Wonders Approaching Level Weekly Assessment (given bi-weekly)
The data from the Unit Bi-weekly assessments indicated that most of my 21 students increased their comprehension score over the course of the six week period. The graph shows the number of students who scored in each range. On the Unit 3 Week 5 assessment there was only one student who scored a 100 percent (10/10) and by Unit 4 Week 5 eight students were able to achieve a 100 percent on the assessment. Additionally, by Unit 4 Week 5 there were no students who scored a 50 percent or lower. While these tests did not share the common language of Fountas and Pinnell, the scores indicated that student comprehension did improve from before I began my targeted questioning instruction. Even though these bi-weekly comprehension checks did not necessarily align with the targeted questioning I was implementing, I learned that my instruction was making a positive impact on student reading comprehension. The data I collected from these assessments indicated that student reading comprehension grew over the time period in which I was implementing my targeted questioning instruction. After analyzing my data, I concluded that my targeted questioning instruction helped students think about different aspects of texts after reading, in turn increasing their comprehension scores on the bi-weekly assessments. The results of these assessments led me to believe that student comprehension scores would continue to increase through the remainder of the school year.
One of my students who had been scoring in low average to average range, scored a 10 out of 10 on the last two bi-weekly comprehension checks. I was wondering why this student’s scores suddenly made a jump. Something may have finally clicked for this student or throughout the course of the school year he was slowly progressing and during these weeks his scores started showing his improvements. He also could have had more prior knowledge of the texts or been more interested in the topics of the texts during these two weeks. Something else to consider, is that I was placing more emphasis on students highlighting where they were locating the answers to the comprehension questions. In this case students were no longer able to just choose a multiple choice answer and guess. They had to be able to back up their choice by highlighting where they found it in the text if possible. I believe that this practice encouraged many of my students to slow down and look back in the text rather than just guessing, which may have contributed to the increase in comprehension score with this particular student, as well as, the entire class.
Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark (December - pre) and (March - post)
After I viewed the bar graphs for each of my reading groups, it was clear that my targeted questioning instruction had a positive impact on the majority of my students. Within my lowest reading group their scores were only out of 6 because of their lower reading level. As I analyzed my data I noticed within Group 1 all but one of my students made growth in their ability to respond to targeted questions. Student 3 was the only student in this group who did not make growth and instead remained stagnant from December to March. This could have been because he was nervous talking one on one with me rather than as a small group or he needed more intensive instruction. Within Group 2 all students showed significant growth from December to March. Similar to Group 1, all students except one showed growth from December to March within Group 3. Student 4, who also remained stagnant, missed some school due to illness which could have impacted her learning, therefore she did not show growth. Within Group 4 all but one student showed growth of comprehension from winter to spring. Student 1, in Group 4, actually regressed and went from a score of 9 to a score of 5. This student read the same level of text in both winter and spring, but scored lower in the spring. He clearly demonstrated proficiency of his comprehension during the pre-test by scoring 9 out of 9 possible points. I concluded that this student’s decrease was attributed to his lack of motivation and interest in the text that we read for the post-test. It was an off day for this student, in which he was not in the mood to elaborate or share more with me about the text we had read. Additionally, it can be difficult to maintain such a high comprehension score consistently. He had to maintain is score otherwise his score would decrease, since he had already reached all nine comprehension points. For this particular student even though his post-test data indicated he was not making growth with his reading comprehension, data from the pre-test, bi-weekly comprehension checks, and anecdotal notes from daily instruction suggest that he was in fact making gains with his reading comprehension. I was encouraged to see so much growth of my students and hope my targeted questioning instruction continues to have a positive impact on students.
Anecdotal Notes
The quality and detail of student responses steadily increased over the six week study. Over time, the students became more confident talking about texts and knew that it was an expectation to have meaningful conversations about what we read. The students, also, felt safe taking risks with me and in the small groups. For instance, during the sixth week of my action research, I noted something incredible in my anecdotal notes: “The students in Group 4 took control of the discussion and were conversing back and forth about different aspects of the text we read.” It was astounding to see that my students were comprehending the text well enough they barely needed me in the conversation at all. This was a very different picture from the beginning of my action research, in which my notes from the early weeks had “needed a lot of prompting” scrawled across them.
Climate Survey
“I have fun learning” was one of the only statements that had green on the pie chart for a response of “strongly disagree.” My biggest take away from the survey data was that I needed to incorporate more opportunities for students to perceive learning as fun. The data led me to believe that students enjoy learning more, are more engaged, and get more out of the learning when they are having fun. If I had made my targeted questioning instruction more exciting and engaging (fun) would students have shown more growth? Would the students who remained stagnant have grown? The only other statement which had green (strongly disagree) on the pie chart was “I have lots of friends in the classroom.” From this data, I concluded that the students who marked “strongly disagree” simply did not have their closest friends in our classroom, rather than them not having classroom friends in general. The people they considered their closest friends may have been in another second-grade classroom. About 20% of students said they “disagree” that “Other students behave in the classroom.” This could have potentially impacted the learning and growth of my students. For example, if I had to take time to redirect students and deal with behaviors during the guided reading block, then other students may have missed out on vital instructional time.
.png)
.png)
Written Response Questions:
What do you like about being in this class?
What do you wish was different?
Triangulation
As I reflected on my data from the Fountas and Pinnell pre and post tests, my anecdotal notes, and the bi-weekly comprehension checks I confirmed that implementing targeted questioning helped my students grow their reading comprehension. Specifically, students’ ability to respond orally to comprehension prompts. Before implementing my action research my data indicated that my students were not proficient in within the text, beyond the text, or about the text questioning types. Following the implementation of my targeted questioning practices, a greater number of my students demonstrated proficiency in answering varying levels of comprehension questioning throughout daily instruction and assessments. The overall growth of student scores, from throughout my study, enriched the perception that targeted questioning improves student reading comprehension.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Practice and Interactions of the Researcher
I planned targeted questions for students according to the specific needs of each guided reading group and the genre of text they were reading each day. I was initially too ambitious with my schedule I had planned out for my students, in terms of the amount of days I would be asking them targeted questions. I had to adjust my instruction because my students needed more time to read the texts than I had originally anticipated. Instead of working on questioning students five times a week, it became more two to three times a week because my students needed an entire group session just to read the text, then the next day we would hold our discussions and I would ask my targeted questions. I modified this because some of my lower achieving reading students were not ready to handle questioning during reading. They needed to read the entire text and then I could implement my questioning after reading. For most of my on level and high achieving reading students I was able to implement some questioning during reading, but then we would always take a second day to discuss the text more after reading. According to my research and my students’ needs this is what worked best for my instruction.
​
As I took anecdotal notes each day, my students were able to get used to the routine and were no longer nervous that I was writing while they were talking during our groups. Taking these notes kept myself and my students accountable for the learning taking place. The anecdotal notes helped me see if the questions I was asking were challenging student thinking and if they were adequate questions for my readers. Each day I was able to reference my notes, from the previous lessons, and modify my instruction accordingly for each of my groups. My notes also allowed me to realize when one or two students were dominating our conversations and encourage other students to share their thinking as well, to ensure that everyone was participating.
​
Overall my targeted questioning instruction helped me be prepared and more confident in my guided reading instruction and built my students’ confidence in discussing and digging deeper into texts. I always encouraged my students to take a risk and share something, even if they were not sure their thinking was “correct.” By the end of my study, my students were challenging one another’s thinking by posing countering ideas or arguments. I also grew in my ability to construct varying levels of questions to ask my readers, provide a safe space to take risks, and using wait time for student responses. I became comfortable with waiting for students to process through their thinking, rather than over prompting or answering the questions for them. Furthermore, I was able to grow my abilities to quickly analyze data and use that data to adjust my instruction according to my students’ needs. Implementing targeted questioning into our classroom not only helped the students grow their reading comprehension, but I grew tremendously as an educator as well.
​
​
​