Week 5-Assignment 3

Using QRI5 to to estimate individual reading level, to indicate growth and monitor individual progress, and to describe specific reading behaviors as a guide for intervention instruction (RTI). 

Mary is a third grade ELL student. When these tests were administered she was in the fourth quarter of the year. After hearing Mary reading the word lists, then the assessment of prior knowledge, oral reading miscue analysis, and recall, I gathered the following information. The level two word list that Mary read seemed to have been at an instructional level since her scores were between 70%-80%. She seemed to be able to automatically identify 80% of the words and only needed to sound out one of the 20 words. Although she had to skip 3 words she seemed to have read the list fairly well.

When Mary read the level 3 list of words however, her level of reading was significantly lower. Having only read four out of the twenty words correctly, three of which that were automatically identified and one correctly identified, it was clear that this list was at her frustration reading level. The words that she was able to identify were lunch, believe, motion and worried. The word lunch seems to be a word that she sees regularly and can be considered a high frequency word. I would think that the other words on the other hand are not as common and am impressed that she was able to read them. Each of these words are two syllable with only one onset and rime so it could be that Mary is able to break up words into onsets and rimes in order to read them. Although I am not sure how strong Mary is in this area since the rest of the sixteen words were not read at all.

In regard to Mary’s assessment of her prior knowledge of the expository level two passage, she did not seem to have a lot of background knowledge on whales. This could be attributed to cultural background or just a lack of interest in whales and fish in general. Mary’s oral reading miscue analysis showed that the passage was appropriate for instructional level. Based on my results of this test from last semester (EDLI 635) her accuracy rate was 94%, and her self correction rate was 1:4 which is indicative that she monitors herself while she reads. Mary’s recall was very interesting in the sense that the first thing she recalled was not in the story which is indicative that she was speaking based on prior knowledge and not based on the reading. Additionally, the other points that Mary mentioned were written at the end of the passage which leads me to believe that she was only able to absorb the end because she was too busy focusing on the technical aspect of reading at the beginning.

This being the case I would think that this student needs intervention in the area of comprehension. Suggested intervention activities could be directed reading-thinking activity, visual imagery, KWL, reciprocal teaching, thinking aloud, discussion cards etc. Additionally it seems that it would be helpful for this student to work on retelling narrative text and organizing her retelling. Also, because Mary does not seem to have the strongest prior knowledge it would be helpful for her to do activities such as determining critical concepts and building a knowledge base. Mary seems to have strong phonological awareness and can identify words accurately. In addition Mary seems to be a fluent reader who can read words automatically.