Wolfpack Readers Program

Reader Profile Pre-Tutoring Report

Reader: ​Bri Examiners: ​Lauren Johnson & Sarah McHugh

Assessments administered by: ​Lauren Johnson
Grade: ​1st & Sarah McHugh
Age: ​6 years old Results and interpretations completed by:
Sarah McHugh & Lauren Johnson

Date of Assessments: ​9/27/18 Date of Report: ​10/2/18

1. Reading Interview and Parent Interview

Bri is a 6 year old in the first grade. She has an older brother and an older sister. She loves
playing in the park, dancing, and playing with her new kitten. She enjoys reading​ Junie B. Jones
and ​Magic Tree House. ​Her mother is a kindergarten teacher who encourages her to read by
reading with her before bedtime. She was concerned after receiving the results of the
beginning of the school year NWEA MAP reading test. She wants to be sure that her daughter
is meeting the first grade standards for reading instruction.

2. High-frequency Words Inventory

A random sample of words from the Fry list of high-frequency words was presented to the
reader one word at a time. The purpose of this assessment is to determine how many, most
common, words the reader knows in isolation (without a text). These words are more
commonly used throughout multiple text, such as Newspapers, books, articles, or websites.

Words read correctly out of 100: ​69

Interpretation​: Bri has mastered some sight words. This means she needs additional support
with commonly occuring words. She was able to give a word that began with the same
beginning sound for words that were incorrect. Her responses were not automatic and
required a lot of effort. She needs to continue practicing the words she got correct as well as
learning the incorrect words to help with automaticity, which will assist her while reading a
text.

3. Informal Decoding Inventory Results

The Informal Decoding Inventory (McKenna & Stahl, 2015) is an assessment on decoding skills,
in the sequential order of the learning pattern. Part one focuses on one-syllable words while
 part two is on two-syllable words; each section has a real word and a nonsense word. This helps
the administrator determine whether the student knows the word as a sight word or knows
how to decode the word.

The results of the inventory are as follows:

Part I Real Nonsense Mastery Part II Real Nonsense Mastery

(8) (7) yes/no (8) (7) yes/no

Short Vowels 8/10 8/10 Yes Compound /10 /10 N/A

Words

Consonant 5/10 3/10 No Closed /10 /10 N/A

Blends and Syllables
Digraphs

r-Controlled /10 /10 N/A Open Syllables /10 /10 N/A

Vowel Patterns

Vowel /10 /10 N/A Vowel /10 /10 N/A

Consonant–e Consonant–e
Syllables

Vowel Teams /10 /10 N/A r-Controlled /10 /10 N/A

Syllables

Vowel Team /10 /10 N/A

Syllables

Consonant-le /10 /10 N/A

Syllables

Interpretation​: Bri mastered short vowels with an 80% accuracy rate. Instruction should begin
with consonant blends and digraphs. When working on the consonant blends and digraphs
section she struggled with the endings of each word.
4. Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) Results
The Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI; Woods & Moe, 2014) is an informal reading inventory
used to determine a student’s reading level, and also establishes an instructional plan for
improvement. The student read aloud a text while the administer noted the accuracy of the
reading. After completion of the reading the student was asked a set of questions to determine
their comprehension of the text.

Passage Word Comprehension

Name/Level Recognition Level (total
Level correct/total #
of questions)

First Text The Lost Candy 83% 67%

Form A Circle one: Circle one:
Preprimer Frustrational Frustrational
(90%-) (50%-)

Instructional Instructional
(90.1%-98.9%) (50.1%-89.9%)

Independent Independent
(99%+) (90%+)

Second Text Pat Hides Out 90.4% 67%

Form A Circle one: Circle one:
Primer Frustrational Frustrational
(90%-) (50%-)

Instructional Instructional
(90.1%-98.9%) (50.1%-89.9%)

Independent Independent
(99%+) (90%+)

Third Text The Five Senses 74% 50%

Form S Circle one: Circle one:
Level 1 Frustrational Frustrational
(90%-) (50%-)

Instructional Instructional
(90.1%-98.9%) (50.1%-89.9%)

Independent Independent
(99%+) (90%+)
Instructional Level​: ​Primer
Interpretation​: The word recognition accuracy and comprehension accuracy were both used to
determine the appropriate reading level of the student when teacher support is given. Bri is
able to read with teacher support on a primer level text. From the results of the level 1 text, Bri
should begin instruction with a primer level text. This is the level that she would be able to
read and learn from text comfortably.

5. Elementary Spelling Inventory Results

This inventory (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2016) assesses a student’s ability to
spell according to spelling patterns and stages. The words on the inventories are specifically
chosen to display the child’s knowledge and understanding of certain spelling features (short
vowels, long vowels, blends, etc.) The words begin at a rather “easy” level and gradually
become more difficult to spell. It is administered in a similar fashion as a spelling test, except
this child has not studied these specific words beforehand.

Results are as follows:

Features Total Correct Mastery yes/no

Initial/Final Consonants 7/7 Yes

Short Vowels 4/5 Yes

Digraphs 2/6 No

Blends 6/7 Yes

Long Vowels 0/5 No

Other Vowels 1/7 No

Inflected Endings 1/5 No

Syllable Junctures 0/5 No

Unaccented Final Syllables 0/5 No

Harder Suffixes 0/5 No

Bases or Roots 0/5 No

Total Feature Points 21/62

Total Words Spelled 3/25

Correctly
 Spelling Stage Digraphs

Interpretation​: Bri has mastered the following spelling stages: emergent, short vowel in
letter-name alphabetic, and blends in late letter name and within early word pattern. Her
review with spelling features should begin with digraphs in the beginning and middle of words.

6. Fluency Assessment Results

The reader’s fluency was assessed using two text levels: a grade-level expository text (ARI Form
S - Science) and the reader’s instructional level (ARI, Form A, as above). We scored reading rate
using a words correct per minute (WCPM) score, which was interpreted using oral reading
fluency norms (Hasbrouk & Tindal, 2017). In order to score aspects of fluency related to
expressive reading, we used the Multidimensional Fluency Scale (Zutell & Rasinksi, 1991;
adapted by McKenna & Stahl, 2015). Accuracy, automaticity (the ability to read words without
conscious effort, prosody (inflection), and stamina are the focus of this assessment.

Grade level text:

Passage Name / The Five Senses Fluency Rubric Ratings
Level Form S
Level 1 Expression and 1/4
Volume
Words Correct Per 15​ (15/19) words
Minute approx. 25th Phrasing 1/4
percentile (based
on Winter 1st grade Smoothness 1/4
score) Pace 1/4
Word Recognition 74% Total Score on 4/16
Level Circle one: Multidimensional
Frustrational Fluency Rubric
(90%-)

Instructional
(90.1%-98.9%)

Independent
(99%+)
 Instructional level text:
Passage Name / Pat Hides Out Fluency Rubric Ratings
Level Form A
Primer Expression and 2/4
Volume
Words Correct Per 27​ (27/31) words
Minute 35th​ percentile Phrasing 2/4

Word Recognition 90.4% Smoothness 2/4

Level Circle one:
Frustrational (90%-) Pace 2/4

Total Score on 8/16

Instructional Multidimensional
(90.1%-98.9%) Fluency Rubric
Independent
(99%+)

Comprehension 67%
Level Circle one:
Frustrational (50%-)

Instructional
(50.1%-89.9%)

Independent
(90%+)

Interpretation​: When assessed on a first grade leveled text, Bri read at 79% WPMC accuracy
rate while reading 15 out of 19 words correctly in 1 minute. She scored in the 25th percentile
compared to other first graders in the winter (there is not a percentile ranking for fall in first
grade) on words correct per minute. She read with 87% WPMC accuracy rate on her
instructional level (primer); she read 27 out of 31 words correct.
On both levels, Bri had difficulty with expression, volume, phrasing, smoothness, and pace. On
the lower level text she showed improvement in all areas. Fluency instruction should begin
with a primer level text focusing on each area.
7. Elementary Reading Attitude Survey
The student’s attitude toward reading in academic and recreational reading was assessed using
four pictures of Garfield. Each image depicted a different emotional state, ranging from very
positive to very negative. The results from the survey indicate the student’s overall feelings and
emotions related to reading.

Recreational Academic

Raw Score Total 28 24

Percentile Ranks 32% 21%

Full Scale: ​22% overall

Interpretation​: Based on the first grade percentile ranks Bri is relatively indifferent towards
reading in both recreational and academic settings. She has a more positive reaction towards
recreational reading than academic. She marked the happiest Garfield for the following
questions: how to do you feel about reading for fun at home, how to do you feel about getting
a book for a present, how do you feel about going to a bookstore, and how do you feel about
reading in school. She marked the very upset Garfield for the following questions: how do you
feel when you read a book on a rainy Saturday, how do you feel about reading instead of
playing, how do you feel when you read out loud in class, and how do you feel about taking a
reading test. Based on these results Bri should be given more free choice in selecting the text
she is to read, to help motivate her.

Summary and Interpretation of Results

Based on the assessment results, a strong area for Bri is high-frequency words. Although she
did know 69 of the top 100 Fry words she would still benefit from additional practice. Bri is a
good phonetic speller, but placed below grade level with the elementary spelling inventory (did
not master end of kindergarten expectations). This result leads Bri into being able to decode
beginning and final consonants, short vowels and blends. Despite decoding blends she needs to
focus on digraphs before continuing first grade instruction. Once digraphs are mastered, she
needs intense intervention in long vowels.
Bri would benefit from intense fluency drills, according to the fluency assessment, falling within
the 25th percentile. Lastly, Bri needs additional support with grade-leveled text comprehension
skills.
Instructional Recommendations
Scaffolded reading
During the assessment session, Bri indicated an interest in the ​Magic Tree House ​and ​Junie B.
Jones​ books. These two series are not on Bri’s instructional reading level. It is recommended to
select books on her level that are fictional stories similar to her interest, with instructional
support from her teacher. Depending on the difficulty of the text being read, the teacher will
use a variety of reading scaffolds to help Bri successfully comprehend and learn new
information from these texts, including read alouds, echo reading, repeated reading, and choral
reading. The text will be broken down into short chunks (e.g., 1-2 paragraphs). After each chunk
is read, the teacher and reader will engage in a structured discussion using Reciprocal Teaching
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984), a research-based method for text-based discussion that focuses on
helping children learn to monitor and repair comprehension difficulties. For each chunk of text,
the teacher and reader will take turns doing the following: 1) paraphrasing what they learned in
their own words; 2) asking each other questions about the text; 3) monitoring and repairing
their understanding of challenging concepts or ideas; and 4) predicting what they might learn in
the next chunk. These are strategies that Bri will learn to use with increasing independence
during an 8-week session. It is recommended for Bri to keep an inquiry journal where she will
write about what she learns from each text.

Repeated reading for fluency

In this area, it is recommended for Bri to read short fictional passages. Unlike the authentic
texts read and discussed in the Scaffolded Reading segment above, these texts should be
customized for her instructional reading level. A repeated reading approach (McKenna & Stahl,
2015) that consists of the following steps: 1) the reader reads a new text with minimal
assistance (a “cold” read); 2) the teacher provides feedback on the accuracy and expression of
the child’s reading (e.g., helps with any words that were misread; models a few sentences that
were challenging); 3) the teacher and reader collaboratively set a goal for the next reading of
the text (i.e., increase number of words, accuracy, and expression); and 4) the reader re-reads
the text, trying to incorporate the teacher’s feedback. This cycle should continue multiple times
until the reader is able to comfortably read the text with accuracy, appropriate rate, and
expression. After the cold read, the teacher will use various techniques to support the student’s
fluent reading, including echo reading, choral reading, and alternated reading.

Systematic decoding/encoding through interactive word work

Using an explicit and systematic approach to decoding and encoding (spelling) instruction, Bri
should practice the following sound-spelling patterns for late letter name words focusing on
digraphs, starting with digraphs in the beginning and middle of words.
She will learn these patterns through an approach that includes three parts: 1) Using letter tiles
to build and manipulate words that include these patterns; 2) sorting words based on their
sounds and spellings; and 3) writing words.
High-frequency words and sentence building
Bri needs to increase her automaticity with high-frequency words. Bri’s assessment shows
accuracy with a little over half these words, but she needs to be able to read them
automatically without a need to stop and analyze them. Bri would benefit from practicing using
these words to build and read sentences. Instruction should begin with a focus on simple
sentences and then move on to more complex sentence structures.

References

Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2016). Words their way: Word study for phonics,
vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Bhattacharya, A., & Ehri, L. C. (2004). Graphosyllabic analysis helps adolescent struggling readers read and spell
words. ​Journal of Learning Disabilities,​ ​37​(4), 331-348.

Cooter, R.B., Flynt, E.S., & Cooter, K.S. (2013). The Flynt/Cooter comprehensive reading inventory-2. Boston, MA:
Pearson.

Hasbrouck, J. & Tindal, G. (2017). ​An update to compiled ORF norms ​(Technical Report No. 1702). Eugene, OR,
Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, K.A.D. (2015). ​Assessment for reading instruction (3​rd​ edition).​ Guilford: New York.

Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. ​Cognition and Instruction, 1​(2), 117-175.

Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Newton, J., & Newton, E. (2011). The Latin–Greek Connection. ​The Reading Teacher​,
65​(2), 133-141.

Woods, M.L., & Moe, A.J. (2014). ​Analytical reading inventory.​ Boston, MA: Pearson.

Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency. ​Theory Into
Practice,​ ​30​(3), 211-217.