Area
Description
What I did
Connection
to DIP or
SIP or IIP
Understanding The case
I worked with According
of Language
study was
the teacher as
to the
Acquisition
with one of
well as with
districts
and Stages of the 4th grade the three
indicators of
Reading
teachers and students with a success the
Development a group of
focus on one
goals and
to support
three
particular
actions that
literacy
students that student. The
we take
development - she had who goal was to
should
Case Study
were
work on
demonstrate
struggling
reading
that
with reading fluency and
“student
and language comprehension achievement
development. as well as
is the
I worked
language
primary
with all
development.
focus.
threes
I initially
Everything
students but
collected a lot else is in
the majority of data in
service to
of my
order to find
this
artifacts are
out exactly
outcome.”
based on one where the
We were
particular
students were
attempting
ELL student in their
to meet the
who is
development.
needs of
labeled as
From here I
this group
“Student 1”
devised a plan of students
in the
with strategies so that they
artifacts and incorporated
can achieve
commentary. from Geisler
and improve
My work
and Cappellini. on their
revolved
I met with the MAP and
around the
teacher on a
meet the
incorporation regular basis
district
of Geisler’s
and we
expectations
and
monitored
of 52 %ile
Cappellini’s their progress
in reading
work to
and adjusted
as
address the
their
mentioned
listening,
instruction
in the DIP
speaking,
accordingly.
and
reading, and
Indicators
writing.
of Success.
What I
learned
Impact
Next Steps
I learned that
using
specific
strategies
with the
students and
knowing
exactly
where they
are really
helps them
progress. It
is also
imperative to
work closely
with the
teacher so
that we are
both on the
same page in
terms of
strategies
that are
being used
and the best
way to meet
the needs of
the students
using
differentiated
instruction. I
also learned
how
important it
is to work on
language
development
in the areas
of reading,
writing,
listening,
and
speaking.
The impact
of the case
study and
working in
small groups
is evident in
the data that
is
represented
on the first
page of
artifact 1.
The students
made
significant
gains on the
MAP test,
F & P, and
Checkpoint
testing. The
impact was
also seen
with the
classroom
teacher who
started
incorporating
different
strategies to
help students
in the
language
development
by focusing
on speaking,
listening,
reading and
writing.
My next
steps are to
expand this
learning by
working
with other
teachers as
well as
continue
working
with the
same group
of students.
I plan to
have other
teachers
select
students that
are below
grade level
who also
need help in
their reading
as well as
language
development
and
establish a
plan to
differentiate
their
instruction
in reading,
writing,
speaking,
and
listening.
1
Case Study
The case study is based on the work that I did over the course of six months with one of the
fourth grade teachers and three of her students that were struggling in reading. The teacher
identified the students that she was especially concerned about and this created a group that was
comprised of two ELL students and one student whose first language was English but was
lagging behind in his language development. My case study was centered around the work that I
did with this teacher and her three students in order to increase their reading fluency,
comprehension and also improve their language development. Even though I worked with three
students my case study was focused on one particular student, and the majority of the artifacts
that are included belong to this particular student who is identified as “Student 1.”
The initiation of the case study was based on a learning focused conversation that I had with
the fourth grade teacher when she stated her concern regarding the status of some of her students
in reading. She was noticing that the three identified students were reading at a lower level
compared to some of her other students. They also lacked fluency in their reading and had
difficulties answering comprehension questions, especially when they were required to answer in
complete sentences. After my initial pre-observation discussion with the teacher, the next step
for me was to observe the teacher working with the students in a guided reading group session.
My observations were discussed with the teacher during our post observation, and it was then
that we decided that we would work together to try and help raise the reading levels of these
students. It was apparent that the students still needed help with fluency as well as
comprehension skills. They were also in need of some support around language development,
2
because I had noted that the students were not answering in complete sentences and struggled
with some of their responses.
My colleague and I realized that this would be a project that would extend over several
months in order to give the process time to be successful. Some of the data that we used to help
support the initial need to work with the students is represented on the data sheet for artifact 1
(page 7). All three students were at a Level J, K or L on the Fountas and Pinnell individual
reading inventory. Their Fall MAP/NWEA scores ranged from a RIT score of 173 to 187 and
their first reading checkpoint assessment ranged from 29% to 50 % correct. We decided that we
would set aside 30 minutes during a weekly plan time to briefly discuss the skill or skills that we
would focus on for the next week as well as what books we would use to help us teach those
skills. The students met with the classroom teacher every day during their designated guided
reading group time, and then I worked with them for another 30 minutes three times a week. We
all focused on their language development by using sentence frames and language structures so
that sentence phrasing was set up in such a way that they would respond using complete
sentences and correct syntax. An example of sentence frames that I utilized during the week
when the focus was cause and effect is shown in artifact 2 (page 16). These sentence frames
were used during one of the first sessions that I did with the three students.
Decisions that were made to gear the instruction for the three students were based on the data
that was brought to the meetings. The third point was the data from the Fountas and Pinnell
testing, MAP assessments, and Checkpoint assessments as well as continual formative
assessments around their listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The data that we used is
shown in artifact 1 (page 7). The Fountas and Pinnell individual reading inventory was used
quite extensively during this case study because it provided us with a wealth of information in
3
terms of students’ reading level, fluency, accuracy, comprehension, and types of errors that they
were making. An example of the first page of one of the student’s Fountas and Pinnell testing is
represented in artifact 1 (page 8). By analyzing this student’s reading patterns it seemed
apparent that she was predominantly using visual cues when she came across a word that she did
not know even though meaning and syntax was also used. We also assessed the students’ oral
language development by asking questions as they were working and then recorded their
responses as seen in artifact 1 (pages 9 – 10) for student # 1. An example of writing from
student #1 is represented in artifact 1 (page 11), since this was another component that we looked
at because it was important for us to know the students in all four domains of language
development, mainly speaking, listening, reading, and writing. We kept track of the student’s
development in these areas through the use of a “Developmental Checklist of Language Patterns
for Beginning to Intermediate English Language Learners,” which is in artifact 1 (page 1). We
also kept track of their level of expanding and sustaining meaning using a couple of checklists as
seen in artifact 1 (pages 13 – 14). These forms were taken from the book, Balancing Reading &
Language Learning by Mary Cappellini. Even though the checklists are geared toward the ELL
students, the third student was also at about the intermediate level in his language development
so many of the strategies that were used for the ELL students were also helpful for the native
English speaking student.
The data that was used to analyze the progress of the students is represented in artifact 1
(pages 7 – 8). It was important to know what level the students were at using various forms of
assessments and to see whether how they were progressing. Even more importantly it was
necessary to really analyze their Fountas and Pinnell reading inventories to not only know what
level of reading they were at but also to see what kind of errors the students were making. The
4
errors allowed us to see the areas that needed to be developed so that guided reading group
sessions could be geared to meet the needs of those particular students. For example, all three
students were using visual cues quite extensively when coming across unknown words. Using
this data I was able to facilitate my colleague’s discussion in coming up with strategies that
would help improve the students’ use of syntax and meaning as well. Using Mary Cappellini’s
book, Balancing Reading & Language Learning, I comprised a list of strategies that I felt we
might want to use. I emailed the list to the teacher, which is represented in artifact 2 (page 15).
One of the suggestions on the list was to teach reading more thematically. During our
planning sessions we previewed the lessons that were coming up and came up with themes to go
with those lessons. When applicable we also tried to incorporate math, science, and social
studies into those themes. The teacher and I were also became more conscious about what we
were reading for our read alouds so that those would also correspond with the current theme and
would be rich literature, fiction, and nonfiction picture books when possible. Graphic organizers
were also emphasized, which really helped the students organize their thoughts so that
comprehension would improve. The graphic organizers were also very helpful during their
writing process. Through the use of thematic units students really became immersed in the
learning and it carried through all the content areas throughout the whole day. It helped the
students become more proficient in listening, speaking, reading, and writing because the
vocabulary became a part of their daily language and was used continually and consistently.
The majority of the data analysis and planning was done during our planning sessions on a
weekly basis. I was working with the three students three days a week in a small guided reading
group supporting them with what they were working on in the classroom and extending the work
with them in the four areas of language development, listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
5
The teacher and I were very focused on how to meet the needs of these students so that their
reading fluency, accuracy, and comprehension would improve as well as improving in their
language development. The use of sentence frames or language stems was used quite heavily
with this group of students. A picture of the sentence frames that I used with the students is
reflected in artifact 2 (page 16). The teacher really found that the strategies she was using with
the students in the case study were actually helping all of the students in the classroom because
there were a lot of other students that were struggling with a lot of the same issues. So what
started as a case study with three students ended up not only helping those three students but
benefited the whole class. I asked the teacher to fill out a feedback form at the end of this action
research process and the realization that the strategies were beneficial for all students is
portrayed very clearly in the feedback form that is represented in artifact 2 (page 17).
6
Artifact 1
DATA
Students
Student
Fall
MAP
173
Winter
MAP
193
Spring
MAP
195
Spring
KCA
63 – AS
F&P
Fall
K
F&P
Winter
L
F&P
Spring
N
183
186
198
62 – AW
J
L
M
187
197
205
73 – MS
L
M
P
#1
Student
#2
Student
#3
Students
Student #1
Checkpoint
1
29
Checkpoint
2
83
Checkpoint
3
21
Checkpoint
4
57
Checkpoint
5
67
Checkpoint
6
87
Student #2
43
71
43
57
60
80
Student #3
50
71
43
62
70
80
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Artifact 2
From:
To:
Subje
ct:
Strategies
Hello,
Over the weekend I was doing some research on how we can help our three
little kiddos who are having a hard time with their reading. I got some ideas
form Cappellinis' book that might help them with their syntactic and meaning
cues. The biggest one that I thought we might want to try is using thematic
units. Here is a list of some of the suggestions that I came up with. Maybe we
can talk about them during our planning session on Monday.
1.
2.
3.
Thematic units (integrate content)
Read alouds on a daily basis
Expose the students to a lot of rich literature, fiction, and nonfiction
books. When possible find books with pictures.
4. Use graphic organizers
5. Chart cognates
6. Build on prior knowledge and experiences
7. Plan language mini-lessons using a Big Book from shared reading
8. Daily News
9. Write patterns from speech and texts
10. Read Poems
11. Study of placement of words in sentences
15
16
Please fill out this feedback form and email it back to me when it has been completed.
Thank you for all of the hard work and time that you put into the action research project.
Action Research Feedback
1. Was the action research that we did with your student helpful? Why or why not?
The action research really helped my student a lot. Before we started this work the
student was not progressing, but as time went on she really improved a lot. She went
up 20 RIT points on her MAP winter test from where she was in the fall. That was
definitely more than the typical growth pattern. She also went from a Level K in the
fall to a Level N in the spring. Her first checkpoint test in September was at a 29% and
then on the sixth checkpoint test she got an 87%. Her Kansas State Reading
Assessment score was 63%, which is Approaching Standard, but that is an
improvement from last year when she was in the Academic Warning range.
2. How did the Teacher Leader’s facilitation help during the action research?
My Teacher Leader really listened to our grade level concerns about the students that
we had who were struggling in reading. She set time aside during our PLCs to discuss
the students that we wanted to focus on. She helped us analyze the data by really
looking at the F & P reading inventories and looking at the type of errors that our
students were making. We also took time to look at the MAP ladders for the students
so that we knew what skills they needed to work on. Finally, after students took their
checkpoint tests we used the item analysis data that we accessed through viewpoint to
see what questions students missed and what they were choosing as their answers.
The Teacher Leader helped us stay on track and pushed us to come up with strategies
to help the students.
3. How did the data help in planning for instruction?
As I mentioned in the last question, we really used the data to help us in pinpointing
where the students were and in what direction we needed to go to help them with their
reading. It really helped us know our students as readers and teach in a more focused
manner so that the areas that they were struggling in were being addressed.
4. What impact did the action research have on your decision-making?
The action research really helped me in the strategies that I started using not only
with this student but also with the whole class. The use of thematic units was probably
one of the biggest changes in my teaching and made the biggest impact. My decisionmaking was a lot more data driven so my teaching was geared toward the needs of the
student based on the results and information that I derived from the data. My
teaching has become a lot more focused. I am constantly checking for understanding
and have learned to differentiate my instruction in such a way that it meets the needs
of all of my students.
17