am pleased with the progress of each student and of the group as a whole.

Documents

stephanieberry.weebly.comstephanieberry.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/0/1/16019168/... · Web viewI chose to complete my action research with ... is a structured intervention ... Students