Word Lists

As the first part of my Qualitative Reading Inventory, I administered word lists to

Student D to assess his abilities in word recognition. I instructed Student D to read each word
starting at the top of each page. To minimize distraction to this student, I asked If I could record
him (audio only) to be able to focus on his tendencies. This also helped to not discourage Student
D if he did not know a word or pronounced a word wrongly. After our session, I listened to the
recording and wrote down my data if the student identified the words, identified the words
automatically, or if he did not know the word; what he said instead. I also marked whether he
self-corrected or not on words he missed initially.

I chose to start this student at a pre-primer 1 level on word lists to analyze his tendencies
of mistakes and find exactly what level Student D is reading on. As stated, I started with pre-
primer 1, then moved through levels pre-primer 2/3, primer, first, second, third, fourth, and fifth.
I allowed Student D to choose when he wanted to read more by asking if he wanted to do another
word list after each page. Due to this, I administered the word lists over two sessions with pre-
primer 1 through third being one session and then fourth and fifth levels being the second
session. In order to receive the best results, I wanted to give Student D a chance to take a break if
needed between word lists and not become too tired by the end and not be able to focus on the
words at hand as they became harder. Student D scored on an independent level from pre-primer
1 level through fourth then dropped to frustration at fifth level, which is why I stopped. His
direct results are as follows.

On the Pre-Primer 1 level, Student D scored a 17/17 in the “automatic” category placing
him at a 100% of words identified automatically. He scored a 0/17 in the “identified” category
placing him at a 0% of words identified, but not automatic. Overall, the student scored a 17/17 of
words correct placing him at a 100% in the independent level.

On the Pre-Primer 2/3 level, Student D scored a 19/20 in the “automatic” category
placing him at a 95% of words identified automatically. He scored a 1/20 in the “identified”
category placing him at a 5% of words identified, but not automatic. Student D self-corrected on
the word my which made this word an “identified” rather than “automatic”. Overall, the student
scored a 20/20 of words correct placing him at a 100% in the independent level.
 On the Primer level, Student D scored a 19/20 in the “automatic” category placing him at
a 95% of words identified automatically. He scored a 0/20 in the “identified” category placing
him at a 0% of words identified, but not automatic. Student D missed the word going by saying
doing instead. Overall, the student scored a 19/20 of words correct placing him at a 95% in the
independent level.

On the First level, Student D scored a 18/20 in the “automatic” category placing him at a
90% of words identified automatically. He scored a 2/20 in the “identified” category placing him
at a 10% of words identified, but not automatic. Student D did not identify the word enough
automatically or the word wind. Overall, the student scored a 20/20 of words correct placing him
at a 100% in the independent level.

On the Second level, Student D scored a 15/20 in the “automatic” category placing him at
a 75% of words identified automatically. He scored a 3/20 in the “identified” category placing
him at a 15% of words identified, but not automatic. Student D did not identify the words
excited, though, or insect automatically. I also made a note that Student D self-corrected on the
word though by first saying through. Student D missed the words light and visit because he
added an “s” to both words. Overall, the student scored a 18/20 of words correct placing him at a
90% in the independent level.

On the Third level, Student D scored a 16/20 in the “automatic” category placing him at
a 80% of words identified automatically. He scored a 2/20 in the “identified” category placing
him at a 10% of words identified, but not automatic. Student D did not identify the words
engines and wool automatically. Student D missed the word glowed by saying growed instead
and also missed the word clothing by saying clothes instead. Overall, the student scored a 18/20
of words correct placing him at a 90% in the independent level.

On the Fourth level, Student D scored a 13/20 in the “automatic” category placing him at
a 65% of words identified automatically. He scored a 5/20 in the “identified” category placing
him at a 25% of words identified, but not automatic. Student D did not identify the words
adaptation, predator, illustrated, dynamite, and invented automatically. I also made a note that
Student D self-corrected on the word illustrated by first saying illustrate. Student D missed the
word desert by saying dessert instead and the word competition by saying completion. Overall,
the student scored a 18/20 of words correct placing him at a 90% in the independent level.
 On the Fifth level, Student D scored a 10/20 in the “automatic” category placing him at a
50% of words identified automatically. He scored a 2/20 in the “identified” category placing him
at a 10% of words identified, but not automatic. Student D did not identify the words artery and
advantage automatically. I also made a note that Student D self-corrected on the word artery by
first saying ar-ta-ree. Student D missed the word content by saying contest. He missed the word
reflected by saying reflect. he missed the word biography by saying biograph. He missed the
word stampede by saying symbol. He missed the word scarce by saying scare. He missed the
word primitive by saying pre-min-a-tive the word solitary by saying salary. Overall, the student
scored a 12/20 of words correct placing him at a 60% in the frustration level.

Passages

As the next part of my Qualitative Reading Inventory, I administered passages to Student

D to assess his abilities in word recognition. I instructed Student D to read the following passage
to me the best he can. While he was reading, I set a timer to record the amount of time it took
him to read this passage to later find his WPM (words per minute) and his WCPM (words correct
per minute). I asked Student D if I could also record him during his reading to focus on the story
and his pacing.

I chose to start this student at a level four expository passage based on his word list
scores. As discussed above, Student D went from instructional level straight to frustration
between the fourth and fifth levels. Therefore, I chose a harder level four passage to start on.
From this passage, I then gave Student D a level five narrative passage to follow the same
directions. Based on his ability in these two passages, I felt I did not receive the needed ability
level required, so I gave Student D a level five expository passage. Due to the time restraint on
my placement, I had to decide on the lessons sooner. If I was not under this time restraint, I
would have liked to give Student D a level six narrative and expository passage to see his ability
in those. Student D performed better with the expository passages than the narrative, so I would
be interested to see how he would do in level six.

On the Level Four Expository passage, Student D had 12 total miscues placing him at an
instructional level for total accuracy and 2 meaning-change miscues placing him at an
independent level for total acceptability. Student D was unable to read the following words in
the passage: needs, adaptation(s), lilies/lily, conserve (self-corrected), through, cactus (self-
corrected), and desert; which adds up to seven miscues. Student D skipped the words a, the,
very, and absorb adding four more miscues to equal eleven miscues. Lastly, Student D did not
say an /s/ sound at the end of the word needs creating the last of the twelve miscues. The two
meaning-change miscues I counted were the words desert and absorb. Student D read this
passage in 4 minutes and 32 seconds, which averages his reading and miscues as 61 words per
minute and 59 words correct per minute.

On the Level Five Narrative passage, Student D had 20 total miscues placing him at an
instructional level for total accuracy and 6 meaning-change miscues placing him at an
independent level for total acceptability. Student D was unable to read the following words in
the passage: Margaret (self-corrected), Mead, interested, career, primitive, destroyed (self-
corrected), people, Samoa, investigate (self-corrected), read, ceremonies (self-corrected),
taboos, fluent (self-corrected), gossip (self-corrected), observed (self-corrected), took, kept, and
exist (self-corrected); which adds up to eighteen miscues. Lastly, Student D skipped the words
anthropology and regarded adding two more miscues to equal twenty miscues. The six meaning-
change miscues I counted were the words interested, people, read, Samoan, took, and kept.
Student D read this passage in 5 minutes and 3 seconds, which averages his reading and miscues
as 71 words per minute and 67 words correct per minute.

On the Level Five Expository passage, Student D had 12 total miscues placing him at an
instructional level for total accuracy and 3 meaning-change miscues placing him at an
independent level for total acceptability. Student D was unable to read the following words in
the passage: respiratory (self-corrected), the, moistens (self-corrected), mucus, pouches, inhaled,
sacs, and exhale; which adds up to eight miscues. Lastly, Student D skipped the words dioxide,
your, trachea, and bronchial adding four more miscues to equal twelve miscues. The three
meaning-change miscues I counted were the words the, inhaled, and exhale. Student D read this
passage in 3 minutes and 52 seconds, which averages his reading and miscues as 89 words per
minute and 86 words correct per minute.