Amanda Rawlins Lesson Critique: Lesson 3

March 29, 2015

The third tutoring session with Christopher, a third grader, proved to be an exciting and
engaging lesson. I felt activities were aligned with assessment data, the activities chosen were
highly successful, Christopher was mostly engaged, and while it was an effective lesson, there
were still areas where growth could be noted.
Activities for the lesson were chosen based on assessment data collected prior to tutoring.
One example of this correlation can be found in word study. Christopher was found to be using
but confusing early and middle Within Word Pattern features, so using a sort that contrasted
words with short a (CVC), the long a pattern ai (CVVC), the long a pattern with a silent e
(CVCe), and the long a pattern ay (CVV) was appropriate and consistent with assessments.
Secondly, fluency was found to be a major area of growth for Christopher on the QRI-5. His
timed WRI fell from 85% to 35% on the third grade list, and his oral reading rate was below
level for second grade (74 WPM), oral third grade (62 WPM), and silent third grade (63 WPM).
Therefore, the fluency section of the lesson took a larger amount of time than normally
recommended and multiple poems were used in addition to a timed repeated reading activity.
Finally, Christophers QRI-5 results indicated a second grade instructional level, so the text in
the lesson, Firefighters, was chosen as a level M text. This proved to be an instructional level
text as his running record showed 95% accuracy.
In addition to consistent correlation with assessment data, the lesson had several
strengths. First, the word study conversations were very positive and engaging, and they
required him to think about words in terms of sight and sound, which is a core principle of word
study. Including the game Four in a Row was also a great decision because he had visibly grown
tired of the word hunts we did in the previous two sessions. Christopher also improved his
fluency during the first section of the lesson, specifically during the poem You Cant Argue with
a Tennis Ball. Despite a slow start in engagement for Christopher, he did end the fluency
section with appropriate expression. Finally, Christophers stamina was solid through the lesson
and he did not seem to get tired, but instead came into the session tired and increased his
engagement and motivation throughout.
In thinking about his level of engagement, I am very happy with Christophers time on
task. I think this can be correlated to the checklist I started with him in the second session after
his lower engagement in the first session. As this was the third session, I believe the
predictability and self-monitoring afforded by the checklist encouraged him to stay on task and
propelled him to continue his best efforts through the end of the lesson. The word study game
Four in a Row was highly engaging and he was very willing to discuss even difficult words. The
game setting seemed to give him more comfort in making mistakes, which was important, as he
is a student that does not handle correction very well. Finally, Christopher started the session
visibly upset about something, so I had to modify the fluency section immediately in order to
hook him back into engagement. He did not seem to have interest in using expression at first, so
I decided to switch off reading the poem so he could get more immediate feedback. I thought
this would give him more confidence as he only had to complete part of the poem with sustained
effort, and as it was the beginning of the lesson, I knew it was critical to not lose him so early.
Although the lesson was effective, I also appreciate there are areas of growth, specifically
in the comprehension section. While I took time in the first session to state explicitly why
readers make predictions, I should have included this conditional knowledge again before
reading Probuditi! I should not take for granted he knows why he makes predictions even
though he is skilled at predicting. Including the conditional knowledge would give him a
purpose for making predictions. I include this conditional-type knowledge when doing the timed

Amanda Rawlins Lesson Critique: Lesson 3

March 29, 2015
repeated readings so he knows why he is reading the passage over and over, so I should also
include this conversation during the comprehension sections.
A second area of growth is time. First, the lesson is still longer than I would like it to be.
Also, I want more of his time to be spent actually reading as the bulk of his time is spent talking
or writing. He is very good at talking about his connections and predictions, and I predict he has
realized this allows him to read and write less as this is often a difficult job for him. It also takes
him a long time to turn his thoughts into a coherent sentence and actually write the words, so this
took away from reading time.
A third area of growth comes in what Duke and Pearson (2002) note as common
confusions over determining importance and summarizing in the during and after reading
sections of my lesson plan. I wrote on the graphic organizer important ideas from the text and
then called what he wrote a summary of the text. He did determine important ideas from the
text, but we were not thinking of the text as a whole and synthesizing the information into a
new coherent text that stands forthe original (p. 220-221). In the future I should focus on
one of these strategies and be explicit to the student about which strategy is in focus.
Overall, I felt I also had setbacks after speaking with his classroom teacher and therefore
assuming he could do more beyond his actual abilities. In thinking of the gradual release model,
his teacher reported he was completing many of the activities such as summarizing and writing
sentences independently after reading text, but I saw a very different picture when we were
writing sentences about the book Firefighters. It would behoove me in the future to begin with
the most teacher-centered modeling and follow the model of gradual release more closely instead
of realizing halfway through the lesson Christopher cannot write independent sentences or
summaries.
While there are clear areas of growth, I am pleased with this lesson and ultimately happy
Christopher had a successful and positive experience with reading and writing.

Duke, N., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension.
In A.E. Farstrup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.) What research has to say about reading
instruction, 3rd Ed. (pp. 205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Amanda Rawlins Lesson Critique: Lesson 3

March 29, 2015
Name ______________________________
Lesson Reflection/Peer Coaching Grading Rubric:
(20% of course grade)
Over &
above the
requiremen
t

Assignment:

PART I: Self Reflection

The lessons activities were consistent
with the students assessed reading
and spelling levels as evident in at
least three examples that were listed.
(45 pts)
Indicated strengths of lesson (10 pts)
Presented examples effective activities
that demonstrated on-task and
engaged student behavior (10 points)
Reflected on changes that could have
been made and indicated why (10 pts)
PART II: Peer Observation/Coaching
Notes included were thorough &
reflective. Met with colleague to share
observations & provide feedback. (5
pts)
Indicated strengths of lesson and an
area for improvement (10 pts)
Provided concrete examples of
strengths & areas for improvement (10
pts)
Grade: __________/100pts.

Comments:

Fulfilled
the
requiremen
t

Missing or
lacks details