1

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Fourth Quarter
After continuously analyzing the data with my mentor and in my Inquiry Notebook, I reached out
to one of my schools reading interventionists. During a meeting with her in which we discussed my
concerns, she informed me of an approach she uses with struggling readers during reading sessions. The
approach follows a chart of strategies students should use to decipher unknown words (Figure 5).
In the weeks that followed, I referred to different teaching
techniques that could support this approach. To aid implementation, I
modeled using the chart, explicitly explained the importance of following
the strategies, and celebrated with positive reinforcement when
students properly used the technique. In addition, I found it useful to
scaffold through daily reminders while using voice-overs to explain
Figure 5

student thinking. To support this thinking, focus group students and I

created a chart that outlined steps for approaching tricky words.

As the strategy chart became a routine part of reading workshop, I observed all of the focus
students stretching sounds, chunking words, and skipping tricky words prior to recording unknown words
on their strip of paper for the vocabulary wall. For instance, when listening to Aubrey read aloud on
March 16th, I noted that she initially struggled with a word but eventually self-corrected and solved it.
Teacher: Aubrey, I noticed that you got stuck on the word wooden at first but you didnt give up.
What did you do to figure out that word?
Aubrey: I used a reading strategy.
Teacher: Which one?
Aubrey: Stretchy Snake.
Teacher: Did you try any others?

2
Aubrey: Lips the Fish.
Teacher: Why did you try a second strategy?
Aubrey: I am good at getting my mouth ready for each letter!
On March 18, 2016 I expressed these thoughts in my Inquiry Notebook: I am so excited to notice that
even my lowest readers are using their strategies! These charts must be helping! (Inquiry Notebook).
While my observations indicated full success rate in implementation of at least one reading strategy, my
anecdotal notes found only forty percent of these students used the pictures in their books as a helpful
clue a major contributor to reading comprehension.
Based on this observation, I sifted through previous data collections to determine if I had any
similar findings. I noticed a pattern in the January 4th student survey. Looking back at questions eight and
nine from the Reading Interest Inventory, I found something I initially overlooked. These questions asked
students to circle yes or no as they respectively read: I like to read books with a lot of words on the
page and I prefer reading books with a lot of pictures and a few words on each page. The results from
these questions indicated that Jessica, Aubrey, and Devon preferred books with more words and less
pictures while Alexanders and Adams answers indicated the opposite. In addition, on January 26th, I
recorded in my anecdotal notes that Devon did not look at the pictures when he was stuck on a tricky
word. Similarly, on February 11th, Running Records showed Alexander failed to use textual evidence as
support. This finding, along with my other two noticings, made it clear my lower readers did not
understand that the pictures could be used as a helpful tool in determining the storyline. These three
major findings provided a breakthrough prompting me to research ways to integrate pictures into all of
my guided reading lessons.
Fountas and Pinnell, authors of Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for All Children,
recommended completing pre-reads with students prior to beginning new books. Within a book preview,
these authors suggested the teacher should relate the topic of the book to everyday life as a way for

3
students to build their schema and make personal connections. Afterwards, a picture walk completed by
the teacher and students can guide discussions of storyline components prior to reading the story. During
picture walks, the authors also suggested the teacher directly implant and define key words. By doing
this, lower students should become more familiar with the language of the book.
I implemented this pre-reading component to my guided reading groups in order to support
vocabulary understanding. With consistent modeling and scaffolding, I noticed students referring to
pictures as time proceeded. I chose to complete another Running Record on the focus students to assess
the impact on student reading level. As the table indicates below, all students increased their reading by
March Reading Levels
Student Reading Expected Reading
To measure full effectiveness of this strategy, I
Level
Level for Second
Grade Students
referred to student work samples. In early March, I asked
Jessica
I
M
Aubrey
J
M
students to read a book and record which strategies they
Devon
L
M
Alexander
M
M
used when stuck on words in their Reading Response
Adam
N
M
Table 8
Journal. Both Jessica and Aubrey used a reading strategy, yet did not focus on using the pictures as a clue
one level (Table 8).

for determining challenging words (Figure 6).

Jessicas Reading Response

Aubreys Reading Response

Figure 6
Nevertheless, as instruction progressed over the remainder of the month, students began to
explore different reading strategies. For example, on March 28, 2016, Devons work illustrated his
reference to the picture evidence when he explained, I think that miserable means the same thing as sad
because the characters face looks sad in the picture, (Devon, Reading Response Journal). In addition, I

4
observed Adam make a successful prediction when he referenced the pictures explaining, I predict that
this book will be about a doctor taking care of other individuals because I see a sick person in the
picture. From this data, I realized my focus students finally used all of the strategies in the reading chart
including pictures as a way to better understand the story.
In addition, examination of students Reading Response Journals showed students used multiple
reading strategies and successfully read more words. I knew this by the students newfound ability to
record definitions of words. Referencing my data from January, I noted only twenty percent of my focus
students accurately derived words meanings when reading a new book. Eventually, eighty percent of
these students could fully write word definitions on March 29, 2016. While it was interesting to note this
increase in ability to define words, different journal entries showed students varying abilities to
contextualize the words.
I pondered the source of this disconnect as I expressed my thoughts in my Inquiry Notebook.
Perhaps students are too focused on their strategies. Maybe they dont understand the storyline
(March 31, 2016, Inquiry Notebook). While the data supported the idea that students understood
individualized words better when isolated from the text, it also appeared they read to understand words
rather than to comprehend the text. Even though the growth over the course of the semester pleased
me, I wanted to make reading more meaningful for each of my students by increasing their
understanding of storylines.
Since using an authentic approach to teaching elementary-level vocabulary holds a high value to
understanding an authors purpose (Taboada et al., 2012, p. 90), I incorporated realistic photographs and
real-world connections into reading workshop. Jessica and Aubrey began to share their thinking while
both Devon and Alexander made connections to the pictures. In addition, Adam asked if he could bring
his own pictures that related to different books. While my observations indicated increased interest, I
explored my students Reading Response Journal to determine if it carried over to their work. In early

5
April, their journal entries included minimal definitions. However, when reading the different responses
on April 12th, I noticed full sentences that contextualized the appropriate words within the story. I
concluded that authenticity was advantageous for all of my focus students.
To determine if this skill carried over to independent reading, my focus students recorded
themselves reading the same book from earlier in second semester on Seesaw. After recording, students
met with my mentor again to watch the video and record their personal notations of changes in their
reading over time. In her anecdotal notes, my mentor noted that all five students seemed more confident
in their reading and eager to try different strategies. In particular, Jessica stated that, I didnt know that
word so I stopped and used my strategies. I like to use my chart! The discoveries I noted when
completing the Running Records on the video recordings supported my mentors findings. All five
students increased their reading level and sufficiently answered the same comprehension questions from
February. While some students still read below grade level, each progressed their personal reading and
April Reading Levels

showed immense growth this semester (Table 9).

Student

Expected Reading
Level for Second
Grade Students
instruction for my focus students. I remained interested in
Jessica
K
M
Aubrey
K
M
gauging their current opinions of reading. Therefore, students
Devon
M
M
Alexander
N
M
completed the same survey from January. All students
Adam
O
M
Table 9
successfully explained strategies for deciphering unknown words. In addition, the survey indicated four
Student comprehension increased with vocabulary

Reading
Level

out of five students preferred books with a lot of pictures and minimal words which showed their
understanding that pictures can be used as a helpful strategy. Lastly, at the beginning of January, the
average rating for reading interest level was a
seven. (Figure 7). However, on April 29th, one
Figure 7

student circled 9 while the remaining four students

selected 10 indicating their love for reading. With the increase in both reading levels and love for

6
reading throughout this semester, my data supported the notion that vocabulary instruction was an
exciting and valuable asset to my second grade reading workshop.