QRI Summary
Stephanie Marotto
University of Kansas
Abstract
This paper will summarize the QRI results for a 5 th grade boy who has been struggling
with reading all of his elementary career. Results indicate he is a fourth grade
instructional level. Based on the results, the areas he struggles with the most is
background knowledge and fluency.
QRI Summary
The student selected for the Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) was Michael, a
5th grade boy who is 11. Michael attends a Title-One school in Colorado Springs,
Colorado. Also, Michael was recently re-evaluated to see if he still qualified for Special
Education support. According to the evaluations, data and the observations collected,
Michael qualified for special education in the areas of reading fluency, reading
comprehension, writing fluency, math concepts and applications. Based on consistent
reading and writing patterns, Michael shows symptoms of dyslexia and dysgraphia.
However, a formal evaluation has not been completed. To best support Michael in the
classroom, he has a variety of accommodations to help create success. The
accommodations Michael currently has with the classroom for assignments and
assessments are: use of keyboard, word predictor programs, use of scribe when
needed, extended time and smaller group instruction.
Michael was selected to complete the QRI because of consistently not
benchmarking throughout his time in elementary school. However, multiple teachers
reported that when given the time, Michael is able to read the text and comprehend.
Michaels verbal comprehension is more accurate than written comprehension. But this
could be due to the possible dyslexia and dysgraphia. The QRI process spanned over
three weeks in April 2016.
Interest Inventory and Book Tasting
The purpose of the doing an Interest Card Game and Book Tasting was to
understand Michael on a more personal level than academic. To best support him in the
classroom and keep Michael motivated, I needed to know what interested him. I created
the Card Game in Microsoft Word. Questions were selected from a student inventory
were developed by professors from Northern Illinois University. The cards were printed
on card stock to be cut out. The books for the Book Tasting were not selected until after
the Card Game results were analyzed.
To "play" the Card Game, I fanned the cards out and let the Michael pick the
cards at their own choosing. At first, MD wanted me to read the cards, but I encouraged
him to read them on his own. As MD responded to what was on the card, I tracked the
information on a sheet that correlated with the cards. I encouraged MD to provide
detailed responses. Next time, I will not have the student randomly choose a card, but
instead go in order of what is on the tracking sheet allowing our time to be used more
efficiently. Also, it will make analyzing the information easier. When analyzing the Card
Game results, I categorized results into the areas of Michael's reading interests,
activities done for enjoyment, Michael's personal strengths and Michael's limitations.
Reading genres Michael enjoys are current events, realistic fiction, non-fiction and
action. In regards to activities, Michael enjoys sports, computers and painting. Finally,
Michaels academic strengths are in Physical Education and math, and has limitations in
reading and writing. From this information, I selected the Book Tasting books.
On a separate day, Michael completed the Book Tasting. The books I chose
were based on the card game questions that focused on book genres Michael selected.
I tried to provide a variety of books that were at his estimated reading level. Just as I did
with the Card Game results, the Book Tasting selections were categorized into similar
genres. From there, I analyzed the commonalities among each group. Michaels results
for the Book Tasting aligned with the ranking of genres for the Card Game. Examples of
book Michael picked were, Jumanji by Chris Van Allsburg, Time for Kids, Ice Island
by Sherry Shahan, and Titanic by Kathleen Duey.
Information from the Card Game and Booking Tasting were primarily for
diagnostic information. To successfully tutor Michael and prevent negative behaviors, I
needed to know his interests and what can motivate him. After a complete analysis of
the Card Game results and the Book Tasting selections I have a better understanding of
who Michael is as a person and not just as a student. This is information I will continue
use with Michael and pass on to Michaels other teachers.
Word Lists
After completing the Card Game and Book Tasting, Michael had to read sets of
words in isolation. I started with the second level word list and worked up from there.
The purpose of the obtaining results from the Word Lists were to decide which level of
text was needed for the narrative and expository passages.
Second Word List
Total Correct Automatic: 19/20 95%
Total Correct Identified: 19/20 95%
Total Number Correct: 19/20 95%
Level: Independent
When reading the second level word list, Michael automatically read 19 of 20
words correctly. This placed him at 95% for this level of words read automatically.
Therefore, he is able to read second level words at the instructional level. The word
Michael read incorrectly was, suit. He read sot. Based on his response, he needs a
reminder of what sound ui makes in a consonant-vowel-consonant word.
Third Word List
Total Correct Automatic: 17/20 85%
Total Correct Identified: 19/20 95%
Total Number Correct: 19/20 95%
Level: Independent
When reading the third level word list, Michael automatically read 17 of 20 words
correctly. This placed him at 85% for the third level words read automatically. The words
Michael could not automatically read were, engines, tongue and interested. For the
words engine and tongue, Michael was able to identify by sounding them out. This
placed her total correct identified words at 95%. With the word interesting, Michael read,
interesting. Therefore, incorrectly reading the suffix.
Fourth Word List
Total Correct Automatic: 17/20 85%
Total Correct Identified: 17/20 85%
Total Number Correct: 17/20 85%
Level: Instructional
The three errors from the 4th word list were, pilot, adventurer, and invented. For the
word pilot, Michael read plot, omitting the 'i' in the word. However, when reading the
passage, "Amelia Earhart," Michael read pilot correctly. In regards to the word,
adventurer", Michael omitted the suffix, 'er'. Finally, Michael read, "invited" for invented.
Fifth Word List
Total Correct Automatic: 6/20 30%
Total Correct Identified: 6/20 30%
Total Number Correct: 6/20 30%
Level: Frustration
The 5th word list was externally difficult for MD to read. Reading the multi-syllabic
words were difficult and not having been exposed to most these words made it that
more challenging. Also, most of the words read incorrectly he said non-sense words.
Word List Results
Based on the word list results, Michael is 1.5 grade levels behind his peers. As
an almost 6th grade student, he is reading at an end of the year third grade level,
beginning fourth grade level. The word list results indicate the passages to use for
assessment with Michael should be at a fourth grade level because this is his
instructional level. Since Michael had many miscues involving suffixes, instruction and
interventions should focus on parts of multi-syllabic words.
Narrative and Expository QRI Results
Passage Name Amelia Earhart
Readability Level 4
Passage Type Narrative
Concepts Unfamiliar 6/12 less than 50%
Level total accuracy 95% - 13 miscues Instructional
Level total acceptability 97% - 7 meaning change miscues Independent
Explicit correct 3
Implicit correct 3
Words per minute 88
Correct words per minute 84
Total Passage level Instructional
Passage Name Plant Structures for Survival
Readability Level 4
Passage Type Expository
Concepts Familiar 9/12 75%
Level total accuracy 95% - 13 miscues Instructional
Level total acceptability 97% - 7 meaning change miscues Independent
Explicit correct 4
Implicit correct 2
Words per minute 104
Correct words per minute 99
Total Passage level Instructional
Patterns of Errors
After analyzing both passages, there were noticeable patterns of errors between
the two. Most of the miscues for each passage did not change the meaning of the
passage, which helps explain why he answered so well to the comprehension
questions. In regards to the miscues that did not change the meaning, most were basic
sight word errors. For example, Michael read a for the word the, or could for can.
With words that did change the meaning, most had similar letter-sound patterns. When
reading the Amelia Earhart passage, Michael read piots for pilots, omitting the l. In
regards to Plant Structures for Survival, Michael read lies for lilies, again omitting
the l.
Comprehension
According to Michaels results, he scored at the instructional level for both
passages. However, with Amelia Earhart his familiar level was below the 50 th
percentile, whereas with the Plant Structures for Survival, his familiarity level was
higher with 75%. For the questions he was not sure about, he did reference the
passage for answers. More than one time, he asked me to repeat the question. He
demonstrated great comprehension skills by looking for keywords within the question. I
wonder if he would have been more successful if he had the questions in front of him.
Based on my interactions with him throughout the year, I expected his comprehension
to be at the higher level because whenever 5 th grade passages have been read to him,
he verbally responded at an independent level.
Fluency
Michaels fluency rates were not consistent between both passages. However,
the acceptability and accuracy percentages were the same with 95% accuracy and 97%
acceptability. With Amelia Earhart, Michael read 84 correct words per minute, placing
him at the instructional level for a fourth grade text. For Plant Structures for Survival,
Michael read 99 correct words per minute, placing him also at the instructional level for
an expository text. Based upon his familiarity levels with each text could explain why he
read more correct words per minute for Plant Structures for Survival because he
scored 75% familiarity with that passage.
Assertions
Michaels approximate reading level for fourth level narrative passages is
instructional. After calculating the various areas of the QRI for Amelia Earhart, Michael
scored within the instructional level for the word lists, fluency and the comprehension
questions. The only area he scored lower in were the prior knowledge questions.
Results for the expository passage, Plant Structures for Survival, mimicked results
from Amelia Earhart. The only difference was he score familiar with the pre-text
questions.
Recommendations
Michaels strengths with the QRI was referencing the text to answer the
questions. This is a skill strongly emphasized in our school and he was able to apply.
Fluency was decent with both passages, but he had high accuracy rates. Based on the
QRI scores and observing Michael through the QRI process, areas of improvement and
intervention should be in the areas of fluency, reading multi-syllabic words, and building
prior knowledge. In addition to comprehension, these areas of struggle for Michael
should be the focus of instruction during an intervention session.
Fluency
The ability to recognize unfamiliar words quickly and accurately is on aspect of
fluency (Caldwell & Leslie, 2013). There are various types of instruction that can
increase fluency. However, all involve constant repetition, something Michael really
needs. The fluency activities to best improve Michaels reading fluency are supported
oral reading, echo reading and assisted reading. During supported oral reading, the
teacher reads to students and stops to discuss throughout the text. Michael would
benefit from hearing the teacher read so he understands what a proper pace is and
what is considered fluent. Often students think fluency is a race to read the quickest.
Echo reading is similar to the supported oral reading, but instead of just listening,
students repeat back what the teacher said. This type of activity will initiate repetition
and practicing fluency. Finally, Michael needs to read independently, but should have
someone to assist him in case he makes any errors. Therefore, assisted reading would
be beneficial for Michael since a teacher reads with the student.
Reading Multi-Syllabic Words
Reading words with 3 or more syllables was a challenge for Michael as seen
when reading the word lists and passages. Reading multi-syllabic words is a skill
students learn in 3rd grade and based on Michaels results, this was at the frustration
level for him. To begin multi-syllabic instruction teachers need to start with phonemic
awareness. Students need to understand how words are broken up through sound first.
To do this, the teacher should give Michael a 3 or 4 syllable word and clap it out. Once
this skill has been mastered, Michael should be instructed on the 7 types of syllables. A
good multi-syllabic word program is REWARDS, an intervention program that provides
strategies for reading longer words.
Building Prior Knowledge
Before having Michael read a passage, the teacher and Michael should complete
a KWL to see what Michael already knows about the content. By doing this, the teacher
can determine which concepts are critical to know in order to comprehend the major
ideas which are repeatedly used throughout the text. (Caldwell & Leslie, 2013). To build
a knowledge base the teacher can show Michael movie clips, articles, and other books
related to the upcoming topic. This would provide a fun and interactive activity to build
Michaels prior knowledge that he can apply to future topics as well.
References
Caldwell, J., & Leslie, L. (2013). Intervention strategies to follow informal reading
inventory assessment: So what do I do now? Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2017). Qualitative Reading Inventory (6th ed.). Pearson.
Shumow, & Schmidt. (2013). Student interest inventory. Retrieved from
http://www.niu.edu/eteams/pdf_s/VALUE_studentinterestinventory.pdf.
