Running head: ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 1

Analysis of Student Work (ASW)

Lauren Miller

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

EDEL 311
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 2

Student Data

The student whom I worked with for this project, “Y”, is a first grade student at Paradise

Elementary School in Las Vegas, Nevada. Y is seven years old and lives with his mother, father,

and two younger sisters. His interests include playing with toy trains and rocket ships, and

wearing his rocket ship pajamas. His favorite types of books are books about outer space,

rockets, and volcanoes. Y enjoys a variety of fiction and nonfiction texts, but enjoys being read

to, more than reading on his own. His favorite subject in school is science.

Assessment #1

According to Flynt and Cooter (2007) the High-Frequency Word Knowledge Survey

(HFWKS) is administered in order to “Assist the examiner in understanding the level of a

student's prior language knowledge and ability to use oral language skills upon demand” (p. 3).

When discussing how the assessment will be given to students, Flynt and Cooter (2007) state,

“Students are asked to pronounce individually words in a list” (p. 68). Before giving this

assessment I was prepared to plan for error and “increase the likelihood that you’ll recognize and

respond to errors by planning for common mistakes in advance” (Lemov, 2015, p. 60). Based on

other samples of Y’s reading, I assumed that there would be many of the high frequency words

he did not know, so I prepared him by saying, “Just do your best on this okay, and if you don’t

know a word after 5 seconds, just move on”.

Standard Assessed

RF.1.4 Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 3

Student Performance

When reading this set of 100 words, Y did not know 34 of them, revealing his score to be 66/100

correct, or 66% correct. After reviewing the results from Y’s HFWKS, I determined him to be at

the frustrational level for this set of 100 words. When taking the HFWKS and only assessing the

first 50 words, which are more frequent and common words, Y got 46/50 correct, or 92% correct.

If only the first 50 words are being considered, Y would be at an instructional level.

Reteaching Strategies

Reteaching high frequency words can be tricky, being that they require memorization

more than anything. Some strategies I could use for high frequency word practice would be

stretch it, culture of error, and right is right. The book defines stretch it as “Reward ‘right’

answers with harder questions” (Lemov, 2015, p. 108). When thinking in terms of high

frequency words however, it would be more of rewarding words said correctly with harder high

frequency words. Same goes for right is right, which is to “Hold out for answers that are

‘all-the-way right’’ (Lemov, 2015, p. 100). In terms of high frequency words, the right is right

strategy is usually necessary, to prevent students from mispronouncing common words. I would

personally chose to use Lemov’s culture of error strategy on pg. 64 in the text to “create an

environment where your student feels safe making and discussing mistakes” (Lemov, 2015,

p.64). I think this would be best for Y, being that he began to get frustrated with not knowing

some of the high frequency words in the assessment.

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 4
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 5

Assessment #2

The Comprehensive Reading Inventory-2 (CRI-2) is used to determine what types of

errors a student is making in their reading, as well as to determine the proper reading level for a

student. Flynt and Cooter (2007) suggest that even though primer and pre-primer level

assessments have little to no reading of words they may help us to know if the student is capable

of telling a story in order (p. 8). With this assessment, using Lemov’s strategy right is right is

critical. I did use this strategy when administering the CRI.

Standards Assessed

RF.1.4 Read with sufficient accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.

Student Performance

Y was assessed using a primer level text, which included pictures and simple sentences.

He made 8 errors in the 25 word passage. Y read 17/25 words correctly, or 68% of words

correctly, meaning this text was at his frustrational level. He looked to me 3 times during the

passage for teacher assists, and substituted or mispronounced 6 words total. Y used mostly visual

cues, a good example is when he reads “My father can jump” rather than “My friends came

over”. He knew the word began with the F sound, and used visual cues to assume the word read

“father”. The sentence he read did make sense in the storyline, which shows he was using syntax

as another cueing system. Being that this primer text was at the students frustrational level, I

would follow the steps given by Flynt and Cooter (2007), “Read it aloud, then ask the student to

try to read the story again. This will help you understand whether the student is able to memorize

and repeat text, an important developmental milestone” (Flynt and Cooter, 2014, p. 103).
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 6

Reteaching Strategies

Strategies that would be helpful for this assessment are own and track, excavate error,

and without apology. Without apology in this instance would include not apologizing for the

“rigorous content, academic challenge and hard work necessary” in reading this level text

(Lemov, 2015, p. 122). Of these three, I would chose to use excavate error on this assessment,

because discovering why the student made these errors is essential to his success in the future.

By excavating error, I was able to see what types of errors Y was making. Excavating errors is

essentially to “Dig into errors, studying them efficiently and effectively, to better understand

where students struggle and how you can best address those points” (Lemov, 2015, p. 72). I then

would go back through the text with Y and show him areas in which he struggled. As a teacher, I

would begin to form exercises for him to practice in the areas he was weak in, such as the use of

using syntax as a cueing system.

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 7
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 8

Assessment #3

The Primary Spelling Inventory (PSI) is used to determine the spelling stage of a student.

By administering the assessment, teachers are able to use the feature guide to determine what

spelling stage the student is at or approaching. I administered the first half of this assessment to

Y, I stopped early to avoid frustrating the student, when I knew he was already struggling.

Standards Assessed

R.F.1.2 Demonstrate understanding of spoken words, syllables, and sounds (phonemes)

Student Performance

Out of the 15 words in the PSI, Y spelled 7 correctly. Although he only had about a 50%

accuracy rate, he did get all of the initial and final consonants as well as short vowels and

digraphs correct in the words he spelled. He began to mis-spell on long vowel CVCe words.

After reviewing and analyzing the PSI Feature Guide, I believe Y is at a Late Letter Name

spelling stage.

Reteaching Strategies

I think that excavate error would be the most effective strategy to reteach spelling.

Excavating students errors, and going over why they made those errors is the most important part

of their success in the future.

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 9
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 10
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 11

ASW Future Application

I hope to carry the care, time, and effort I have taken this semester with me throughout

the rest of my teaching career. I think as preservice teachers, we take so much extra care in really

discovering each student, and their individual learning style because we are so interested, and we

are discovering and learning ourselves too! As a preservice teacher, I feel a lot of the time that I

am going overboard with getting to know my students, but I am just genuinely interested in

getting to know them. I have noticed teachers who have been on the job for many years seem to

be a little bit lacking in this area. I hope to not let this caring and carefullness that I am

experiencing right now fade away as time goes on.

Something I see being really useful in the future would be to administer the Primary

Spelling Inventory, HFWKS, and Comprehensive Reading Inventory at the beginning, middle,

and end of the school year. I strongly believe that these 3 assessments give an accurate

measurement of what level the student is at in reading and writing, and believe they would be

great assessments to use for progress monitoring. This is something I would like to implement in

my future classroom one day. I would assemble these assessments in a portfolio style layout, so

that the student would be able to see his or her progress as the year progressed.

Reflecting on this entire experience, I notice that trial and error plays a big role in

teaching, and strangely I hope that never changes for me in the future. I think that is part of being

a great teacher and part of finding each child's individual learning style and embracing it. In the

future I project I will be more knowledgeable as to what strategies work for different students,

but I hope I never lose my desire to make students want to learn and to make learning fun!
ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 12

Philosophy to Teach and Reteach

This intervention study has really emphasized how important it is to re-teach and revisit

subjects students are struggling in. Seeing gradual improvements in even such a short amount of

time with Y, affirms the importance of reteaching and using intervention strategies. The

included artifacts are proof that there is always room for improvement, and that revisiting

subjects in a non threatening setting is extremely beneficial for students growth and

development. Not only is the student then able to excel higher academically, but it is also a

healthy practice to be able to criticize one's own work in a positive way.

We must keep in mind that it is just as important for the student to check and recheck as

it is for the teacher. Teachers can check and grade work, but without the student's personal

reflection on that grading, they will not know what areas they need to improve in. It is critical

that we review work with our students, not for them.

In the future I hope to integrate a curriculum into my classroom that follows the teach,

check, reteach, recheck model. A rigorous curriculum that brushes on standards learned

previously, while building new skills and concepts is ideal. Throughout the ASW I retaught and

rechecked multiple different standards. I think that the ASW is an excellent example of the teach,

check, reteach, recheck model, and allowed me to see this model in action and realize how

effective it can be.

ANALYSIS OF STUDENT WORK 13

Work Cited

​ pper Saddle
Cooter, Flynt, E. S. & Cooter, R. (2014) ​Comprehensive Reading Inventory-2. U

River, NJ: Prentice

Lemov, D. (2015). Teach Like a Champion 2.0: 62 Techniques that put students on the path to

college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass