Reading Comprehension
CADRE Capstone
2020-2021
ACTION PLAN
What was implemented?
I implemented the instructional technique targeted questioning with fifteen of my in-person third grade students. Targeted questioning is an instructional routine that involves asking students open-ended questions. Lemov (2015) explains that these questions are carefully preplanned with a focus on evidence of the learning target, administered to a specific group of students, and implemented in a short amount of time. This routine was implemented during whole group literacy instruction and small group guided reading instruction.
​
I utilized my students’ performance on the winter Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) reading assessment, weekly Wonders selection quizzes, and biweekly Wonders reading comprehension assessments to determine each students’ comprehension strengths, as well as their weaknesses. After determining that my students had a wide range of Lexile reading levels and abilities within comprehension, I was able to intentionally group students for guided reading based on their common needs. A Lexile level measures a student’s reading ability and is used to determine the difficulty of a text. Within my district’s reading curriculum, Wonders, there are three levels for our guided reading leveled readers: approaching-level, on-level, and beyond-level.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
I developed four groups with around four students in each group. The number of times I met with each group throughout a week was based on the students’ level of understanding of the comprehension skill we were practicing that particular week and the complexity of the leveled reader. However, due to state testing and unexpected snow/cold days during the duration of this study, the consistency of days met with each group was not strongly reliable.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Two types of questioning strategies were implemented within my use of targeted questioning. These strategies were not only used to help myself craft differentiated comprehension questions, but they also helped my students develop the skills needed to identify the different types of questions they are asked throughout the reading process. To prepare my students for an increased use of complex questioning within my instruction, I introduced the strategy of Question-Answer-Relationship (QAR) first for two weeks and then began using Text-Dependent Questions (TDQs) for the following two weeks. After four weeks, I utilized both questioning strategies for the final three weeks of the study.
​
When implementing these types of questions, I used the weekly whole group shared texts and the guided reading leveled readers to purposefully pre-plan several differentiated questions. All questions were created to target the specific comprehension skill that was being taught that week and align with my students’ individual needs. The complexity of the questions depended on my students’ level of understanding and whether it was a first, second, or third read with a given text. I also strategically pre-planned student responses to these questions that allowed me to clearly determine what I was expecting as evidence of key understanding/learning and identify any misconceptions that may occur beforehand.
Question-Answer-Relationship
(QAR)
I administered the four QAR subtypes of questions within my whole group and small group guided reading instruction. This strategy helped my students build a deeper understanding of how to distinguish the difference between “in the book” questions and “in my head” questions. “In the book” questions required students to look directly in the text for an answer and “in my head” questions required students to use knowledge learned from the text and their own personal schema to construct an answer.
Text-Dependent Questions
(TDQ)
I implemented text-dependent questions (TDQs) that gradually increased in complexity with the use of Fisher and Frey’s TDQ progression. This progression was utilized with literary or informational texts depending on the genre of the week and I began by asking questions about what the text says, then how the text works, and finally what the text means. These questions gradually progressed in complexity as they asked students to show their general understanding of specific parts of a text and moved into asking students to employ higher-level comprehension skills.
Why were these strategies chosen?
As research indicates, students learn best throughout conversations. McLaughlin (2012) proposes that with the social nature of comprehension, readers refine their understanding best when engaged in discussions that involve making meaning with others. Considering my students demonstrated a need for enrichment and intervention within the area of reading comprehension, I knew that it was my responsibility to ignite those meaningful discussions with the types of questions I was asking. To create these meaningful discussions within whole group or small group instruction, Fisher and Frey (2011) suggest that the types of questions educators ask influence how students read and interact with written text. Fordham’s (2006) research corresponds with Fisher and Frey as she notes that “not all questions are created equal” (p. 391).
​
With this information learned through research and after analyzing my students’ data, I determined that targeted questioning would be a beneficial strategy to implement in my classroom as it is proven to be best practice for efficiently checking for understanding and increasing students’ comprehension when reading. With varying levels of support, it was apparent that my students could effectively read a third-grade level text, but when asked higher-level comprehension questions, such as ones seen on Wonders assessments, they struggled with determining where to find textual evidence to support an answer, understanding how to respond to difficult questions, and drawing inferences from what they have read.
​
I chose to implement the QAR strategy first because I would be able to scaffold the four specific subtypes of questions that require numerous levels of comprehension and give my students the opportunity to learn how to identify different types of questions. Teaching students to identify different types of questions they are asked is crucial in improving their understanding of where and how to locate information needed to correctly answer. Implementing QAR allowed me to vary my questions with expected answers that are found directly in the text and answers that require students to use their own personal schema. This type of questioning positively impacted my students’ ability to find relationships between questions and answers which increased their level of comprehension.
Why were these strategies best for my group of students?
Out of the fifteen students who participated in this study, four students scored below the fiftieth percentile on the winter MAP reading assessment and were reading below a third-grade level. Six students scored between the seventy-fifth and eighty-eighth percentile. Five students scored between the ninety-second and ninety-ninth percentile. After analyzing my students’ average percentages from our weekly Wonders selection quizzes and biweekly Wonders comprehension assessments, I learned that seven students were consistently scoring below seventy percent, whereas eight students were frequently scoring above seventy-five percent. When administering my district’s winter fluency assessment, I became aware that four of my students were reading below the average correct words per minute for the typical third grader at this time in the year.
​
After examining all of the student data that I gathered, it was evident that my class had various levels of abilities in the area of comprehension. Although most of my students demonstrated a strong ability to decode and read third-grade level material, the level of comprehension after reading was something that was vastly different across my class. In order to meet the diverse needs of my students and best support their growth, I used several differentiated questions before, during, and after reading to target specific comprehension skills my students needed to improve in, as well as challenge my beyond-level students to use higher-order thinking skills.
How were equity and accessibility fostered?
​ Were multiple perspectives represented?
In order to foster equity and accessibility to best support all students in growing their reading comprehension skills, I was intentional in selecting several students to respond to questions rather than the same students who raise their hand constantly. I fostered a safe and welcoming learning environment where it was a norm for me to call on any student regardless if their hand was raised. Doing this provided my students with equal opportunities to access new learning in a way where everyone was able to share their own personal knowledge and contribute to the discussion. Providing students with these experiences encouraged participation, the sharing of different perspectives or background knowledge of a given text, and established the importance of listening to others.
​
Additionally, I intentionally differentiated my questions to meet my students at their instructional level. Pre-planning differentiated questions allowed me to focus my attention on students’ areas of improvement or enrichment. Asking these differing levels of comprehension questions provided all students with a “fair share” to grow in their comprehension skills no matter the instructional level they were currently at. The two questioning strategies I implemented during my targeted questioning supported multiple perspectives as I asked questions that required students to share their own schema, opinions, experiences, connections, and eventually inferences based on what they read. Multiple perspectives were also represented within the whole group shared texts and leveled readers used during guided reading.
How were diverse learning needs met?
As my classroom is filled with students that have unique learning needs, I knew it was imperative for me to differentiate my questions during reading in order to best scaffold the information. Depending on the week of the study, I either used the four QAR subtypes of questions, Fisher and Frey’s progression of text-dependent questions, or both within my instruction. Throughout whole group instruction, I asked various levels of questions directed towards individual students or pairs of students. With repeated reads during our close reading processes, the questions I asked were particularly crafted to progress in complexity as the students’ key understandings of the text became more concrete. Guided reading groups were purposefully differentiated by looking at students’ average percentage on weekly Wonders selection quizzes, biweekly Wonders comprehension assessments, and their Lexile reading level generated by their MAP reading performance. The Wonders leveled readers were used to ensure that the story would incorporate the comprehension skill we were practicing and that students were reading at their instructional level.
​
Grouping students with similar comprehension abilities allowed me to craft differentiated questions based on their groups’ specific needs. I administered these questions similarly to how I did during my whole group instruction. I called on each student at least once during the fifteen-minute lesson to make certain that I provided equal opportunities for students to answer and for me to gain an accurate measurement of each students’ comprehension of the text. My approaching-level group needed more questions that focused on key understandings, recalling specific information within a text, and finding text evidence. My on-level group needed more questions that required them to find text evidence, determine components of a text’s structure, and interpret the meaning behind why the author wrote a text. My beyond-level group needed more questions that challenged them to make inferences from the information learned from a text, synthesize information read, and form intertextual connections. Pre-planning these differentiated questions was vitally important and beneficial to my class’s diverse learning needs because they first targeted skills my students needed to master before I moved into higher-level thinking questions.
Who contributed to the success of this research?
To be successful in this action research, I needed to collaborate and reflect with both internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders are professionals within my building and external stakeholders are professionals outside of my building.
Internal
My building reading specialist and third-grade team were especially supportive by meeting with me during non-school hours to listen to my questions and share their professional knowledge. The reading specialist provided me with ideas for how to generate differentiated questions for each of my leveled guided reading groups and effectively scaffold these questions into my instruction. With my third-grade team consisting of veteran teachers, they were great support systems to refer to when I needed clarification or assistance. I frequently met with them to ask questions about our Wonders curriculum, how to best analyze the Wonders assessments, and how to best group students by ability for guided reading.