QRI 1

QRI: Qualitative Reading Inventory Mary Hoover EDUC 302, Section B Dr. Voelker May, 8 2009

QRI 2 Table of Contents SECTION: PAGE NUMBER:

Introduction.Page 3-4 Decoding.Page 4-7 Vocabulary and Background Knowledge...Page 7-8 Comprehension..Page 8-11 Integrated Profile.Page 11-12 Conclusion.Page 12-13 References.....Page 14

APPENDICES Appendix AReader Perceiver Interview & Reader Self-Perception Scale Appendix B...Word List Data Appendix C.Reading Passage Data Appendix D.Miscue Analysis Data Appendix EStudent Profile Appendix F..Writing Samples Appendix GData Graphs -Chart 1: Number of Miscues in Wordlists and Passages -Chart 2: Questions Answered Correctly with and without Look Backs - Chart 3: Oral vs. Silent Passages -Chart 4: Narrative vs. Expository -Chart 5: Explicit vs. Implicit -Chart 6: Reading Rate and Comprehension -Chart 7: Oral/Silent Passages and Reading Rate

QRI 3 Introduction Amy Godshall is a third grader at Mellinger Elementary. This school contains kindergarten through fifth grade students. It is an urban school setting located near the city. Amy is quiet girl who is hesitant when meeting people for the first time. As she builds a relationship with someone she become open, friendly, and talkative. She is always cordial and respectful. Her teacher described Amy as an average student who gets her work done. Insight into Amys perception of her reading abilities was able to be gathered by having her respond to The Reader Self-Perception Scale that was designed by Henk and Melnick (as cited in Allen & McLaughlin, 1995). From this scale, information could be gathered about how Amy viewed herself as a reader. The interview and reader perceiver questions were broken into three parts. These parts were represented by different question cards. Questions on stars were about her general interests and family life. While questions on a paper heart were about Amys general interest in reading. Finally, paint strips were used to administer the reader perceiver scale. The three parts enabled the interviewer to have a glimpse into different facets of Amys life and reading abilities. After administering the first few questions about Amys interests, the interviewer discovered Amys passion for animals. Currently she wanted to go to school to be a veterinarian, but she is also considering being a hair designer. Additionally, she loves the color purple and play on the computer. These initial questions also revealed that Amys favorite part of school is math and science. The second set of questions, the ones shaped like hearts, exposed some things about Amys reading. Amy disclosed that she sometimes get to read at home. When she goes home her mom tells her to read and when she finishes a book her mom has her list it on a piece of paper.

QRI 4 When asked what does reading do for you, Amy told the interviewer that reading helps her figure out words and build her fluency. When given the choice to read a book silently or out loud Amy would choose to read it out loud. Finally Amy perceives a good reader to be someone who knows every single word in the book without stuttering. This idea was reflected in the reader perceiver as well. The Reader Self-Perception Scale by Henk and Melnick shed light on a few of Amys underlying perceptions of reading. ( as cited in Allen & Mclaughlin, 1995) . She is a student who believes she has made progress in reading and is better than she was before. Out of 45 possible points she obtained 45. This puts her in the high range. Again on her physiological states she received a 40 out of 40. Reading is something she enjoys doing ad makes her feel good. However on her observational comparison and social feed back Amy scored in the average to low range. She tends to negatively measure herself to her peers and does not believe that others think she is a good reader. Amy was even hesitant to say that her teacher thought she was a good reader, or her that her family thought she was a good reader. This scale was able to show the ideas Amy has about her reading abilities. Decoding Decoding is an important part of reading. Good readers are also good at decoding. Combs (2006) states decoding is the ability to accurately pronounce words, regular and irregular, in ways that are consistent with the conventions of the written English (p. 34). As readers become more skilled decoding becomes an automatic process. Instead of working on decoding, these readers can focus their attention on comprehension. This is an important stage for child readers to reach.

QRI 5 Students need numerous opportunities to work with words and literature to familiarize themselves with print. Combs (2006) suggests to attain automaticity students must first coordinate the following things, the automatic recognition of sight words both regular and irregular, the use of context, and the application of phonics and morphemic analysis (p. 34). As readers become more fluent these three aspects of decoding become more developed. Amy was a student who is still working on decoding. She still struggled with pronunciation of words and this detracted from her ability to focus solely on the comprehension of the text. These decoding abilities were tested two different ways during the QRI-4 testing. First Amy was given wordlists to read from different grade levels (See Appendix B). Amys word list reading was recorded and then her miscues were analyzed (See Appendix D). Amy started with a first grade word list where she was able to identify 100% of the words correctly (See Appendix B). Then she progressed to the second grade word lists where she scored another 100%. Both of these lists were identified as being at her independent level. Next, the third grade world list was administered to Amy. She was able to able to correctly identify 85% of the words, thus classifying her in the instructional stage. Despite this classification, the fourth grade list was also administered to Amy. Here she was only able to identify 65% of the words placing her at her frustration level. A second way Amys decoding skills were measured were through the oral reading of passages (See Appendix C). Once again Amys miscues were written down and analyzed (See Appendix D). This miscue analysis revealed that Amys biggest struggle while reading the passages was the endings of words. Only fifteen percent of her miscues were similar in ending patterns (See Appendix C). Sixty nine percent of her words during the oral passages where similar in beginning sounds and forty six percent of her words were similar in vowel patterns.

QRI 6 These miscue patterns differed slightly when looking at the wordlists (See Appendix G, Chart 1). Amy had more trouble with words that had similar vowel patterns. Only forty percent of her miscues had similar miscues, while the number of miscues that contained similar endings was seventy percent. Despite orally reading a passage at both the second and third grade level, Amy was decoding at a independent level on both passages. In her book, Combs (2006) talks about the benefit of self-monitoring strategies and how semantics, graphophonics and syntax can be very beneficial to a reader. Amy used some of these self-monitoring strategies while she read the passages. For instance, Amy demonstrated her syntactical understanding when she self corrected her use of the word the for their in one of the passages (See Appendix C). It was hard to identify whether Amy was using semantic clues during her reading, but these are also very beneficial and should be enforced for they will help improve her decoding skills. Lastly, Amy demonstrated her ability to use graphophonics. While she may not have known how to pronounce rough she realized it started with and thus substituted the word roof (See Appendix D). Amy used visual clues to try and figure out the decode this unfamiliar word. As she increases her graphophonics knowledge she will become more familiar with letter patterns and the sounds they represent. A final way Amys decoding skills were analyzed was through her writing (See Appendix F). She used the word deatails instead of details and exape instead of escape. Additionally, she spelled whipped, as wipeted and sugar as suarger. Based on the data gathered from the QRI-4 and Amys writings she would be categorized as in the within word pattern stage. According Bear and his colleagues this stage consists of students who can read and spell many words correctly because of their automatic knowledge of letter sounds and shortvowel patterns (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, and Johnston, 2008, p. 13). Amy is still having

QRI 7 trouble with the some of the uncommon vowel patterns that occur in the middle of the words. An example being her inability to read the word rough. Also, she has trouble with the vowel patterns in the words escape, and details. Vocabulary/Background Knowledge Vocabulary and background knowledge are two major contributors to reading. If a text contains familiar concepts, it will be easier to comprehend. This prior knowledge will give students a firm base from which they can expand. In order to comprehend the text they may first need the prior knowledge. Furthermore, Combs (2006) describes vocabulary as essential in comprehending spoken and written language (p.19). Vocabulary knowledge can be expanded in a variety of the ways, one of the best is to have students encountering the words through guided and shared reading. Also, when students get the opportunity to reread text they have the chance to expand and become familiar with new vocabulary. The more students are exposed to vocabulary they will begin to compile a data base of prior knowledge. This background information is crucial when reading and comprehending new texts. Cunningham & Stanovich (2003) discovered a well developed vocabulary is an essential part of school success (as cited in Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, and Johnston, 2008, p. 94). As a result of the importance of vocabulary, it is crucial that students of all ages are involved in vocabulary instruction. Fluency will be enhanced because of this instruction, and comprehension will increase as well. Vocabulary is not something to be brushed to the side, its an important part of a balanced literacy program that leads to student success. Within the QRI-4 there were two methods that were used to assess students prior knowledge. One of these methods was the concept questions. These dealt with students understanding of prior knowledge and how familiar they were with certain vocabulary words that

QRI 8 were within the passage. In the four passages that were administered Amy was familiar with the content of three of the four passages (See Appendix E). However, her performance in the comprehension of the texts did not seem to highly correlate with her familiarity. She was in the frustration level for two of the passages, one which she was unfamiliar with and the other which she was familiar with. Secondly, Amy had to make predictions for each of the four passages that she read (See Appendix C). The predictions were scored by counting the number of ideas that each one contained. Amys predictions ranged from two to four ideas per prediction. Her highest number of ideas came from the passage she was most familiar with based on her concept question scores. Her predictions scores show Amy is a student who is able to combine a few ideas together in order to predict what will happen in a story. Vocabulary was assessed in the QRI-4 by the word lists and the oral passages. Amys miscues from these two aspects showed she is still working on decoding vocabulary words (See Appendix D & Appendix G, Chart 1). However, one of her lowest categories was self correction. Out of the twenty three total miscues during the QRI Amy only self corrected seven of them. Leslie and Caldwell (2006) believe if the reader has a low percentage of of self corrected miscues the reader might be focusing all their efforts on decoding words rather than comprehension (p.81). This may have been the case with Amy, sometimes she appeared to be so focused on getting the word to sound right I was not sure if she was understanding what the word meant. Comprehension The goal of almost every reading program is for readers to be able to understand and comprehend the meaning of the text. Combs (2006) defines comprehension as an active

QRI 9 cognitive process that requires intentional and thoughtful interactions between a reader and a written text in which the reader constructs meaning from the text (p. 19). It is through this interaction with the text that students gain understanding and build schemata. Comprehension becomes an tool which students can use to make meaning of the print that they will encounter everyday. Effective and influential teachers of literacy realize just like Raphael and Au (2005) did that students must become informed citizens by reading a wide rang of materials, interpreting and evaluating what they read, drawing conclusions based on evidence, and so forth (p.206). Students are only able to do those things if they first can comprehend the materials they read. Combs (2006), like many other researchers, believes how effectively students comprehend text is a national concern (p. 136). Teachers must help students to make the text meaningful and continue ongoing assessment which will guide instruction. Amys comprehension was measured by the QRI-4. At the end of each of the four passages she was asked eight comprehension questions. The questions were both implicit and explicit. Leslie and Caldwell (2006) say, answers to explicit questions can be found in the text; answers to implicit questions require the reader to make an inference based on a textual clue (p. 2). Looking at the data as a whole, Amys number of correct questions ranged between 5-6 out of a total of eight questions without look backs (See Appendix G: Chart 2). This placed Amy in the either the instructional or frustration level depending if she answered 5 or 6 questions right (See Appendix E). However, when look backs were able to be utilized the number of comprehension question Amy was able to answer correctly improved. She was now able to answer 6-8 questions correctly out of eight (See Appendix G, Chart 2).

QRI 10 When looking at Amys comprehension rate for the different grade levels she scored between the same range despite reading from passages at second and third grade levels. Additionally, Amy seemed to scored the same whether the passage was silent or oral (See Appendix G: Chart 3). This changed when Amy was allowed to look back. Amy now was able to answer more comprehension questions correctly for the silent passages (See Appendix G: Chart 3). In addition, Amy read the silent passages at a faster rate (See Appendix G: Chart 7). She averaged 119 words per minute for the silent passages, while her oral passages were around 95 words per minute. This information may implicate that Amy does spend more time trying to decode words when she is orally reading, but when is reading silently she is able to focus on comprehension. The QRI-4 data is also able to be analyzed by the type of comprehension questions that were asked. One average, without look backs, Amy was able to answer more implicit questions correctly. This trend continued when she was allowed to look back in the text (See Appendix G: Chart 5). With or without look backs Amy tended to answer slightly more implicit questions correctly. As Amy answered the questions with look backs she seemed to have a difficult time finding the answers to the explicit questions. She had trouble finding where in the passages to look and sometimes she gave up all together and made up an answer. The kind of passage that was read also seemed to affect Amys comprehension (See Appendix G: Chart 4). She read two expository passages and two narrative passages. With and without look backs Amy was able to answer more comprehension questions for the narrative passages. However when asked what her favorite passage was Amy chose one of the expository texts. She also was able to recall and relate the information she read in that passage to a text they were using in her classroom.

QRI 11 There are several comprehensions strategies that could be suggested for Amys use and benefit. One being the strategy called Question Answer Response (QAR). Raphael and Au (2005) explain students benefit from this strategy by gaining access to reading comprehension and higher level thinking with text (p. 220). The different QAR categories help students realize that some answers are found in the text, others come from your head, and finally there are some that require a blend of the two. Amy would be able to understand what a question is asking and where she needed to look for the information. A second comprehension strategy that would be beneficial for Amy is Reciprocal Teaching. Allen (2004) describes Reciprocal Teaching as a way to help students focus and monitor their reading in order to achieve higher comprehension (p. 14). Amy would benefit from seeing a teacher demonstrate comprehension tools and she would be more likely to use them when she read. It would enhance her ability to read expository texts and identify important information within the texts. The more Amy encounters comprehension strategies she will eventually be able to self monitor her own comprehension. Integrated Profile Amy Godshall is a third grade student who has many reading strengths, as well as challenges. Her teacher identified her to be an average reader in the class. The data indicates that her instructional level is third grade and her highest independent level is second grade. This information aligns with the information from the teacher. Amys biggest strength is her love of reading. She feels she has improved as a reader and finds it to be enjoyable (See Appendix A). More importantly Amy likes to read expository texts. Her favorite passage was one of the expository texts and she enjoyed taking the information and apply it across settings. Another strength is her ability to read at a relatively quick pace. According to the categories established

QRI 12 by Combs (2004), Amys reading rate of 94-119 wpm would place her in either the late third grade or early fourth grade stage. Along with her strengths, Amy also has some weaknesses. One being her perception of how others perceive her reading abilities. She was hesitant to say that others saw her as a good reader, and she believed a good reader was one who was able to read all the words correctly without stuttering. This may affect her concentration on decoding, instead of comprehension. Amy may get so focused on sounding like a good reader, she might forget what she is reading about. Additionally, Amys word lists showed her struggle with the middle vowel patterns in words (See Appendix B). Amys love of reading can be incorporated in helping her improve her comprehension and vocabulary. By using Amys strengths her weaknesses can be built up. Amy is a reader that has lots of potential; she just needs continued practice. Conclusion As my entry into the professional world looms on the horizon, my experience administering the QRI-4 has shown me one way how teachers can be researchers within their classroom. It also reinforced how many components need to be a part of a literacy program. The QRI-4 contained many components that were used to assess various aspects of the students literacy. I had learned of these components but now I was witnessing how each of these overlaps and build off one another. Through analyzing one childs literacy capabilities I could see what strategies and practices need to be implemented in my own classroom in order to create and environment where students can grow. Additionally, I found how much data can be generated from administering four passages. I was not expecting the amount of graphs I could create from this data and the hypothesis that could be generated from of these graphs. Within a span of a few meetings, I could obtain the

QRI 13 information I needed. These skills are very important for teachers to have. In order to help your students you need to administer some assessment so it can guide your instruction. After this project I am more confident in my abilities to analyze a students problem and create possible solutions. At first the entire QRI process seemed very overwhelming to me. However, as I assembled the data piece by piece it became a manageable task. I enjoyed collecting the data and then compiling it. I was excited to see Amys results and see if there were any correlations. One of my favorite parts of the whole process was rapport session. I was able to ask all the questions that interested me, and see how Amy perceives her self as a reader. This is something I hope to continue with my future students. This process has showed me the importance of understanding your readers strengths and weaknesses and one of the best ways to figure those out is with quantifiable data. I am a firm believer that you learn things the best when you actually do them, and that has been reinforced for me by the QRI process. Confidently, I can say I am now comfortable with being a teacher researcher in my future classroom.

QRI 14 References Allen, J. (2004). Tools for teaching content literacy. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008). Words Their Way. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Combs, M. (2006). Readers and writers in primary grades (3rd Edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A., (1995). The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): a new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), 470-482. Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory -4. New York: Longman. Raphael, T. E. & Au, K. H. (2005). QAR: enhancing comprehension and test taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 206-221.