Emily Wiezorek

Beg. Rdg.
Guided Reading Reflection

Throughout this semester, we were given an opportunity to meet a first grade student

and assess their learning, and then use this information to develop two guided reading lessons.

When thinking about the content and texts for the guided reading lessons, my partner and I

used evidence from the running records of our students’ reading, the Primary Spelling

Inventory, the Ohio Word Test, and Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words. We looked at

evidence of how our students were able to decode text, and what features they were able to

pick out of words. With this evidence, we were able to choose a text level to begin at, and what

spelling features to shape our word work around. We chose a text level slightly higher than

what our students had left off at, because it was later in the year. We chose spelling features

from the PSI that our students were having troubles with. We were able to use the information

from the first lesson to decide how much we needed to increase the level of text and word

work for our second lesson.

We integrated foundational skills in our lessons through Iowa Core Standards. Standards

that we integrated during the guided reading lessons were: R.L. 1.3: Describe character setting

and major events in a story using key details, RF.1.4: Reading with sufficient accuracy and

fluency to support comprehension (read grade-level text with purpose and understanding, read

grade level text with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression, and use content to confirm or

self-correct word recognition and understanding, rereading as necessary). The standards that

we integrated during our word work was: RF.1.3: Know and apply grade–level phonics and
word analysis skills in decoding words (decode regularly spelled one–syllable words). These

standards include foundational skills that are expected of first grade readers. We prompted the

students with questions during the picture walks to integrate the R.L. 1.3 standard. We used

the Fountas and Pinnell prompts to set a purpose for reading and to provide reading strategies

in order to integrate the RF.1.4 standard. In the word work, we had students identify features

within words and sort them into categories to integrate the RF.1.3 standard.

We used evidence-based reading and word work strategies to accommodate the needs

of our students by observing what steps they were ready to take, and how we should approach

these new ideas with them. We chose our texts based on evidence from our running records,

and evidence from difficulty and strategies used during the first lesson to pick the text for the

second lesson. Our students left off around a level 2 text, so we thought that it would be

beneficial to take them up to a level 5 text about a month later. Our students did well with this

text, so we then increased to a level 7 text. When choosing word work, we used evidence

mainly from our PSI feature guide. We saw that our students started to drop off in accuracy

during the short vowel recording section, so we thought that this would be a good spelling

feature to start with. Our students did great with the short vowel word sort, so we thought that

they were ready to move onto the next step. We looked again at our PSI, and saw that our

students could also use work with digraphs.

Throughout this process, we were able to assess our students on their spelling abilities

using the PSI, the HRSW, and the Writing Vocabulary assessments. We then used this

information to synthesize information about our student’s abilities, and thought about where

they were, and where we wanted to take them. We based the guided reading and word work
instruction around where we wanted to take our students in their abilities. We knew our

students were in the middle letter name alphabetic stage. We chose to focus on short vowel

sounds in words and digraphs in words in order to move them from this middle stage to the

late stage of letter name alphabetic.

During the guided reading time, my partner Rachael and I worked very well together.

We both knew what we needed to do as individuals, and what we needed to do together. We

split up our work evenly, and we both communicated well on what each partner needed to get

done, and any questions or comments that we had about each other’s work on the lessons, the

word work, or the project. Rachael and I were very much on the same page with our planning

of the lessons and word work, and we both agreed on what we should include in our guided

reading lessons.

For component 3a in the Domain 3 Instructional Rubric, I believe that I was in the

meeting category. I clearly explained the purpose of the lesson to the students at least once

during the lesson, and directions and procedures were modeled for the students and clearly

explained to them. Before we began reading and doing the word work, I stated to the students

what they would be learning. For component 3c, I believe that I was in the exceeding category.

Our lesson had a clearly defined structure, and the pacing of the lesson with the picture walks,

predictions, and gradual release of responsibility allowed the students time to engage with the

lesson, reflect on thinking, and to consolidate what they learned. Our lesson required higher

level thinking, and our word work required that students explained this thinking when they told

us where they chose to put their words and why.