Week 4: Lesson Plan
Did I introduce the assessments with a positive attitude and an explanation of how the results will help student be a better reader?
Yes, I introduced the assessments with a positive attitude and explained how the results would support the student’s literacy development. To engage him, I brought a giant book titled The Biggest Word Book into the room and showed it to him. Because of its unusual size, the book immediately captured his attention as soon as he entered. I asked, “Are you interested in this book?” He responded enthusiastically and began reading it on his own initiative. Recognizing his curiosity about the word book, I introduced the assessments with a warm-up question: “What is the book mainly about?” When he answered, “Words,” I continued, “Today, our first activity will also focus on words. Through this activity, I hope to gain a clearer understanding of your current knowledge of vocabulary. This will help me plan our future sessions more effectively and support you in becoming a stronger reader.”
Assessment: Qualitative Reading Inventory
According to my learner’s QRI word list assessment results, I initially selected a Level 5 reading passage for him. However, this text proved to be at his frustration level, as he answered none of the eight comprehension questions correctly.
To determine his instructional level, I then administered a Level 4 reading passage during the second assessment session. Unfortunately, the Level 4 text also fell within his frustration range, with only four out of eight questions answered correctly.
Given the limited time and the need to begin our intervention sessions promptly, I consulted with my mentor and literacy coach regarding this situation. Together, we decided to designate Level 3 as the learner’s instructional level for reading comprehension, without conducting additional assessments.
Assessment: Writing
For the writing assessment, I selected the topic “My Dream Toy” for my learner. I chose this topic for two reasons. First, it was his birthday last week, and he received many toys as gifts. Second, during our previous session, he enthusiastically shared details about his birthday presents, which made me believe that this topic would be personally engaging for him.
Initially, I set a five-minute timer, encouraging him to write as much as he could within that time frame. However, by the end of the five minutes, he had not written anything. During the first minute, I noticed him lying on his desk, scratching his head, and shifting restlessly in his chair—behaviors that suggested frustration and difficulty initiating the task.
Observing this, I gently prompted him by asking what made it hard for him to start writing. He told me that he had “no idea” about the topic My Dream Toy, despite having spoken extensively about it the week before. To scaffold his thinking and spark some ideas, I provided an additional prompt, suggesting that the “dream toy” could be either one of his favorite toys that he already owned or a toy inspired by one of his proudest drawings, since he has a strong interest in art.
After offering this support, I reset the timer for another five minutes. This time, he managed to write one sentence:
I love toys and I love Sonic, so I super love Sonic toys.
One noteworthy observation during this process was that my learner initially intended to write “I feel…,” but he hesitated because he was unsure of the spelling of feel, which he incorrectly spelled as fell. He then erased the misspelled word and replaced it with love instead.
Assessment: Listening Comprehension
Based on the previous assessment outcomes and with the guidance of Dr. Mason, Lauren, and the teaching team, I initially selected two Level 5 books as listening materials for my learner: The Summer My Father Was Ten by Pat Brisson and Major Taylor: World Cycling Champion by Charles R. Smith Jr. Both texts are fiction, aligning with my learner’s strong preference for narrative stories. Ultimately, he chose The Summer My Father Was Ten for the listening assessment.
The listening comprehension task, however, proved to be at his frustration level. Of the six comprehension questions I designed based on the text, he was unable to answer any correctly or independently. With teacher scaffolding, he was able to answer two questions correctly. Notably, his performance was stronger on critical-thinking questions compared to literal and inferential ones.
Given these findings—and following the same rationale applied in his reading comprehension assessment—the subsequent intervention will consider Level 4 as his frustration level and Level 3 as his instructional level for listening comprehension.
Did I wrap-up the lesson by praising the student’s effort?
Yes—following each literacy assessment, I named the effort and strategies I observed and previewed our next steps to sustain his motivation.
Did I point out strategies that the student used that “good readers use”?
Yes. I explicitly noted that throughout the week’s three assessment sessions, I pointed out the strategies my learner used that effective readers apply, such as drawing on prior knowledge and making inferences. Earlier, I also described how I encouraged his efforts when he shared reading experiences or used a dictionary to understand unfamiliar words—both of which are recognized strategies of “good readers.”
Did I connect the assessments with goal setting for the intervention?
Yes. After consulting with my mentor and literacy coach, I set a goal to emphasize writing in the intervention and added concrete steps (e.g., having my learner record three new words each session to build vocabulary and spelling focus).
Did I introduce the types of assessments that we will work on next time?
Yes. At the end of each session, I introduced the types of assessments and nterventionsthat we would work on next time. I explained that we would alternate between reading and writing, highlighted the most engaging parts to motivate my learner, and mentioned that October 22 would likely be our first intervention day when I would have some interesting learning toolkits for him.
What did I do to establish a positive rapport with the student?
After each assessment session, I consistently offered detailed and sincere praise for his effort and progress, walked him back to his classroom, and maintained a tone of warmth and care—all of which helped create a trusting and supportive learning relationship.
Did I address the student’s use of social and cultural capital?
Although I haven’t yet applied these strategies, I intend 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?
In the area of reading comprehension, my student demonstrates several clear strengths. He shows strong word recognition and decoding abilities, as reflected in his 90% accuracy rate on the Level 5 QRI word list. He also makes logical inferences and draws meaningful connections to his prior knowledge—both hallmarks of effective readers. His motivation for fiction reading is high, and he is able to sustain focus and engagement during these tasks, even in potentially distracting environments. However, his performance on comprehension questions reveals some challenges. While his decoding skills are advanced, his comprehension at Levels 4 and 5 falls within the frustration range. He tends to perform better on critical-thinking questions than on literal or inferential ones, which suggests he may overlook specific details that are necessary for full understanding. Additionally, he sometimes experiences cognitive fatigue during longer reading tasks, which affects his ability to sustain comprehension accuracy over time.
In terms of writing, my student exhibits creativity and strong self-expression, particularly when the topic connects to his personal experiences or interests. For instance, when given the prompt “My Dream Toy,” he was able to produce a coherent and expressive sentence once provided with scaffolding. He is also more engaged and confident when visuals or familiar contexts are used to spark ideas. Nonetheless, he struggles with writing initiation; during the first five minutes of the task, he was unable to produce any text without support. His spelling challenges—particularly with vowel patterns such as the silent e and confusion between feel and fell—also hinder his fluency and confidence. These difficulties indicate a need for explicit instruction in orthographic patterns and more structured support in planning and organizing written ideas.
With regard to listening comprehension, my student shows enthusiasm and sustained attention when listening to stories, especially those that are fictional or narrative in nature. He exhibits emerging analytical thinking, as evidenced by his relatively stronger performance on critical-level questions compared to literal and inferential ones. However, the listening comprehension task at Level 5 proved to be too challenging; he was unable to answer any of the six questions independently and could only answer two with teacher guidance. These results indicate that Level 5 falls within his frustration range and that Level 3 would be more appropriate for instructional purposes.
Overall, my student’s strengths lie in his motivation for fiction, decoding accuracy, inferential thinking, and willingness to engage with learning tasks. His main challenges involve literal comprehension, writing initiation, and spelling accuracy. Moving forward, my instructional focus will be on strengthening his comprehension at the literal and inferential levels, supporting his writing fluency through explicit scaffolds, and providing practice at his instructional level (Level 3) with culturally relevant, high-interest texts to maintain his motivation.
Were the assessments administered properly? If not, why?
Yes, the assessments in reading comprehension, listening comprehension, and writing were administered properly overall, with careful attention to procedure, student engagement, and ethical testing practices. For the reading comprehension assessment, I followed the QRI protocol by first administering word lists to determine the student’s appropriate starting level. After identifying that he could read the Level 5 word list with 90% accuracy, I began the comprehension assessment at Level 5. When that passage proved too difficult, I adjusted to Level 4 based on his performance, which still fell within the frustration range. In consultation with my mentor and literacy coach, I made a pedagogically sound decision to designate Level 3 as his instructional level without further testing, balancing assessment validity with the need to preserve his confidence and time for intervention.
For the listening comprehension assessment, I selected two Level 5 books aligned with his strong interest in fiction—The Summer My Father Was Ten and Major Taylor: World Cycling Champion. He chose the former, and I developed six comprehension questions targeting literal, inferential, and critical understanding. The task was administered according to plan, though the Level 5 text ultimately proved to be too challenging, placing him at the frustration level. During the process, I provided appropriate scaffolding by rephrasing questions and prompting him to think aloud, without leading his responses. His limited success on literal and inferential questions, contrasted with stronger performance on critical ones, provided valuable insight into his comprehension profile. These observations confirmed that while administration was proper, the text selection was slightly above his independent capacity, which informed the adjustment of his instructional level to Level 3 for future sessions.
The writing assessment was also properly conducted and thoughtfully scaffolded. I introduced the task with a personally relevant topic—“My Dream Toy”—to promote engagement. Initially, I gave him five minutes to write freely, observing his difficulty initiating the task. Recognizing his frustration, I intervened appropriately by offering a clarifying prompt and connecting the task to his recent birthday and interest in art. This scaffolding allowed him to produce a coherent and expressive sentence, revealing both his creativity and his struggles with spelling confidence. My approach maintained assessment integrity while providing the minimal support necessary to elicit his best effort.
In summary, all three assessments were administered properly, adhering to standardized procedures while incorporating responsive adjustments based on the student’s needs. When modifications were made—such as adjusting text levels or providing clarifying prompts—they were pedagogically justified and aimed at ensuring that the results accurately reflected the student’s true abilities rather than his frustration or disengagement.
