1. STUDENT LEARNING IMPACT PROJECT: Reading for Meaning Kelly Johnson Cedar Ridge Elementary School April 19, 2007

2. Purpose of the Project -With this project my purpose is to implement new strategies into the reading curriculum to fulfill my goal of increasing students’ reading comprehension. -Through guided reading worksheets, story boards, creating tests, summarizing and retelling stories, I predict that my strategies will positively affect my students reading comprehension scores.

3. Background for Study Economic statues: – –Upper/middle class – –families are dual and single income Parent Involvement: – –High parent involvement in school and community Diversity: –13% diversity Class size: –Average is 26 students Weekly specials –media, art, music, P.E., and technology

4. Learning Context -The classroom includes 29 students, 14 boys and 15 girls, all between the ages of 8 and 9. -The classroom’s -The classroom’s racial composition is primarily Caucasian with three Latin American and three Eastern Indian students. There is a wide range of student ability including seven students that are considered gifted and three students with limited English language ability.

5. Method I have chosen to use several strategies to increase students’ reading comprehension. Including: -Group discussions including questions on comprehension, skill, and summarization -Teacher created guided reading worksheet compiled of: apply & assess, critical thinking, reading strategies and comprehension skills -Student summary projects of: story boards, retelling activities, and creative writing

6. Assessment Measures -To determine where the students’ reading comprehension scores were to begin with, I collected and averaged previous selection comprehension tests. -To determine students’ progress I collected the scores of the selection comprehension test taken after my implementations. -To ensure the assessments are valid, I used the selection test included in the reading curriculum for the pre and post assessment. The selection tests are aligned with the weekly story and created specifically to assess learning goals, in this way the assessments are appropriate to student needs.

7. Learning Results -I averaged four groups’ tests taken before the implementation of my impact project. -The initial averaged test scores per group: -Key: 8.1 -Girls: 7.3 -Key: 8.1 -Boys: 6.8 -Non-key: 6.7 -Boys: 6.8 -Non-key: 6.7 -I averaged the four groups’ tests taken after the implementation of my impact project. -Three out of four groups’ scores increased after implementation. -Key: 8.5 -Girls: 7.2 -Key: 8.5 -Boys: 7.4 -Non-key: 7.1 I assessed the students’ selection scores in three different areas, the boys to the girls, the gifted students to the other students and all student groups. Data for boys, girls, key and non-key student groups:

8. Data

9. Boys -The averaged test scores of 14 boys prior to my impact project ranged from 4.4/9 to 7.7/9. -After my first week of implementation, 7 of the 14 boys scores had improved. -After the second week of implementation, 12 boys improved. -After my third week of implementation, 9 boys’ improved. -After my final week of implementation, 9 boys’ scores had improved from their pre- assessment scores. Girls -The averaged test scores of 15 girls prior to my impact project ranged from 4.4/9 to 9/9. -After my first week of implementation, 5 of the 15 girls scores had improved. -After the second week of implementation, 7 girls improved. -After my third week of implementation, 6 girls’ improved. -After my final week of implementation, 10 girls’ scores had improved from their pre- assessment scores.

10. Data

11. Key students -The averaged test scores of 8 students prior to my impact project ranged from 7.7/9 to 9/9. -After my first week of implementation, 4 of the 8 key students’ scores had improved. -After the second week of implementation, 6 students’ improved. -After my third week of implementation, 6 students’ improved. -After my final week of implementation, 6 key students’ scores had improved from their pre-assessment scores. Non-Key students -The averaged test scores of 21 boys prior to my impact project ranged from 3.4/9 to 8.7/9. -After my first week of implementation, 8 of the 21 students’ scores had improved. -After the second week of implementation, 13 students improved. -After my third week of implementation, 9 students’ improved. -After my final week of implementation, 13 students’ scores had improved from their pre-assessment scores.

12. Data

13. Analysis and Interpretation In conclusions to my impact project I found that an increase in comprehension based activities positively impacts the students’ selection test scores and reading for meaning. The boys, key and non-key students’ selection scores all increased. The girls however decreased by 1/10 th of a percentage point. The decrease is due to the inclusion of three ESL female students. Without the inclusion of the ESL students’ scores the girls averages score would have increased as the other students’ selection test scores have.

14. Projected outlook My impact project consisted of four full weeks of comprehension work. With the rapid and steady improvement made by the majority of the students throughout my implementation, I am encouraged to think of the possible projected growth by all students if the focus on comprehension was implemented at the start of the school year.

15. Reflections & Recommendations - In reviewing my impact project, it has reiterated that just as my students learn differently, it is my responsibility to implement different teaching styles, materials and strategies to ensure students’ learning. -An identifiable weakness in my instruction is that even when I plan for differentiation, more is need to meet all of my students’ abilities. A strength in my instructional approach is the variety of methods I used to reach a types of learners. -If this unit were to be done again, an area that could be improved is the weekly assessments. I think the fact that the selection tests are not differentiated can negatively affect the students’ selection test scores.

16. References and Acknowledgments Scott Foresman Reading: Picture This! Thank you to: Carol Carlson, Christi Kaehn and Jase Ginkel for their help and support with this project