Wolfpack Readers Program

Reader Profile Pre-Tutoring Report

College of Education
Reader: W Examiners: Dennis Davis and Courtney
Samuelson
Grade: 6th Assessments administered by: Dennis Davis
Age: 11 and Courtney Samuelson
Results and interpretations completed by:
Brittany Regan and Cameron Johnston

Date of Assessments: January 11, 2020 Date of Report: January 21, 2020

This report was completed by graduate students in the College of Education at NC State
University. The report is primarily intended to inform the intensified reading instruction
provided in the Wolfpack Readers program at the NC State Literacy Space. You can find more
information about this program at: https://sites.ced.ncsu.edu/the-literacy-space. Questions
about this report or the Wolfpack Readers program can be directed to Dr. Dennis Davis at
ddavis6@ncsu.edu.

1. Informal Decoding Inventory

The Informal Decoding Inventory (McKenna & Stahl, 2015) is an assessment of decoding skills,
in the sequential order in which these patterns are typically learned. Part 1 focuses on one-
syllable words and Part 2 on two-syllable words. Each section includes real words and nonsense
words. A student demonstrates mastery of a section by correctly reading at least 8 of the real
words and 7 of the nonsense words. The assessment is discontinued once the teacher identifies
a few key areas where mastery is not achieved.

The results of the inventory are as follows:

Part I Real words read Nonsense words read Mastery

correctly correctly yes/no

Short Vowels 10/10 10/10 YES

Consonant Blends and Digraphs 9/10 8/10 YES

r-Controlled Vowel Patterns 10/10 10/10 YES

Vowel Consonant–e 10/10 10/10 YES

Vowel Teams 10/10 6/10 NO

Interpretation: The areas of decoding that W demonstrated mastery knowledge were: short
vowels, consonant blends and digraphs, r-controlled vowel patterns, and vowel consonant –e.
Even though W did not have complete mastery on vowel teams, he did master reading vowel
teams within real words. One area that W will continue to receive support with is nonsense
words containing vowel teams.

2. Placement Inventory for Wolfpack Readers Decoding Instruction

Based on the results of the Informal Decoding Inventory, above, the child was administered a
placement test to determine which specific sound-spelling patterns should be targeted for
instruction. The inventory includes words corresponding to many of the common patterns
found in English words. A child has to read at least 8 words correctly (out of 10) and effortlessly
to master a pattern.

The results of this placement test are as follows:

Pattern Example of the # of words read Mastery (yes

pattern correctly (out of or no)
10)
Multisyllabic – Initial Unaccented adapt 10/10 YES
Syllable (schwa) Spelled a
Multisyllabic – Long e – e return 10/10 YES
Multisyllabic – V/CV – Initial Open paving 7/10 NO
Syllable with Various Long Vowels
Multisyllabic – Short u – ou double 10/10 YES
Multisyllabic - /er/ Spelled or doctor 9/10 YES
Multisyllabic - /er/ Spelled ure structure 10/10 YES
Multisyllabic - /zh/ Spelled s explosion 9/10 YES
Multisyllabic – tion as Suffix invention 9/10 YES
Multisyllabic – VC/CV – Initial Closed shopping 10/10 YES
Syllable, with Doubled C’s at
Juncture
Multisyllabic – Consonant + le crimple 10/10 YES
Multisyllabic – VC/CV – Initial Closed magnet 10/10 YES
Syllable, with Different C’s at
Juncture
Multisyllabic – er/or as Suffix painter 9/10 YES
Contractions didn’t 10/10 YES
-ed Suffixes with and without Adding decorated 9/10 YES
Syllable to Base
Interpretation: W demonstrated mastery knowledge in almost all areas of sound-spelling
patterns. He needs more support in the area of multisyllabic – v/cv – initial open syllable with
various long vowels (e.g., paving, tidy, waver).

3. Spelling Inventory
The Elementary Spelling Inventory (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2016) assesses a
student’s ability to spell according to spelling patterns and stages. The child is asked to write a
series of words chosen to display the child’s knowledge and understanding of spelling features
(short vowels, long vowels, blends, etc.) The words gradually become more difficult to spell as
the list progresses. It is administered in a similar fashion as a spelling test, except the 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 5/5 YES

Digraphs 6/6 YES

Blends 7/7 YES

Long Vowels 5/5 YES

Other Vowels 7/7 YES

Inflected Endings 5/5 YES

Syllable Junctures 4/5 YES

Unaccented Final Syllables 5/5 YES

Harder Suffixes 4/5 YES

Bases or Roots 4/5 YES

Total Feature Points 59/62

Total Words Spelled 22/25

Correctly

Spelling Stage Derivational Relations

Interpretation: W has clearly mastered initial/final consonants, short vowels, digraphs, blends,
long vowels, other vowels, inflected endings, and unaccented final syllables. He is at the
Derivational Relations Spelling Stage. At this stage, W is able to read more complex words
containing prefixes and suffixes.

4. Informal Reading Inventory

The Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI-6; Leslie & Caldwell, 2017) is an informal reading
inventory used to estimate the child’s instructional reading level. The child is presented with a
series of texts, increasing in difficulty. The assessment continues until the examiner identifies
the highest level at which the child meets the instructional level criteria. The instructional level
is defined as the highest grade level at which the child can successfully read with sufficient
word reading and comprehension accuracy to meaningfully learn from the text.

The results of the QRI are as follows:

Passage Word Recognition Level Comprehension Level (total

Name/Level (percent of words read correct/total # of questions)
correctly)

Title: How Does 99% 100%

Your Body Take in Underline one: Underline one:
Oxygen? Frustrational (89%-) Frustrational (69%-)
QRI grade level: 5 Instructional (90%-97%) Instructional (70%-89%)
Lexile: 900 Independent (98%+) Independent (90%+)

Title: Clouds and 99% 63%

Precipitation Underline one: Underline one:
QRI grade level: 6 Frustrational (89%-) Frustrational (69%-)
Lexile: 1,000 Instructional (90%-97%) Instructional (70%-89%)
Independent (98%+) Independent (90%+)

Interpretation:
An estimate of the child’s instructional level [the highest level at which the text is instructional
for the reader in BOTH word recognition and comprehension] is: level 6. W is able to
independently read the level 6 text but had difficulty with the comprehension questions of level
6. Throughout his retelling and comprehension questions, W was very quick to respond.

5. Oral Reading Fluency

Reading fluency is characterized by three criteria: accuracy, rate, and expression. The reader’s
fluency was assessed using multiple text levels, including: 1) The remaining texts that were read
during the QRI, and 2) the text at the reader’s instructional level (from the QRI, above).
Accuracy was scored using the QRI guidelines. We scored reading rate using the words correct
per minute (WCPM) score, which was interpreted using published 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).
 Text 1: QRI text at 5 grade level
Passage Name / How Does Your Fluency Rubric Ratings
Level Body Take in
Oxygen? Expression and 3/4
Volume
Words Correct Per 164 words
Minute Phrasing 3/4

Word Recognition 99% Smoothness 4/4

Accuracy Level
Pace 3/4

Total Score on 13/16

Multidimensional
Fluency Rubric

Text 2: Instructional level text from QRI: 6

Passage Name / Clouds and Fluency Rubric Ratings
Level Precipitation
Expression and 3/4
Words Correct Per 154 words Volume
Minute 50th-75th
percentile (based Phrasing 3/4
on ORF norms)
Smoothness 4/4
Word Recognition 99%
Pace 3/4
Accuracy Level
Total Score on 13/16
Multidimensional
Fluency Rubric

Interpretation:
According to oral reading fluency norms, a student in the middle of 6 th grade should be able to
accurately read 145 words correctly per minute. W exceeds this criterion by 9 words. W uses a
good volume level while reading and reads smoothly. W’s pace throughout the two passages
was fast and therefore is a skill that will be a focus for him. His expression was monotone and
will also be a focus skill.

6. Academic Vocabulary Familiarity and Knowledge

This inventory helps us learn about the child’s knowledge of key concepts they will read about
in the books on the topic they selected for the Wolfpack Readers program. We assessed
familiarity by asking the child to rate their knowledge of 15 academic vocabulary words they
will encounter. We assessed word knowledge by asking the child to provide a sentence with
each word.

Familiarity ratings: (Chosen topic = Space Junk)

 Rating Number of Percentage
words
I have never seen or heard this 1/15 7%
word
I have seen or heard this word but I 0/15 0%
don’t know what it means
I know a little bit about this word 4/15 27%
I know a lot about this word 10/15 67%

Knowledge:
Correct meaning in the sentence
Incorrect meaning = 2/15 words
Partial meaning = 1/15 words
Correct meaning = 12/15 words
Word was used with correct structure (part
of speech and grammar) in the sentence
No = 5/15 words
Yes = 10/15 words

Interpretation: W is mostly familiar with the academic vocabulary related to the topic.
However, his knowledge of a few words is still developing. In tutoring, W will gain more
knowledge of these academic vocabulary words through reading and discussing multiple texts
on his chosen topic. At the end of tutoring, we will re-administer this inventory to track
changes in knowledge of these words.

7. Morphology
We administered the derivational morphology decomposition task (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2008) to
assess the student’s ability to use common word endings to transform words. This serves as a
measure of morphology and vocabulary depth and helps identify students who need additional
support with word endings or language structure. Students are given a word and asked to
provide the correct form of the word to complete a sentence. For example, when given the
word driver, the student has to complete the sentence: Children are too young to ____. The
correct answer for this item is drive. The assessment is administered verbally and does not
require the child to write the words.

Results are as follows:

Number of items answered correctly 24/25 = 96%

Interpretation: W does not need additional support with word endings/word structure. He is
able to transform common word endings.

8. Diagnostic Assessments of Reading (DAR-2)

The DAR-2 (Roswell, Chall, Curtis, & Kearns, 2005) is a comprehensive assessment of the major
reading skills needed for literacy success. On the various subtests (which include phonological
awareness, word recognition, oral reading, comprehension, spelling, and vocabulary), the child
is asked to read words, short leveled texts, and answer questions that increase in difficulty. The
assessment is used to pinpoint areas of mastery and difficulty for the reader and to
complement the findings from the other assessments reported above. Your child completed the
subtests listed below in the results table.

Skill area Highest level of mastery

Word recognition Level 8
Oral reading accuracy Level 7
Silent reading comprehension Level 8
Interpretation: W demonstrated mastery knowledge with word recognition, oral reading
accuracy, and silent reading comprehension. He is currently functioning above grade level for
all of these areas.

Summary and Interpretation of Results

W’s estimated instructional reading level is at the sixth grade level. He is able to decode words
quickly and fluently which allows him to read with a high accuracy rate. His prior knowledge
allows him to be successful with vocabulary related to a variety of topics that interest him.
Some areas that W will continue to work on in tutoring will be his pace, expression, and
comprehension. When reading passages, W reads too quickly which can hinder his ability to
comprehend the information. W will continue to work on building expression while he reads.

Instructional Recommendations
The Wolfpack Readers program is organized around multiple instructional segments. Here we
detail the instructional recommendations for W, based on the assessment data, for each
segment that he will complete.

Discovery Reading
During the assessment session, W indicated an interest in the topic titled: Space Junk. He will
read books, websites, and other authentic texts on this topic with instructional support from a
tutor. Depending on the difficulty of the text being read, the tutor will use a variety of reading
scaffolds to help W 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 tutor 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 tutor 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 W will learn to use with increasing independence during
the 10-week session. W will keep an inquiry journal where he will write about what he learns
from each text. Based on these notes, W will give a short informal presentation on the last night
of tutoring, explaining what he learned about Space Junk.

Teach a Teacher
W will write about the new ideas he has learned from the books read during the Discovery
Reading segment (above). The tutor will use a variety of scaffolds to help him plan and organize
short expository texts, using consistent text structures, to communicate new knowledge to the
other teachers in the program.

Reading with Expression

In this segment, W will read short texts on the topic of Space Junk. These leveled texts provide
practice with high-accuracy reading of controlled texts. The tutors will use a repeated reading
approach (McKenna & Stahl, 2015) that consists of the following flexible steps: 1) the reader
reads a new text with minimal assistance (a “cold” read); 2) the tutor 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 tutor 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 tutor’s feedback. This cycle
continues multiple times until the reader is able to comfortably read the text with accuracy,
appropriate rate, and expression. The tutor will use various techniques to support the student’s
fluent reading and to provide explicit feedback on word reading accuracy, including echo
reading, choral reading, alternated reading, and modeling of code-based word attack strategies.

Word Workshop
Using an explicit and systematic approach to decoding and encoding (spelling) instruction, W
will practice the following sound-spelling patterns in this segment:
● Multisyllabic Words with an emphasis on various long vowel sounds
● Multisyllabic Words with a focus on /zh/ spelled s
He will learn these patterns to mastery using an approach that includes four parts: 1) Using
letter tiles to build, manipulate and analyze words that include these patterns; 2) sorting words
based on their sounds and spellings; 3) writing words; 4) and reading lists of words that
represent the patterns being studied. These activities are designed to promote the
development of high-quality lexical representations (memory) of words that include these
target spelling patterns so that W can read them with automaticity in texts and spell them
correctly and efficiently in his own writing.

Breaking Words
The tutor will help W read and write complex words (with two or more syllables) by analyzing
their structure through a process of graphosyllabic analysis (Bhattacharya & Ehri, 2004). This
includes breaking multisyllabic words into pronounceable parts by learning about syllable types.
This also includes learning to recognize common prefixes and suffixes and using this knowledge
to break apart and understand multisyllabic words (Rasinski et al., 2011). He will learn about
these word parts while also learning to analyze academic words found in texts on the selected
inquiry topic.
 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. 

Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading
comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners. Reading and Writing, 21(8), 783-
804.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J.S. (2017). Qualitative reading inventory-6. Boston, MA: Pearson.

McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, K.A.D. (2015). Assessment for reading instruction (3rd 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.

Roswell, F. G., Chall. J. S., Curtis, M. E., & Kearns G. (2005). Diagnostic Assessments of Reading
(DAR)(2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

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