Running Head: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION OF LITERACY 1

Comprehensive Plan for Differentiated Instruction of Literacy

Sarah E. Roberts

University of New England

April, 2017
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION OF LITERACY 2

Introduction

This paper describes a student that I have called Abby. Her name has been changed for

confidentiality reasons. Abby struggles with both fluency and comprehension. In this paper, you

will read about her struggles, as well as a plan that I have developed to support her literacy

needs.

Unit Description

In this unit, fifth-grade students will be reading and answering questions about a text.

This unit will touch upon three reporting standards that are listed on the students report card.

Those standards are as follows; Reads accurately and fluently with appropriate pacing, phrasing

and expression; Understands elements of a text including theme, character, setting, events and

point of view of narrator; Writes routinely for a range of tasks, purposes, and audiences. These

report cards are sent out at the end of each trimester. This unit will last approximately one month

with the literacy block lasting approximately eighty minutes Monday through Thursday, and

forty-five minutes on Fridays. At the end of the unit, students should be able to read and compre-

hend the text. Students should be able to demonstrate their understanding of elements of a text

through a variety of written responses. Students should be able to cite text evidence to support

their writing. In order to meet these objectives, students will need access to a text that is interest-

ing and engaging, Additionally, students will need pencils and notebooks to record their re-

sponses.

Student as a Learner Description

Abby is an eleven year old, fifth grade student. Abby received Title 1 services for reading

in third grade, and now again in fifth grade. Abby struggles with fluency and comprehension.

She is a very quiet girl and she likes working independently or with a buddy. She appears to get
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION OF LITERACY 3

overwhelmed in large groups, and she gets very discouraged by her mistakes. When Abby is dis-

couraged, she typically shuts down and does not want to do anything else. However, she never

disrupts the class. She simply puts her head down and takes a break until she is ready to move

on.

When Abby is with her friends, she has quite the sense of humor! She can be silly and

have fun, yet she always knows when it is time to get serious. Aside from cheering, Abby does

not like to run around or play physical games. She prefers a nice, quiet area to hang out.

Abby has an amazing mother who supports her in all that she does. It is obvious that she

is very loved. Recently, Abby has been in and out of school as a family member of hers was di-

agnosed with breast cancer. This has obviously impacted Abby. She has been very distracted and

anxious. While she used to be willing to try new words, now it is a struggle to get her to try any-

thing new. When she does try, if she does not get something right, she shuts down immediately.

This will obviously factor into my plan as I need to think about how I can help her to make gains

in reading despite the fact that she is obviously distracted. Further, I need to research ways to

keep her engaged so that she does not fall further behind.

Abby benefits from a differentiated approach because despite these personal issues, Abby

still needs to make gains in literacy so that she does not fall further behind. Additionally, because

Abby has missed school, she would benefit from a differentiated approach that keeps her en-

gaged, regardless of the fact that she may have missed some of the hook activities.

Student Assessment Data and Analysis:

One thing Abby always speaks up about is assessments. I prefer to call them learning checks,

but she has figured out what that really means. Abby gets very anxious before being assessed.

Therefore, one assessment that I have used recently with Abby is a running record to check her
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION OF LITERACY 4

fluency. Abbys fluency is the first area of concern. Running records are defined by Fawson,

Ludlow, Reutzel, Sudweeks and Smith (2006) as a test of contextual reading accuracy and stu-

dent strategy use in which students read leveled connected passages under untimed conditions.

The examiner typically makes a record of the types of errors (p. 113). Since Abby is used to

seeing me take notes here and there, she does not seem bothered by this assessment type. A study

by Fawson et al (2006), found that under some conditions, running records can be a good way to

find a students actual score. Although, it is important to note that it is most accurate if it is done

with three or four passages and the scores are averaged. The running records that I have done

with Abby recently indicate that that she reads fifth grade leveled passages with 92% accuracy.

Another assessment that Abby has completed recently is the Path Driver universal screen-

ing tool for reading. It is very obvious to Abby that this is a test and it is clear that she doesnt

like it. To complete the Path Driver, students have to login to a computer, read three passages

and complete a MAZE. This gives a snapshot of where the student is in regard to fluency and

comprehension. Comprehension is the second area of concern for this student. According to the

company, EPS (n.d.), Path Driver for Reading is backed by over 25 years of reading research.

The program uses oral reading fluency and maze tests recognized as the most relevant and ac-

curate curriculum based measures of reading proficiency (Research Foundation section). The

company insists that this assessment tool is research-based.

While Path Driver for reading is based on the research, I do wonder how valid the results

are for a couple of reasons. First and foremost is because the assessment is on the computer.

While students are used to using the computer for a variety of tasks, such as writing and re-

searching, they are not all used to reading passages on the computer or completing the MAZE on

the computer. Additionally, the students are given no background information on the passages
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION OF LITERACY 5

prior to reading them. When they do read them, not only do they know they are timed and rec-

orded, they have to read in a room full of other kids who are also reading aloud. It appears to be

very distracting for students like Abby. On the Path Driver, Abby read an average of eighty-two

words correct per minute placing her in the fifteenth percentile nationally. Her MAZE scores

placed her in the fifty-first percentile nationally.

The combined results of the running records and the Path Driver for reading indicate that

comprehension is one of Abbys strengths in regard to literacy. However, her fluency is concern-

ing. In order to gather more information, I will have to further assess. As previously mentioned,

Abby does have test anxiety. A study by Carsley, Heath, and Fajnerova (2015) found that boys

and girls at the elementary level benefit from an art related activity prior to a test (p. 252). One

way to help gather the most accurate results may be to work with Abby through a mindful color-

ing activity prior to assessing.

Upon finishing the coloring activity, I would like to give Abby two diagnostic assess-

ments. As Bean (2015) states diagnostic assessments assist teachers in making decisions about

instruction and in pinpointing possible areas to address if a student is experiencing difficulty

(Diagnostic Assessments section, para. 1). Currently, I know that Abby struggles with fluency,

but I dont know why. These assessments would help me figure that out and in turn, guide me in

planning differentiated instruction. For example, if I found out that Abby was really just strug-

gling with consonant digraphs, than I could plan lessons that focus in on those instead of just us-

ing general fluency interventions. The first diagnostic assessment I would like to give is Dr. Jan

Hasbruoucks Quick Phonics Screener (Read Naturally, n.d.). This assessment tool is a quick di-

agnostic assessment that may help to get to the root of Abbys struggles with fluency. This as-

sessment would give me a better picture of Abby as a learner. The second diagnostic assessment
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION OF LITERACY 6

I would like to give Abby comes right from the reading program Journeys. Since Abby is used to

using Journeys in her classroom, she may have less anxiety about this assessment as it looks sim-

ilar to the things she is completing on a daily basis. This assessment is diagnostic assessment

would help me to pinpoint what specifically Abby is struggling with. For example, if she is

struggling with multi-syllabic words, I could focus on these when planning a lesson. It is im-

portant that what she is working on with me, the reading specialist, relates to what she is working

on in her own classroom (Bean, 2015). This assessment would help with that.

Another assessment that may be helpful in learning more about Abby as a learner, is a

DRA2. According to McCarty and Christ (2010), the DRA2 is a criterion-referenced assess-

ment, and the data can be used to (a) assess reading engagement, oral reading fluency, and com-

prehension, (b) identify reading strengths and weaknesses. (f) aid in planning reading interven-

tions (p. 182), and much more. By completing a DRA2 with Abby I may be able to gather more

information regarding how much her fluency is impacting her comprehension. While she did

well on the Path Driver for reading MAZE, the running records I have done indicate that some of

her miscues do impact the meaning of the passage. The DRA2 would help me to determine how

often these miscues are getting in her way. For example, if Abby read the text and then tried to

answer the questions, I would have a good idea of whether or not she actually understood the

text. If she did not, I could go back to try to figure out where her miscues may have been.

Processes for Supporting Students of Concern with the Setting

When a student, like Abby, struggles, interventions are put in place. The first step in de-

signing these interventions is to assess students. This assessment helps to pinpoint the specific

problems. As mentioned previously, the diagnostic assessment is useful in this scenario. After

assessing, I work with the classroom teacher, the student and the research to determine the best
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION OF LITERACY 7

interventions for the student. As the interventionist, it is my responsibility to research the best

interventions for the student. It is the students responsibility to be honest about what kinds of

texts she does and does not enjoy. Finally, it is the classroom teachers responsibility to support

the student by differentiating classroom tasks so that they are appropriate for the struggling stu-

dent. These interventions are then typically given in a pull out, individual or small group setting.

This is documented and put in the students file to inform future teachers.

Plans and Progress Monitoring

Abbys literacy goals are to read accurately and fluently and to comprehend what she

reads. In order to help Abby meet these goals, I will restructure my schedule in order to provide

her with intensive interventions. According to the Duffy Hesters principles, as mentioned in Al-

lington (2012), reading programs must be balanced, drawing on multiple theoretical perspec-

tives (p. 178). By changing my schedule to provide more intense interventions at a higher fre-

quency, I will be able to provide Abby with a more balanced approach. When I see her for short

periods of time, a more balanced approach is compromised. By seeing her everyday, I will be

able to provide interventions that better support her gaps in word identification, comprehension

and vocabulary skills. Additionally this extra time will allow me to focus on more than one goal.

According to Hesters principles, reading programs should be based on multiple goals for stu-

dent success (p. 178). When I only see Abby for 60 minutes a week, I do not have time to focus

on more than one goal.

According to Allington (2012), many reading specialists work with students for very

short time periods. He suggests that one reason such plans hardly ever produce the sorts of

gains we need is that the intensity is so low that little benefit can be expected (p. 171). Due to
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION OF LITERACY 8

the high number of students I work with, I am guilty of working with many students for short pe-

riods of time. By changing my schedule, I will be able to provide some students with more effec-

tive interventions. A study by Denton, Tolar, Fletcher, Barth, Vaughn, & Francis (2013) found

that students who did not make gains in Tier 1 or Tier 2 interventions, did make gains when pro-

vided with intensive Tier 3 interventions. These interventions were provided for one to two hours

daily. By changing my schedule, I will become available to help students, like Abby, who may

need more intensive interventions. I will do this by restructuring my day. Instead of meeting with

five reading groups a day, I will meet with two or three for longer time periods.

I could do this by following Allingtons (2012) suggestion of offering half of the stu-

dents a 10-week more intensive intervention and then 10 weeks off, followed by another 10-

week more intensive intervention (p. 171). This would allow me to work with the same total

number of students in the year, but the students would be provided with more effective interven-

tions. One potential challenge of this schedule would be getting other teachers on board. I could

address this by providing teachers with the research as well as a schedule so that they could visu-

alize how this would benefit the student. Another potential problem would be concerns from par-

ents of students that do not want their children to stop receiving services for 10 weeks at a time. I

could address this problem by holding an informational meeting. Although it is hard to get par-

ents to these meetings, I will motivate them to come by offering a door prize for those in attend-

ance. At this meeting, I will explain the change in schedule and address any questions or con-

cerns.

After implementing this change, I will need to work with the teacher to provide appropri-

ate differentiated instruction throughout her day. Some of this differentiation will include lower
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION OF LITERACY 9

level texts and longer periods of time to complete assignments. I will also need to progress moni-

tor. Due to district demands, I will need to progress monitor every 3 weeks using Path Driver.

However, I would also like to use running records. The combination of these two approaches

will help me determine whether or not Abby is making sufficient gains. If Abby does not make

sufficient gains within the first month, then I will meet with Abbys teacher and parents to re-

evaluate the plan and make changes as needed.

Involvement of Stakeholders

Bean (2015) describes the need for reading specialists to work as partners with teachers,

parents, and administrators (p. 1). Working with only some students, like Abby, intensively for

10 weeks is a major change. Teachers will need to support this change in order for it to be suc-

cessful. As Bean (2015) states, to be effective, reading specialists must communicate and col-

laborate with teachers who are providing the first line of instruction to students (p. 21).

Teachers will not only have to support the change, but be willing to collaborate and carry some

of the interventions over to the classroom.

In addition to working with the teacher, it is important that parents buy in to the interven-

tions as well. Bean (2015) states that (effective programs) involve parents in the decision mak-

ing about the plan itself (i.e., What do parents need and want?). As mentioned above, I will hold

an informational meeting to inform parents about the restructured schedule. Since it is unlikely

that all parents would like to attend a follow-up meeting, I could ask all parents to fill out a brief

questionnaire at the meeting. This paper would require them to write down what they need, want,

and whether or not they would like to meet again. This would provide me with the information I

need to create an intervention plan with their thoughts in mind.

It is critical that both the teachers and parents are in support of the intervention plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION OF LITERACY 10

Even with a restructured schedule, Abby will spend most of her day with the classroom teacher.

That means that the classroom teacher needs to be aware of what Abby is working on each week,

so that she can design differentiated instruction for all subjects that support Abbys literacy

needs. Abbys parents also must be willing to provide support at home as well.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Abby is a great student that just needs a little extra help. We will provide

her with this by developing a plan that involves her parents and teacher. She will work with me

daily for ten weeks to receive intensive interventions to support her literacy needs. Assessment

and progress monitoring will be used to determine her needs and what is or is not working.

Changes will be made to the plan as needed.

References:

Allington, R. (2012). What really matters for struggling readers (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Pearson

Education Inc.

Bean, R. M. (2015). The reading specialist: Leadership for the classroom, school, and

community. [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from https://read.amazon.com/

Carsley, D., Heath, N. L., & Fajnerova, S. (2015). Effectiveness of a classroom mindfulness col

oring activity for test anxiety in children. Journal Of Applied School Psychology, 31(3),

239-255. Retrieved from http://www-tandfonline-com.une.idm.oclc.org/doi/pdf/

10.1080/15377903.2015.1056925

Denton, C. A., Tolar, T. D., Fletcher, J. M., Barth, A. E., Vaughn, S., & Francis, D. J. (2013).

Effects of Tier 3 Intervention for Students with Persistent Reading Difficulties and

Characteristics of Inadequate Responders. Journal Of Educational Psychology,

105(3), 633-648.

EPS (n.d.). Retrieved from http://eps.schoolspecialty.com/products/online-programs/path-driver-

for-reading/about-the-program

Fawson, P. C., Ludlow, B. C., Reutzel, D. R., Sudweeks, R., & Smith, J. A. (2006). Examining

the reliability of running records: Attaining generalizable results. Journal Of Educational

Research, 100(2-), 113-126. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.une.idm.o

clc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=15&sid=78f284d1-4219-4b35-

bc6b-16d0d125e9ec%40sessionmgr103

McCarty, A. M., & Christ, T. J. (2010). Test Review: Beaver, J. M., & Carter, M. A. (2006).

"The developmental reading assessment--Second edition" (DRA2). Upper Saddle River,

NJ--Pearson. Assessment For Effective Intervention, 35(3), 182-185.

Read Naturally (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.readnaturally.com/product/quick-phonics-

screener#custom258