Week 3: Lesson Plan

Assessment: Motivation to Read Non-Fiction

Regarding motivation toward non-fiction reading, the learner did not demonstrate the same level of interest as he did with fiction. For instance, he indicated that reading non-fiction is something he never enjoys (Question 2) and described it as “no fun at all” (Question 17).

During the assessment, the learner exhibited attentive listening and consistent rule-following behaviors. He used his pen to trace each question and listened carefully as the assessor read them twice. He then marked the answer that he believed was appropriate after receiving instructions to do so. Compared with the previous motivation assessment on fiction, although his enthusiasm for non-fiction appeared lower, he was more willing to share his thoughts and feelings during this session. This indicates that the rapport between the learner and the assessor has strengthened after four sessions.

A particularly notable moment during the assessment occurred when the learner asked whether there were “good” or “bad” answers on the questionnaire. This question suggested that he understood the nature of the task as an assessment, even though the assessor had not explicitly used that term. In response, the assessor clarified that there were no right or wrong answers and emphasized that the learner would not be graded. The assessor further explained that the purpose of the activity was to gain a better understanding of the learner’s reading habits in order to select more suitable reading materials for him. Following this explanation, the learner appeared reassured and continued the task with a positive attitude.

Assessment: Test of Language Development (TOLD)

The assessor divided the TOLD-I test into two parts, which were completed across two separate sessions.

At the end of the session on October 6, 2025, the TOLD test began. After hearing the instructions, the learner appeared excited and confident, particularly about the Word Ordering activity.

During the test, the learner demonstrated attentive listening and proactive engagement. At the fifth word group—consisting of “your,” “is,” “name,” and “what”—he immediately formed the correct sentence, “What is your name?” after hearing the words read aloud. Following his response, the learner enthusiastically said, “Give me some challenges,” reflecting his high level of confidence in this task.

However, as the word groups increased in length, the learner gradually showed signs of cognitive fatigue. He began to have difficulty recalling all the words read aloud, let alone ordering them into a proper sentence. After the 18th group, he asked how many groups remained, suggesting that he was beginning to feel tired. The Word Ordering test concluded at the 25th group, by which time the learner lay tiredly on the desk and mentioned that he was running out of energy. Since it was near the end of the session, the assessor encouraged him by sharing some lighthearted stories about school life and wrapped up the session on a positive note.

In the following session, the learner completed the Relational Vocabulary subtest. At the beginning, he appeared slightly uneasy, often pausing to think carefully about how each group of words might be related. On several occasions, he recognized only one of the three words in a set and attempted to infer their relationships based on that single word. After providing each answer, he would ask the assessor whether he was correct. When affirmed, he showed visible excitement; when corrected, he often laughed and remarked, “Oh, that was my original thought about it!”

A particularly memorable moment occurred during this session with the word “teepee.” In a previous meeting, the assessor had brought several postcards to engage the learner, one of which depicted a teepee. The learner had asked about its meaning, and the assessor had shown him related images on a laptop. Later, when presented with the group “igloo,” “teepee,” and “palace,” the learner immediately answered that they were all “houses or homes for people.” He then smiled and said, “I still remember the time when you showed me those strange teepees,” demonstrating meaningful connection and retention from a prior learning interaction.

Assessment: Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI)

The learner performed well on the word recognition component of the QRI test. Initially, the assessor anticipated that he would read the Level 3 word list with ease but might encounter difficulties at Level 4. To help build his confidence, the assessor began the assessment with the Level 2 word list.

However, the final results exceeded expectations. The learner successfully completed the Level 5 word list, achieving 80 total correct automatic responses, 10% correct identified responses, and an overall accuracy rate of 90%. Based on these outcomes, the assessor selected Level 5 reading materials for the subsequent Oral Reading Fluency and Oral Reading Comprehension assessments.

Assessment: Developmental Spelling Analysis (DSA)

Compared with his word recognition and decoding skills, the learner demonstrated noticeably weaker performance in spelling. 

As a fourth-grade student, he was unable to spell any of the words correctly in the second word group of the screening test. In the feature spelling task, he performed at the LN stage. Out of 25 words, he spelled 23 correctly, with feature scores of A = 10, B = 9, C = 10, D = 8, and E = 10.

The results from the DSA further suggest that the learner may need improvement in understanding the use of the silent e and the tr consonant combination in spelling.

Did I wrap-up the lesson by praising the student’s effort? 

Yes. After each literacy assessment, I offered the learner positive feedback and encouragement, which helped him feel appreciated and motivated. As a result, he began to look forward to our subsequent sessions.

Did I point out strategies that the student used that “good readers use”?

Yes, I did. Throughout this week’s three sessions, I pointed out the strategies the learner used that effective readers typically apply, including drawing on prior knowledge and making inferences.

Did I connect the assessments with goal setting for the intervention?

Yes, I did. After discussing with my mentor and literacy coach, we decided to place greater emphasis on writing in the next stage of intervention. Therefore, I adjusted my assessments to better support the learner’s writing development. For instance, I invited him to record three new words he learned during the session, which encouraged him to reflect on his vocabulary growth and pay closer attention to spelling.

Did I introduce the types of assessments that we will work on next time?

Yes, I did. At the end of each session, I took a moment to preview what we would do next time. To encourage him to come to school and look forward to meeting with me, I intentionally mentioned the most exciting part of the next assessment. As next Wednesday (October 15) will probably be our last assessment session, I also explained how we would wrap up the assessment stage and move on to the intervention phase.

What did I do to establish a positive rapport with the student?

This week, I plan to start a “Dream Toy” project with my learner. I haven’t told him about it yet, but I have already designed the project in advance. According to my mentor, my learner’s birthday was on October 9, 2025. Although I didn’t meet him on his birthday, I wished him a happy birthday at the beginning of our session on October 10. During the warm-up activity, I gave him five minutes to draw anything that represented himself on his birthday, and he created a page full of amusing emojis. When I asked if I could keep his drawing, he happily agreed. 

I plan to recreate these emojis digitally and then fabricate them into physical objects using a laser cutter, drawing on what I’ve learned in my Digital Fabrication and Making in Education course. I’m truly looking forward to seeing his reaction when he sees his drawings transformed into tangible creations.

Did I address the student’s use of social and cultural capital?

I haven’t had the chance to apply it yet since we are still in the assessment stage, but I plan to be mindful of culturally sustaining pedagogy when designing and implementing future interventions.

What are the student’s strengths and challenges in the areas assessed during this assessment session?

The learner demonstrates several notable strengths across the areas assessed. He shows strong cognitive ability and comprehension, consistently understanding and following instructions during various assessments such as TOWRE and TOLD. He is able to make logical inferences and draw meaningful connections between prior experiences and new learning. For instance, when encountering the word “teepee” during the relational vocabulary subtest, he immediately recalled a previous discussion about the term and correctly identified it as a type of home, which indicates strong retention and transfer of knowledge.

The learner also exhibits high motivation and engagement, particularly toward fiction reading. He listens attentively, follows directions carefully, and expresses genuine enthusiasm for reading activities. During the Motivation to Read Fiction assessment, he participated actively and showed curiosity about his reading habits. Even when faced with challenging tasks, he maintained a positive attitude and displayed persistence. His performance in word recognition and decoding is another significant strength. In the TOWRE assessment, he read 58 out of 59 real words correctly within 45 seconds, and in the QRI word list test, he achieved a 90% accuracy rate at Level 5, suggesting that his decoding and sight word recognition skills are well-developed and above grade level. Additionally, he maintains strong concentration throughout the sessions, even in noisy environments, which shows good self-regulation and focus.

Despite these strengths, the learner also presents several challenges that may impact his literacy development. His spelling ability is noticeably weaker compared with his reading performance. The DSA results place him at the Letter Name stage, indicating difficulty with silent “e” patterns and consonant clusters such as “tr.” This suggests a need for explicit phonics-based spelling instruction and practice with orthographic patterns. In addition, the learner sometimes experiences cognitive fatigue during longer or more complex assessments. For example, in the Word Ordering task of the TOLD test, he began to lose focus as the word groups became longer and more demanding on working memory. Shorter, scaffolded tasks with frequent breaks may help sustain his engagement and accuracy during extended activities.

Finally, while the learner shows great enthusiasm for fiction, he expresses less interest in nonfiction texts, describing them as “no fun at all.” This difference suggests that future instruction should include nonfiction materials that connect with his personal interests or lived experiences to foster more balanced reading motivation. Overall, the learner demonstrates strong decoding and comprehension skills, motivation for fiction reading, and sustained focus during tasks, while benefiting from additional support in spelling, reading stamina, and nonfiction engagement.

The student demonstrates several notable strengths across the assessed areas. He shows strong cognitive ability and comprehension, consistently understanding and following directions during assessments such as TOWRE and TOLD. He is able to make logical inferences and draw meaningful connections between prior experiences and new learning—for instance, when he encountered the word “teepee” in the relational vocabulary subtest, he immediately recalled a previous discussion about the term and correctly identified it as a type of home, reflecting strong retention and transfer of knowledge.

He also displays high motivation and engagement, especially toward fiction reading. He listens attentively, follows directions carefully, and participates with genuine enthusiasm. His performance in word recognition and decoding is another strength—he read 58 out of 59 real words correctly in 45 seconds on the TOWRE and achieved 90% accuracy at Level 5 on the QRI word list, indicating decoding and sight-word recognition well above grade level. Moreover, he sustains excellent concentration and self-regulation, even in noisy environments.

However, there are also challenges that may affect his literacy growth. His spelling ability is considerably weaker than his reading skills; the DSA placed him at the Letter Name stage, revealing difficulty with silent-e patterns and consonant clusters (e.g., “tr”)—areas that will benefit from explicit, phonics-based spelling instruction. He also shows fatigue during longer or cognitively demanding tasks, such as the Word Ordering subtest of the TOLD, suggesting the need for shorter, scaffolded tasks with frequent breaks. Additionally, while he is highly motivated by fiction, he describes nonfiction as “no fun at all,” indicating the need to connect informational texts to his personal interests or experiences to increase engagement.

In summary, the student demonstrates strong decoding, comprehension, and motivation for fiction, but he would benefit from targeted support in spelling, stamina, and nonfiction reading engagement.

Were the assessments administered properly? If not, why?

Yes, I administered the Motivation, TOLD, DSA, and QRI assessments properly overall, following all required procedures while making thoughtful adjustments to support the learner’s understanding and engagement.

For the Motivation to Read assessments, I introduced the purpose of the activity clearly and explained that there were no right or wrong answers, which helped the learner feel comfortable and open. During the fiction motivation assessment, he listened attentively and responded appropriately to each question. When he seemed confused by the item “When I come to a word in a fiction book that I don’t know, I can ____,” I rephrased it as “How often do you refer to the dictionary when you read?” to make it clearer without leading him to an answer. I believe this clarification maintained the integrity of the assessment while ensuring that he understood the question fully.

For the TOLD (Test of Language Development), I followed the administration procedures carefully and divided the tasks into two sessions after noticing that the learner was becoming tired toward the end of the first one. When his attention began to fade during the longer Word Ordering activity, I decided to stop and continue the remaining sections in the next session. I believe this was a responsible adjustment that maintained the accuracy and fairness of the results while also keeping the learner’s experience positive.

The DSA (Developmental Spelling Assessment) was also administered properly. I completed both the screening and feature inventory tasks and scored his responses according to the rubric. The results indicated that he was performing at the Letter Name stage, which helped me identify specific spelling patterns, such as the silent “e” and “tr” consonant combination, that he needed to work on.

Finally, for the QRI (Qualitative Reading Inventory) assessment, I began with the Level 2 word list to build his confidence and then gradually moved to higher levels as I observed his strong decoding ability. When he performed better than expected, I advanced him to Level 5, where he achieved 90% accuracy. I recorded his responses carefully and used his performance data to inform the next stages of assessment.

Overall, I believe I administered all four assessments properly. When necessary, I made small modifications—such as rephrasing questions or pacing the tasks across multiple sessions—to ensure that the learner could fully understand the tasks and demonstrate his true abilities. These decisions were made intentionally to uphold both the validity of the assessments and the learner’s comfort and engagement.