Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A

1
Chapter I:

Introduction

It is 11:15 AM in a fourth-grade English Language Arts classroom at Phillips Elementary
School. Students thumb the pages of their books as their teacher reads aloud from a short
passage. Scanning the array of desks and tables, some students are held in rapt attention
while others became disengaged before the teacher even began. PSSAs are quickly
approaching and students know they will have a unit test later this week on skills they are
reviewing today in preparation for the standardized state exam later this report period.
When the teacher reaches the end of the page, she asks students to take out their reading
folders and complete the comprehension questions on the worksheet inside. It is at that
point that the problem becomes apparenteven the students who appeared to follow
closely suddenly look down at the questions with blank stares. The simple
comprehension questions are structured to look much like what the students will see on
the PSSA, and there is not a single student in the class who knows how or where to begin.

This is an unfortunately common scene; the fault, it seems, lies with a lack of exposure to
reading comprehension strategies within the curriculum. It is simple enough to give a
retelling of something in a text, but tests like the PSSA assess comprehension at a deeper
level and require the use of metacognitive skills such as inferencing, making connections,
predicting, and comparing and contrasting. Ruth Garner explains metacognition in her 1986
publication Metacognition and Reading Comprehension as thinking about ones own perceiving
and understanding. A simple example of metacognition is realization of miscomprehension while
reading; such realization means the reader is thinking about his or her understanding. (Garner,
1986) These are skills that cannot simply be taught but must also be practiced.

Phillips K-5 is a fully inclusive partial magnet elementary school in the heart of
Pittsburghs South Side neighborhood. Although students from across the city can attend
Phillips if selected in the magnet lottery, most students are from the immediately
surrounding area. Last school year, 69.1% of students taking the PSSA at Phillips scored
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
2
Proficient of Advanced on the Reading section of the exam. Looking specifically at the
scores for last years 3
th
gradethis school years 4
th
graders, and the focus of this
study80% of males scored Proficient or Above in Reading, 76% of females scored
Proficient or Above in Reading, and 78% of African American students scored Proficient
or Above. All three of these demographics scored well above the district averages of
50.92%, 53.74%, and 43.34% (Pittsburgh Phillips K-5 PSSA Data, 2014).
The greater school district to which these scores are being compared is Pittsburgh Public
Schools, the largest of 43 school districts in Allegheny County and second largest in
Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh Public Schools serves approximately 25,000 students in
Kindergarten through Grade 12 in 54 schools, and PPS Early Childhood programs
serve 1,614 three and four year-olds in classrooms across the city. Pittsburgh Public
Schools state that they are committed to continually improving performance at every
level of the District. By doing so, they are aiming to help prepare their students to take
maximum advantage of The Pittsburgh Promise, a visionary scholarship program
launched in 2007 to help students graduating from the Pittsburgh Public Schools to
pursue further education after high school, and to enhance the growth, stability, and
economic development of the Pittsburgh Region. To be eligible for the scholarship,
which can be as much as $40,000 throughout four years of a bachelors degree program,
students must have attended the Pittsburgh Public Schools continuously from at least the
9th to 12th grades, graduate with a minimum grade point average (GPA) of 2.5, and have
a minimum of 90% attendance. Ensuring that students have high achievement is essential
to them earning this scholarship, and teachers at Phillips Elementary School regularly
remind students of that to encourage them to work hard and do their best.

The students of focus in this particular study are students who would not currently be
eligible for the Pittsburgh Promise based on their grades and achievement; improving
their scores is critical, which is part of the reason that they were chosen to receive the
additional support provided by the studys intervention. D.H., A.J., K.R., and C.Y. are
four fourth-grade students receiving learning support in a full inclusion setting. All
students scored below proficient on last years Reading PSSA and preparation for this
years test has been much more rigorous, not just for those four, but for the entire third,
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
3
fourth, and fifth grade. Students are taught to use metacognitive strategies before, during,
and after reading a textusually in the form of completing graphic organizersto
improve understanding. Despite the regular use of these graphic organizers, these four
students are just some of the many that are still struggling with reading comprehension
and possess limited understanding of what specific skills they are actually utilizing when
reading and completing the organizers and charts.
Critical Question:
How can metacognitive strategies be applied in test taking to improve reading
comprehension?
The aim of the research reported in this study is to analyze how metacognitive strategies
can be applied in test taking to improve reading comprehension. The specific goal of the
planned intervention is to see an increase in the overall percent of correct responses to
comprehension questions on reading unit and module assessments as well an
improvement in these students 2014 Reading PSSA scores.
Recent trends within the domain of reading comprehension have led to an increasing
emphasis on the role of metacognitive awareness of ones cognitive and motivational
processes while reading (Reichard & Mokhtari, 2002) but this has mostly been studied to
assess adolescent and adult reading strategies. In this day and age, with high-stake testing
having become such a buzzword in education, it seems critical to address new and
progressive approaches so that teachers can take the time to instruct students in these
practical strategies beginning in early elementary school.
The plan of intervention for this research in order to address the critical question is to
provide a sample of four elementary learning support students with frequent, explicit, and
systematic instruction of an assortment of metacognitive reading skills and associated
strategies and then monitoring how they use these strategies to broaden their
understanding of text through test scores, survey, and student reflections. Truly, the data
collected in this project and intervention is intended to inform anyone who conducts or
consumes research in the broad area of cognitive process in children, particularly
classroom teachers.
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
4
Definition of Terms

Reading Comprehension
Simply put, reading comprehension is the act of understanding what you are reading. It is
an intentional, active, interactive process that occurs before, during, and after a person
reads a particular piece of text. When a student reads, he or she is simultaneously using
his or her awareness and understanding of phonemes, phonics, vocabulary, and the ability
to comprehend of construct meaning from the text. There are two classes of mental
models: a text-based model, which is a mental representation of the propositions of the
text and a situation model consisting of what the text is perceived to be about (Woolley,
2011). The goal of this intervention focuses on the second model; the goal, therefore, is to
gain an overall understanding of what is described in the text rather than to obtain
meaning from isolated words or sentences.

Metacognitive Strategies
Metacognition refers to thinking about thinking. During this process students are
examining their brains processing. Teachers work to guide students to become more
strategic thinkers by helping them understand the way they are processing information.
The specific metacognitive skills used in this study are inferencing, making connections,
visualizing, summarizing, predicting, and questioning. Through scaffolding and
reciprocal teaching, students are able to practice the skills that lead to these overt acts
becoming automatic.

High-Stakes Testing
A high-stakes test is an assessment with important consequences for the test taker used to
assess students and to increase teacher accountability. Passing has important benefits,
such as a degree, diploma, or scholarship, and failing has serious consequences such as
being forced to take remedial classes until the test can be passed, being disallowed
privileges or not being allowed to take part in activities, or not being able to find
employment.

Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
5
PSSA
The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) is a test administered statewide
in the spring to measure the extent to which students have met state
standards/expectations for the grade level. PSSA are used for educator, school and
District accountability purposes (State Assessment System, 2014).
The PSSA includes assessments in English Language Arts and Mathematics, which are
taken by students in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Students in grades 4 and 8 are also
administered the Science PSSA. The English Language Arts and Mathematics PSSAs
include items that are consistent with the Assessment Anchors/Eligible Content aligned
to the Pennsylvania Common Core Standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics
(State Assessment System, 2014).

Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
6
Chapter II:

Data Collection

Before the plan of intervention could be implemented, it was critical to collect baseline
data. Baseline data serves as a basis for determining how much change will occur if the
desired outcome after intervention is achieved. For this measure, multiple data collection
strategies were implemented over the course of 2 school weekssome qualitative and
some quantitative.

Quantitative Baseline Data Collection
The quantitative baseline measure taken to determine students beginning understanding
and utilization of metacognitive skills involved charting and monitoring students scores
for each multiple choice question on their regular unit and module English Language Arts
exams. Each test that the students take have questions that are aligned with Pennsylvania
Common Core standards, many of which involve the use of metacognition for
comprehension.

For every test, a spreadsheet was created to record student scores; the spreadsheets have a
column for each test question in which there is an explanation of the skills involved and
to which Common Core standard the question is aligned. For example, on the chart of
student data from the Unit 3 Module 1 exam shown below, question #3 asked students to
determine what the author of the given passage about saving natural resources and
helping the environment was asking people to do in paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 described
the benefit of using special efficiency showerheads. The question required students to use
summarizing and inferencing skills to determine that the correct answer was B Save
water. It did not explicitly say this in the paragraph; students needed to possess an
understanding of both summarizing and inferencing to be able to refer back to the text
and analyze the details to establish the main idea.

Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
7
From the aforementioned spreadsheets, I selected only the multiple choice questions that
required explicit use of metacognition and made modified charts that included the
Common Core standards and also allowed me to input student datamarking the
questions that the students answered incorrectly with an X and leaving the questions
that the students answered correctly blank. This made it easier for me to track which
questionsand thus, which metacognitive skillswere consistently missed, and this
information would help me plan which skills should be of focus in the intervention.

Data Collection for Grade 4 Unit 3 Module 1
Student Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Question #5

E
0
4
.
B
-
C
.
2
.
1
.
2

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.

E
0
4
.
B
-
C
.
2
.
1
.
2

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.

E
0
4
.
B
-
C
.
2
.
1
.
2

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.

E
0
4
.
A
-
K
.
1
.
1
.
2

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

m
a
i
n

i
d
e
a

a
n
d

d
e
t
a
i
l
s
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.


E
0
4
.
A
-
K
.
1
.
1
.
2

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

m
a
i
n

i
d
e
a

a
n
d

d
e
t
a
i
l
s
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

D.H. X
A.J. X
K.R. X X
C.Y. X X

Qualitative Baseline Data Collection
Supplementary to the data collection for Module and Unit tests, qualitative data was
critical in seeing the effect of this intervention as a valid method for assessing impact. In
order to collect qualitative baseline data before intervention, I developed a survey of
questions to ask students after they take each unit and module exam. These questions are
asked in a one-on-one setting, focusing on the specific questions on each exam that
require utilization of one or more metacognitive reading comprehension strategy. During
the meeting with the student, we would review the test questions together and discuss the
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
8
following points for each question: 1.) How did you answer the question? 2.) Did you
refer back to the text to answer? 3.) Did you use any of the metacognitive strategies you
learned in class? If yes, what metacognitive strategies did you use? 4.) Why did you
choose that particular strategy? During student surveys, posters of the different
metacognitive strategies are clearly displayed an accessible in the classroom to be used as
reference. Probing was avoided during this survey data collection in order to get the most
naturalistic responses from the students; even if students were unable to provide answers
to these questions this would reveal that they likely did not have a strategy and guessed,
demonstrating that they should be given additional instruction and practice with the given
metacognitive skill.

The students answers to these discussion questions were then added to the modified
chart used in quantitative data collection (as shown above). The results of the student
surveys were important in that they demonstrated whether the students were able to
identify which metacognitive strategy they used naturally, if any; this provided
information about student understanding. Also, there is no long-term transfer of
knowledge unless the student is able to provide a rationale for which tool they use and
when they should use it. When asked why they chose to use the reading comprehension
strategy that they named, the responses demonstrated whether students were or were not
familiar with the purpose of utilizing metacognition during reading.

Data Collection for Grade 4 Unit 3 Module 1
Question #1 Question #2 Question #3 Question #4 Question #5
D.H.



1.) I looked at
what they were
saying.
2.) Referred back
to text.
3.) Yes. Could
not recall
specific strategy:
Reading
between the
lines.
4.) I dont
know.

1.) I had to say
what comes
next.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Yes.
Predicting
4.) Thats what
predicting is
guessing what
happens.

1.) I looked for
big ideas.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Yes,
Summarizing
4.) It told me to
look for the main
idea, a summary
is main ideas.
X
1.) I looked for
big ideas and
details.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Yes,
Summarizing
4.) Because I had
to find main
ideas.


1.) I dont
remember.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Did not know.
(Maybe
summarizing?)
4.) Did not know.

Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
9
A.J.

1.) Guessed
2. Did not refer
back to text.
3.) No strategy
4.) n/a

1.) Guessed
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) No strategy
4.) n/a
X
Didnt Answer
(No strategy)

1.) Guessed
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) No strategy
4.) n/a

1.) Guessed
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) No strategy
4.) n/a
K.R.
X
1.) I found big
ideas.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Yes. Could
not remember
strategy used.
4.) I dont
know.

1.) I was telling
what happened at
the end.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Did not
know. (Guessed.
Cause and
effect?)
4.) It was what I
had to do.

1.) I looked for
big ideas.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Yes,
Summarizing
4.) It told me to
look for the main
idea, a summary
is main ideas.
X
1.) I dont
remember what I
did.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Did not know.
4.) Did not know.


1.) I think I used
vocabulary
words.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Did not know.
4.) Did not know.

C.Y.

1.) I pictured
what the story
was about.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Yes.
Visualizing.
4.) It seemed
right.

1.) I
predicted.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Yes.
Predicting
4.) I knew that
you have to
make guesses
when you have
to find whats
next because it
hasnt happened
yet.
X
1.) I looked for
big ideas.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Yes,
Summarizing
4.) It told me to
look for the main
idea, a summary
is main ideas.

1.) I looked for
big ideas and
details.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Yes,
Summarizing
4.) I knew I
needed the main
parts.

X
1.) I think Ino,
I do not
remember.
2.) Did not refer
back to text.
3.) Did not know.
(Possibly I did
summarizing?)
4.) Did not know.


What Was Learned from Baseline Data
In gathering baseline data and background knowledge on student understanding, various
documents and scores were recorded and analyzed. First, student results from both Unit 1
and Unit 2 exams were examined to look for priormeaning pre-data collection
growth in any of the problem types (see Appendix 1). All students showed a growth in
understanding between the first and second Unit exams in overall scores, and all students
showed an increase in understanding in finding key ideas in informational texts (as
demonstrated by the universal increase in scores in this Common Core Standard-Aligned
problem-type.) Examining the quantitative data from these exams helped to give an
overall understanding of which type of problems students have been struggling with, and
for which types of problems students are already demonstrating competency. Across the
board, student scores showed that the main areas of concern were Drawing Evidence
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
10
from Texts, Identifying Text Types and Purposes, and despite students showed growth
and progress in some questions from Unit 1 to Unit 2, all still struggled with Key Ideas
and Details.

Before any qualitative baseline data could be analyzed, it was important to determine
which metacognitive strategies matched up with the most frequently seen Common Core
Standard-aligned question types. In collaboration with other classroom and special
education teachers, the following metacognitive skills and strategies were decided to be
most closely associated with the mental processes needed to answer the assessment
questions.

Common Core Problem-Type Metacognitive Skill(s) Associated Strategies
Key Ideas and Details in
Literature
Summarizing, Inferencing Finding Main Ideas and
Details
Draw Evidence from Literary or
Informational Texts
Questioning, Visualizing.
Predicting
Referring Back to the
Text
Text Types and Purposes Questioning Features of Text,
Authors Purpose
Use Text Structure to Interpret
Information
Inferencing, Visualizing,
Summarizing,
Questioning
Compare and Contrast,
Cause and Effect

Once these metacognitive skills of focus were determined, baseline data was taken after
administering and scoring the Unit 3 Module 1 reading exam. Looking at the data
collected, it was apparent that even if the students correctly answered a question on the
reading exams, they were not necessarily using any strategies to solve the problems, and
if they did they struggled to identify what strategy they used. Additionally, only one
student said that she referred back to the text, and it was only for one question. The only
two metacognitive skills that students were able to identify having used were
Summarizing and Predicting (although D.H. did describe Inferencing as reading
between the lines and K.H. guessed that she might have used the associated skill of
Cause and Effect). All of the metacognitive skills mentioned or hinted at by the students
were appropriate to use for the questions listed; the concerning part was that not a single
student had a solid rationale for utilizing their skills. This suggested that the students
were not confident in their choices and/or did not demonstrate any self-assessment or
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
11
reflectiontwo things that would grow through practicing metacognitive skills. In
conclusion, the baseline data confirmed the initial problem. Students were not
approaching reading comprehension test questions with any knowledge of solution
strategies, and this appears to have a negative impact on their scores.

The baseline data helped to determine the design of the intervention in that it revealed
which metacognitive skills required the most explicit re-teaching. The skills taught during
the intervention were the skills that were seen most frequently in the exam questions, that
the students appeared to struggle with most, or that the students were unable to identify in
the survey.

Plan for Intervention
The purpose of the intervention was to provide intensive, systematic, and explicit
instruction to the four fourth grade students identified as requiring Learning Support and
consistently scoring below benchmark on universal screeners and either Basic or Below
Basic on PSSA Unit and Module exams. These intervention lessons were taught twice a
week for 30 minutes in a focused, small-group setting. Each week, students concentrated
on a different metacognitive reading comprehension skill; on Mondays, they received an
explicit introduction to the skillincluding the purpose and definition of the skill as well
as when to use itand repeated practice of the associated strategies, and on Fridays the
students revisited the strategies and utilized them in a focused, teacher-led game or
activity.

During intervention, data was collected using a combination of the methods described
above as well as anecdotal observations during the intervention lessons. Unfortunately,
due to rigorous PSSA preparation, most of the qualitative data was collected via
observation and not student survey. Additionally, because the artifacts used in data
collection were the quantitative spreadsheets of exam scores and assessments were only
given every other week, it was important to include observation as a third form of
progress monitoring and evaluation.

Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
12
Week One
Metacognitive Strategy of Focus: Inferencing
Monday Session: The session starts with an engaging opening activity in which the
teacher brings a bag of items that fit a particular trip like going to a baseball game or
going to a beach or swimming pool. The students go through the packed bag to make
inferences about the person that the bag belongs to and where they went. For example, if
the teacher packs a bag with a towel, a bathing suit, and sunscreen, the students would
infer that the bag belonged to someone going to the beach. The teacher shows the class
the items and they discuss as a group, followed by an explicit explanation. We just took
the items presented and what we know about the items to make an educated guess, or an
inference. We follow the same process when we read a story and make inferences to help
us understand what the author is telling us. Students then read a short text in their
classroom basal readers and make inferences to answer questions about characters,
setting, and plot with teacher guidance.
Friday Session: Skills learned in the lesson on Monday are explicitly reviewed. The
activity is to have students look at pictures of different situations or events and read
captions below each picture (i.e. a picture of a boy in snow clothes with a snow shovel
with the caption Paul is not going to school today). Students should make an inference
for the picture (i.e. Pauls school called off for a snow day) and write their inferences
using an I think _____ because _____ statement.
Data and Reflection: No module tests were given during this week, so no quantitative
assessment data was collected. During these sessions, all four students began by thinking
that making an inference meant making predictions. They were consistently missing
many of the questions on their assessments that required the use of inferencing skills and,
more significantly, were unable to explain their thought process for answering those
questions. During Mondays session, all students correctly guessed that the bag of
school/office supplies inferred that it would belong to a student going to school (or gave
other appropriate inferences) but saw it as only a guess. A long discussion ensued
regarding what it means to make an educated guess as opposed to a random guess. D.H.,
A.J., and K.R. continued to make guesses while reading the text to answer questions
rather than use inferencing skills, while C.Y. seemed to have a fairly good understanding
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
13
of inferencing after the discussion. Scores on the exit-ticket activity on Friday were as
follows:
D.H. A.J. K.R. C.Y.

Restated what was
said in the caption
verbatim rather than
make inference

Described the
picture, did not
make any further
guesses.

Provided a
thoughtful inference
and reasoning.

Provided multiple
thoughtful
inferences and
reasoning.

Week Two
Metacognitive Strategy of Focus: Summarizing (Main Idea and Details)
Monday Session: The students begin with a discussion about summaries prompted by the
following explicit teacher-given questions: What information is important to include in a
summary? How long should a summary be? Why is it important to know how to write
summaries? Teacher should then introduce five steps to writing a summary. For each of
the parts, the teacher should have students repeat the name after her and hold up a new
finger until they reach five. The first thing that we need to consider is Someone.
Someone refers to the main characters, or who the story is about. The next part that we
need to consider is Wanted. Wanted represents what the character wants. It is the
characters goal. The third part of our summary is But. The character wanted something
BUT something got in the way. So the But refers to our conflict or main problem. The
fourth part that we need is So. SO what did the main character do about it? What did
the character decide to do to overcome the problem? The fifth and last part of our super
summary is Then. Then what happened? We talk about how the story ends or
concludes. Does the character get what they wanted? Those are the 5 things that we need
to remember when writing our summaries of only the main ideas of a text. Say them with
me one more time? Have students repeat the 5 steps, putting up a finger for each step.
Friday Session: Explicitly review the 5 steps learned during the Monday session. Now
we can apply those 5 steps to an actual story. The students will have the book The Rajah
Lion. First have them make inferences about main ideas based on the title and the
pictures. Read the first paragraph from the story out loud and instruct students to hold up
their first finger when they hear the first part of the summary model they had just
discussed. For this first part, the teacher should also put their thumb up when they read
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
14
about the main character to model what the students should be doing. I see some thumbs
up, that must mean we found our Someone. Have students identify the main character
and discuss that characters traits and then continue reading through the story, allowing
students to read as well, following the same processwhenever a student hears
something in the text that aligns with one of the 5 parts of the Super Summary model,
they should put up the corresponding fingers. By the end of the story, all 5 parts of the
summary will have been addressed, and students should retell a brief summary using the
strategies learned independently.
Data and Reflection: Student performance during these two lessons increased from the
previous weeks session; it appeared that students had much more confidence going into
lessons on summarizing than they did with inferences. Although data from prior
assessments did show that the students were more confident and competent in the
metacognitive skill of summarizing, it is the skill most commonly included in test
questions and is needed to answer questions on main idea and details, character traits,
setting, and others; because of this, it was still chosen as a critical skill to explicitly teach
and practice in the intervention. A.J. much more actively participated in these sessions
and he and C.Y. in particular demonstrated enthusiasm in learning the Fab Five.

Additionally, Unit 3 Module 2 Assessment was given during this week (see Appendix C
for scores). Of the questions of focus, D.H. and K.R. both missed one question requiring
the use of inferencing, and one question pertaining to character, setting, and plot; A.J.
only missed one on examining the characters, setting, and plot; lastly, C.Y. only missed
one question requiring the use of inferencing. The total average percent of correct to
incorrect answers from the pool of focus questions was 75%. While observing students
complete the assessment, C.Y. was noted to have been visibly utilizing the summarizing
strategies and reviewed taught during this weeks intervention. When asked to discuss
questions after the assessment was graded and returned, students showed more
confidence in identifying which skills and strategies they were using to solve each
problem and more frequently noted that they referred back to the text before choosing an
answer.

Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
15
Week Three
Metacognitive Strategy of Focus: Predicting (Cause and Effect)
Monday Session: The teacher will create Cause and Effect picture task cards that include
images that depict either a cause or an event in a situation. Place them out of order on the
table. Teacher should draw a t-chart on a piece of paper with each side labeled either
Cause or Effect. Tell the students that they need to infer a cause and effect of each picture
to sort them. Have students explain their reasoning as they fill in the t-chart. The teacher
will read the title and headings of a short story Ray and Blaine Save the Day to find clues
about the main ideas. Teacher should direct and guide students to read through the first
selection of the text under the heading A Plea for Help aloud. Have students raise their
hand when they read a significant moment in the passage. At the end of each paragraph
or group of paragraphs, the teacher should stop and chart some significant events.
Friday Session: N/A. Three of the four students receiving intervention were absent on this
day, so no metacognitive lesson was taught.
Data and Reflection: Although students only received one day of intervention instruction
this week, they still showed an increase in interest and performance. Students began the
lesson on Monday unsure of how to determine which event is the cause and which event
is the effect. Most students changed their minds often when beginning to answer teacher-
given questions, struggling with the two in a similar way as one ponders the riddle of the
chicken and the egg. Eventually, as a group, students decided to describe the effect as the
what and the cause as the why. For instance, if a girl gets hurt while riding her bike,
this is what happened because she was going to fast and not wearing a helmet. Why did
the girl get hurt? She was not wearing her helmet. By phrasing scenarios in this way,
students felt more confident completing the task. After completing the opening activity,
the students were better able to read the text and make predictions using the words
cause and effect to phrase their thoughts. No unit or module assessments were given
this week.

Week Four
Metacognitive Strategy of Focus: Questioning (Compare and Contrast and Features of
Text)
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
16
Monday Session: Group will begin with explicit choral repetition of the idea that
comparing means finding similarities and contrasting means finding differences. Teacher
will then use a deck of teacher-made task cards, each card either showing two images to
compare or contrast, two item names to compare or contrast, or a short text passage that
describes two things or scenarios to compare or contrast. After the teacher explicitly
models the process that students should use to solve each type of card, students will
shuffle cards and take turns drawing one off of the top, talking through their thought
process while comparing and/or contrasting.
Friday Session: Teacher will use a deck of teacher-made sortable task cards for this
activity; each card will have either a name, definition, or example of a feature of text.
There should be three cards for each text feature. Shuffle and set out the sortable cards so
that they are accessible to all students at the table. Have students work together until all
cards have been grouped and matched, place the cards on the board to act as a large
interactive graphic organizer. Review the text features as each one is found/identified.
Students will then explore and find examples of each one text feature in their own books
and mark and identify each using post-it notes.
Data and Reflection: This final week of intervention was implemented somewhat
differently than the past weeks. Rather than focus on one strategy, students were
introduced to two very different aspects of reading comprehension both under the
umbrella of the metacognitive skill of Questioning. Because the lessons were entirely
separate, they were more condensed than in the previous weeks; because of this
alteration, the concern was that these lessons would not be as effective. Despite these
concerns, students demonstrated full or near understanding of both skills by the end of
each lesson. Most importantly, each student was able to identify and explain how
Questioning is required to use either of these strategies in reading comprehension.
Between the two, students seemed more confident with Comparing and Contrasting, but
it might have been beneficial to receive an additional day of instruction in Features of
Text. Most students struggled to determine the differing purposes of the index versus the
table of contents.

Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
17
Unit 3 Module 3 Assessment was given during this week (see Appendix D for scores). Of
the reading comprehension questions of focus, all four students missed a character,
setting, and plot question that required students to refer back to the text and find a
specific sentence that supported a given characters attribute. In addition, D.H. missed
two other similar character, setting, and plot questions requiring the use of Summarizing.
One possible explanation for this high ratio of missed questions is that because D.H. had
to take this assessment a day late, she likely rushed through the multiple choice questions
in order to finish the test more quickly. Despite this, the total average percent of correct
to incorrect answers from the pool of focus questions was 78.5%, a full 3.5% increase
from the previous module exam.

Post-Intervention Data
At the conclusion of the four weeks of intensive intervention through repeated exposure
to reading comprehension skills and strategies, students took their cumulative Unit 3
Assessment. Scores from this assessment were analyzed to look for both overall
improvement as well as any patterns visible in student achievement on individual reading
comprehension skills. The whole assessment was scored out of a total of 32 points, which
included open-ended questions and vocabulary questions. Only multiple-choice questions
were analyzed in this final assessment, and because the focus of this intervention was on
comprehension, a decision was made to exclude any vocabulary questions in analysis as
well. This brought the total number of multiple-choice comprehension questions on the
assessment to 18. Out of this total, D.H. correctly answered 13/18, A.J. correctly
answered 11/18, K.R. correctly answered 13/18, and C.Y. correctly answered 13/18. The
total average percent correct of all four students was 69.4%.



Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
18
Chapter III:

Reconciling the Data

The critical question of focus for this intervention was examining how metacognitive
strategies can be applied in test taking to improve reading comprehension. The ways in
which the data revealed changesand increasesin understanding throughout the
intervention suggest that the explicit teaching of metacognition and associated skills as
well as practice in how to apply these skills during assessments did in fact improve
reading comprehension for the four students of focus. Data demonstrated increased scores
on each module assessment as well as an overall increase in questions answered correctly
on the unit assessment.

The total average percent of multiple choice reading comprehension questions answered
correctly on the first module exam of Unit 3, as can be seen in Appendix B, was 70%.
This average increased from this module exam to the second module exam of Unit 3
(Appendix C) on which students scored a total average percent correct of 75%. Finally,
another jump is seen between Module 2 and Module 3. Looking at the chart in Appendix
D, on the third module assessment of Unit 3, the four students scored a total average
percent correct of 78.5%. This steady increase in scores was accompanied by clearer,
more confident, and more concise explanations of strategies used during the assessments,
as well as an increase in how often students referred back to the text to answer questions.

As mentioned at the conclusion of the last chapter and as can be seen in Appendix A, the
combined total percent of multiple choice reading comprehension questions answered
correctly for the first two unit assessments (the assessments taken prior to intervention)
was 59.75%. At the conclusion of the four weeks of intervention, during which students
were given explicit pre- and re-teachings of four relevant metacognitive skills, the total
percent of answers correct increased to 69.4% on the Unit 3 Assessment (Appendix E). In
addition to this, by the end of the intervention, students were visibly more confident
identifying strategies used for solving comprehension questions and were able to discuss
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
19
these strategies clearly and using terms and methods learned during the intervention
lessons.

These increases in student scores cannot be entirely contributed to the intervention. The
intervention took place across four weeks, during which students were introduced to and
engaged in reading a new novel as opposed to the short texts and chapter books that they
had previously been exposed to and familiar with. This new novel study involved
regularly pausing during reading to reflect back on what as read and refer back to the text
to find specific passages that reveal students wonderings as well as significant
moments, or moments in the text that tell you something new about a character or move
the narrative along. This routine involved many of the skills and strategies that were
being taught in my interventionincluding referring back to the text and using
questioning to aid in comprehensionand had students practicing those skills on a daily
basis. It would be impossible for this daily exposure to the novel study routine to have
had no effect on reading assessment scores. Due to this and other unavoidable
instructional variables, my findings are the result of multiple factors that I had no control
over rather than the result of my intervention alone.

Despite this, the quantitative data demonstrated in the appendices as well as the
qualitative data and observations collected from results of reading comprehension unit
and module scores suggest that the intervention was successful. I would describe
success, within the parameters of this intervention, to be any hard or observed evidence
that the students effectively internalized the strategies taught to them in which a way that
they could apply the strategies to test taking and demonstrate fuller and more assured
reading comprehension than they were able to demonstrate at the outset of the project. As
learned in investigating the work of distant colleagues, in comprehension and
understanding read text information, children develop mental models or representations
of meaning of the text ideas during the reading process. The two classes of mental models
are a text-based model, which is a mental representation of the propositions of the text
and a situation model consisting of what the text is perceived to be about (Woolley,
2011). The goal, therefore, would be to teach or present reading comprehension strategies
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
20
in such a way that students would develop both mental models and apply both in order to
find the most informed interpretation of the text.

The implications of these findings both for my own practice and for instruction at Phillips
Elementary School and all school sites are broad. A clear implication is that there is value
in providing consistent, direct, and explicit re-teachings of skills that require
understanding before application. In many schools that I have observed or taught in,
educators will teach skills once and then may never come back to them for the sake of
saving time and moving forward in the curriculum, expecting that students have learned
the skills the first time through. Although some students are able to learn in this way,
manyespecially those with learning disabilities or challengesrequire material to be
reviewed multiple times before they have assimilated those skills into their mental
schema enough to apply them. The students studied in this intervention had been taught
metacognitive skills in class before and have had teachers discuss the value of
metacognition in reading comprehension, but they clearly did not have a firm grasp on
any of them; by drilling the strategies each week and allowing them various opportunities
to practice utilizing them, the students eventually became more skilled. Despite the
improvements made during the intervention, I feel strongly that they will need continued
opportunities to re-learn and practice the strategies in order for them to maintain their
new levels of comprehension.

Another implication of my research is that students need to be presented with new and
varying ways to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding. In my students general
education class, understanding and use of metacognition is only evaluated through test
scores. No additional instruction is given in this area, and no other assignments or
opportunities to demonstrate this knowledge are generally given. By only judging the
four students understanding of metacognition and reading comprehension via their test
scores, educators would be missing the bigger picture. Although test scores did improve,
one of the more impressive demonstrations of understanding was the students ability to
articulate their use of metacognitive strategies to answer specific questions, to participate
confidently in games and activities that required their understanding and use of
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
21
metacognition, and to recognize and describe the benefit of metacognition to me during
their surveys and in my observations. Even if their assessment scores had remained
unchangedwhich, to an educator that only viewed student achievement as numbers and
percentages, would demonstrate no change in understand and thus an unsuccessful
interventionI would have still noticed improvements simply by allowing the students to
show me what they have learned in other ways.

One of the more controversial implications that I would argue after completing this
intervention is the value of pull out special education programs. Phillips Elementary
School is a full inclusion school; learning support is generally only supplied through a
push in model in which the special education teachers provide help and guidance within
the general education teachers classroom. This implication is controversial in that many
people and educators support the full inclusion model and argue against students being
pulled from their classrooms to receive different support or be taught different lessons
under any circumstances. Clearly, however, the students involved in this intervention
benefited from being pulled from their regular instruction and being taught different
material. Their grades in other subject areas did not suffer, social interactions did not
suffer, and scores on reading exams and assessments improved dramatically. I would
consider these patterns and the data collected to be evidence for an argument against full
inclusion and the push in special education model.

Based on the data analysis and discussion of patterns that emerged, I do feel that
additional data sources that might have been helpful in developing a better and richer
intervention plan. As discussed in chapter one, there was not an abundance of recent and
relevant academic sources on metacognition and reading comprehension. I feel that if I
had been able to reference past similar studies I could have found suggestions for other
forms of data collection that may have led to more conclusive results. Additionally, if
there had been more resources available on specifically how teaching metacognitive
strategies affects the mental models that students form to comprehend text I could have
focused my lessons specifically on engaging those processes.

Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
22
If this intervention were to be repeated in the future with a new group of students, there
are several changes that I would make. Firstly, I would have surveyed the students ideas
on what is metacognition, what is reading comprehension, when it is important to refer
back to text, and other relevant questions before introducing the project plan to them and
having our first lesson. I feel that if I had taken more thorough baseline qualitative data
prior to the start of the intervention I would have had a much clearer idea of the progress
of their understanding. In another effort to clarify the meaning and implications of the
results of the intervention, I would have liked the opportunity to repeat the intervention
with learning support students as well as students already succeeding in the general
education curriculum in order to see if explicit teaching of metacognitive skills for
reading comprehension would be of benefit for all students, not just those in special
education. By including students already achieving average or above average scores and
grades in reading in the intervention and finding that their test scores increased as well, it
would be sure proof of the importance of providing more instruction and context for
metacognition in reading comprehension. Similarly, it might have been interesting and
beneficial to observe the multiple choice reading comprehension scores of students not
involved in the intervention to act as a control group. With more conscientious planning
of variables in this study, perhaps it would be possible to say with more certainty that the
outcomes conclusively demonstrated that the increases in scores were the direct result of
the intervention.

The most notable alteration that I would make to my data collection would be to chart
and pay more attention to student scores on short-answer questions as well as student
scores for the multiple-choice questions. My initial decision to only use multiple choice
reading comprehension questions in my quantitative data was based mostly on the
assumption that it would be the simplest way to see patterns emerge in the student scores;
additionally, using multiple choice questions assured that student answers could only be
scored as objectively correct or objectively incorrect with no opportunities for grading
bias to come into play as it would in an essay. Looking only at the multiple choice
questions did make it easy to chart and observe patterns of achievement; however, it
became more and more apparent throughout the intervention that the most telling
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
23
demonstrations of growth in knowledge were students responses to the short-answer and
essay questions. There are many variables to correctly answering a multiple-choice
question including whereas answering short-answer questions only involve a personal
and practical application of knowledge. Furthermore, because short-answer questions are
graded on a scaleresponses often ranging from Below Basic (0) to either Proficient (3)
or even Advanced (4)even if a student responded incorrectly, they could receive credit
for successfully using metacognition to validate their claim. Another benefit to using
questions that are put in the students own words and graded on a scale is that it would be
clearer to see individual improvements in the ability to articulate responses using the
strategies that they learned.

In conclusion, the implemented intervention not only contributed to an increase in
average student scores, but there was a clear increase in understanding of the importance
of referring back to the text to answer reading comprehension related questions and of
utilizing metacognitive skills during reading. The evidence that was collected through
hard data and observations demonstrates that there is benefit to explicit re-teaching of
skills and to explicitly learning proper utilization of metacognitive skills and self-
reflection during reading. All metacognitive skills and strategies are interrelated and the
main objective in applying these skills is the ability to go back into the text to substantiate
ideasan ability that students will demonstrate much more confidently if provided ample
explicit instruction and opportunities for practice.
Kathryn Bouvy Spring, 2014 Appendix A
24

Works Cited

Garner, R. (1986). Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Norwood, NJ, USA:
Ablex.

Pittsburgh Phillips K-5 PSSA Data. (2014). Retrieved February 2014, from Discover
Pittsburgh Public Schools: www.discoverpps.org

Reichard, A. C., & Mokhtari, K. (2002). Assessing Students' Metacognitive Awareness
of Reading Strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology , 94 (2), 249-259.

State Assessment System. (2014). Retrieved Februaru 9, 2014, from Pennsylvania
Department of Education: www.portal.state.pa.us

Woolley, G. (2011). Reading Comprehension: Assisting Children with Learning
Difficulties. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Kathryn Bouvy Appendix A
25

Reading Unit Assessment Scores for Each Question Type
Multiple Choice and Open Ended

D.H. A.J. K.R. C.Y.
Descriptor Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2
Key Ideas and Details
in Literature
33.3% 100.0% 33.3% 25.0% 33.3% 75.0% 0.0% 50.0%
Key Ideas and Details
in Informational Texts
83.3% 100.0% 50.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0%
Key Ideas and Details
in Informational Texts
100.0% 25.0% 60.0% 25.0% 60.0% 25.0% 40.0% 75.0%
Key Ideas and Details
in Informational Texts
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 50.0% 100.0%
Examine a Topic and
Convey Ideas
55.0% 25.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Draw Evidence from
Literary or
Informational Texts
66.7% 33.3% 33.3% 66.7%
Key Ideas and Details
in Literature
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Key Ideas and Details
in Literature
100.0% 33.3% 100.0% 100.0%
Integration of
Knowledge and Ideas
100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%
Text Types and
Purposes
65.0% 50.0% 60.0% 60.0%
TOTAL 56.4% 86.3% 50.3% 52.1% 48.9% 70.0% 47.2% 66.9%

Combined Total Average Percent Correct: 59.75%


Kathryn Bouvy Appendix B
26
Data Collection for Module Test Grade 4 Unit 3 Module 1

Question
#1
Question
#2
Question
#3
Question
#4
Question
#5
Question
#6
Question
#7
Question
#8
Question
#9
Question
#10
Question
#11
TOTAL
Directions:
First, write each
students name in a box
under the student
section. While checking
each students Module
test, mark an x in the
box under every
incorrect answer across
from that students
name. Write the number
out of 3 the student
received for the open
ended questions.
Finally, total the test.




Students
C
o
m
p
a
r
e

a
n
d

C
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
:


E
0
4
.
B

C
.
2
.
1
.
2
-

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
e

a
n
d

C
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
:


E
0
4
.
B

C
.
2
.
1
.
2
-

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
e

a
n
d

C
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
:


E
0
4
.
B

C
.
2
.
1
.
2
-

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
.


M
a
i
n

I
d
e
a

a
n
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
:



E
0
4
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a


t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.


M
a
i
n

I
d
e
a

a
n
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
:



E
0
4
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a


t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.


V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

i
n

C
o
n
t
e
x
t
:


E
0
4
.
B

V
.
4
.
1
.
1
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e

m
e
a
n
i
n
g

o
f

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

p
h
r
a
s
e
s

a
s

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

u
s
e
d

i
n

g
r
a
d
e

l
e
v
e
l

t
e
x
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
v
e

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
.

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

i
n

C
o
n
t
e
x
t
:


E
0
4
.
B

V
.
4
.
1
.
1
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e

m
e
a
n
i
n
g

o
f

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

p
h
r
a
s
e
s

a
s

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

u
s
e
d

i
n

g
r
a
d
e

l
e
v
e
l

t
e
x
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
v
e

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
.

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
:

W
o
r
d

P
a
r
t
s
:


E
0
4
.
B

V
.
4
.
1
.
1
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e

m
e
a
n
i
n
g

o
f

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

p
h
r
a
s
e
s

a
s

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

u
s
e
d

i
n

g
r
a
d
e

l
e
v
e
l

t
e
x
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
v
e

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
.


V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
:

W
o
r
d

P
a
r
t
s
:


E
0
4
.
B

V
.
4
.
1
.
1
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e

m
e
a
n
i
n
g

o
f

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

p
h
r
a
s
e
s

a
s

t
h
e
y

a
r
e

u
s
e
d

i
n

g
r
a
d
e

l
e
v
e
l

t
e
x
t
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
v
e

l
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
.


S
u
m
m
a
r
y
:


E
0
4
.
B

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

t
h
e

m
a
i
n

i
d
e
a

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

a
n
d

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

h
o
w

i
t

i
s

s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d

b
y

k
e
y

d
e
t
a
i
l
s
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
e

a
n
d

C
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
:


E
0
4
.
B

C
.
2
.
1
.
2
-

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.

Out of 15
And
Out of 5

D.H. X 2 /3 1 /3 11/15
4 / 5
A.J. X 1 /3 0 /3 9/15
4 / 5
K.R. X X X 3 /3 1 /3 10/15
3 / 5
C.Y. X X X 3 /3 1 /3 10/15
3 / 5

Total Average Percent Correct: 70.0%

Kathryn Bouvy Appendix C
27
Data Collection for Module Test Grade 4 Unit 3 Module 2

Question
#1
Question
#2
Question
#3
Question
#4
Question
#5
Question
#6
Question
#7
Question
#8
Question
#9
Question
#10
Question
#11
Question
#12
TOTAL
Directions:
First, write each
students name in a box
under the student
section. While checking
each students Module
test, mark an x in the
box under every
incorrect answer across
from that students
name. Write the number
out of 3 the student
received for the open
ended questions.
Finally, total the test.




Students
M
a
k
i
n
g

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

M
a
k
i
n
g

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

M
a
k
i
n
g

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

M
a
k
i
n
g

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,

S
e
t
t
i
n
g
,

P
l
o
t
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
:


E
0
4
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
-
B
a
s
e

W
o
r
d
s
:


E
0
3
.
A

V
.
4
.
1
.
1
-

A
c
q
u
i
r
e

a
n
d

u
s
e

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

g
r
a
d
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
,

a
n
d

d
o
m
a
i
n

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

p
h
r
a
s
e
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
o
s
e

t
h
a
t

s
i
g
n
a
l

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
.

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y
-
B
a
s
e

W
o
r
d
s
:


E
0
4
.
A

V
.
4
.
1
.
1
-

A
c
q
u
i
r
e

a
n
d

u
s
e

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

g
r
a
d
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
,

a
n
d

d
o
m
a
i
n

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

p
h
r
a
s
e
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
o
s
e

t
h
a
t

s
i
g
n
a
l

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
.

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

i
n

C
o
n
t
e
x
t
:


E
0
4
.
A

V
.
4
.
1
.
1
-

A
c
q
u
i
r
e

a
n
d

u
s
e

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

g
r
a
d
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
,

a
n
d

d
o
m
a
i
n

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

p
h
r
a
s
e
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
o
s
e

t
h
a
t

s
i
g
n
a
l

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
.

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

i
n

C
o
n
t
e
x
t
:


E
0
4
.
A

V
.
4
.
1
.
1
-

A
c
q
u
i
r
e

a
n
d

u
s
e

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

g
r
a
d
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
,

a
n
d

d
o
m
a
i
n

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

p
h
r
a
s
e
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
o
s
e

t
h
a
t

s
i
g
n
a
l

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
:


E
0
4
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

M
a
k
i
n
g

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

Out of 16
and
Out of 6

D.H. X X X X 3/3 3/3 12/ 16
4 / 6
A.J. X X 2/3 2/3 12/ 16
5 / 6
K.R. X X 2/3 3/3 13/ 16
5 / 6
C.Y. X X 3/3 2/3 13/ 16
4 / 6

Total Average Percent Correct: 75.0%
Kathryn Bouvy Appendix D
28
Data Collection for Module Test Grade 4 Unit 3 Module 3
Question
#1
Question
#2
Question
#3
Question
#4
Question
#5
Question
#6
Question
#7
Question
#8
Question
#9
Question
#10
TOTAL
Directions:
First, write each
students name in a box
under the student
section. While checking
each students Module
test, mark an x in the
box under every
incorrect answer across
from that students
name. Write the number
out of 3 the student
received for the open-
ended questions.
Finally, total the test.






Students
M
a
k
i
n
g

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

t
e
x
t
u
a
l

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

b
y

q
u
o
t
i
n
g

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

t
o

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

M
a
k
i
n
g

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
:



E

0
4
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

t
e
x
t
u
a
l

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e

b
y

q
u
o
t
i
n
g

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

t
o

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,

S
e
t
t
i
n
g
,

P
l
o
t
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,

S
e
t
t
i
n
g
,

P
l
o
t
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,

S
e
t
t
i
n
g
,

P
l
o
t
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,

S
e
t
t
i
n
g
,

P
l
o
t
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,

S
e
t
t
i
n
g
,

P
l
o
t
:



E

0
4
.
A
-
K
1
.
1
.
1
-

C
i
t
e

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

w
h
a
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

s
a
y
s

e
x
p
l
i
c
i
t
l
y

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
.

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

i
n

C
o
n
t
e
x
t
:


E
0
4
.
A

V
.
4
.
1
.
1
-

A
c
q
u
i
r
e

a
n
d

u
s
e

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

g
r
a
d
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
,

a
n
d

d
o
m
a
i
n

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

p
h
r
a
s
e
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
o
s
e

t
h
a
t

s
i
g
n
a
l

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
.

V
o
c
a
b
u
l
a
r
y

i
n

C
o
n
t
e
x
t
:


E
0
4
.
A

V
.
4
.
1
.
1
-

A
c
q
u
i
r
e

a
n
d

u
s
e

a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
l
y

g
r
a
d
e

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

c
o
n
v
e
r
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,

g
e
n
e
r
a
l

a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
,

a
n
d

d
o
m
a
i
n

s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c

w
o
r
d
s

a
n
d

p
h
r
a
s
e
s
,

i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g

t
h
o
s
e

t
h
a
t

s
i
g
n
a
l

s
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
s
.

S
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
:


E
0
4
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

Out of 12
and
Out of 7
(Modified
Total)

D.H. X X X 3 /3 9 / 12
4 / 7
A.J. X X 1 /3 8 / 12
6 / 7
K.R. X 2 /3 10 / 12
6 / 7
C.Y. X X 0 /3 7 / 12
6 / 7

Total Average Percent Correct: 78.5%
Kathryn Bouvy Appendix E
29
Data Collection for Unit Test Grade 4 Unit 3 Assessment


Test Questions
#1 #2 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #13 #14 #15 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #27 #28




M
a
i
n

I
d
e
a

a
n
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
:


E
0
4
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
:

E
0
4
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

M
a
i
n

I
d
e
a

a
n
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
:


E
0
4
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

M
a
i
n

I
d
e
a

a
n
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
:


E
0
4
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

M
a
i
n

I
d
e
a

a
n
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
:


E
0
4
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,

S
e
t
t
i
n
g
,

P
l
o
t
:

E
0
3
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
1
-

A
s
k

a
n
d

a
n
s
w
e
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t
,

r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g

t
o

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,

S
e
t
t
i
n
g
,

P
l
o
t
:

E
0
3
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
1
-

A
s
k

a
n
d

a
n
s
w
e
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t
,

r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g

t
o

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.

M
a
i
n

I
d
e
a

a
n
d

D
e
t
a
i
l
s
:


E
0
4
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2
-

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
:

E
0
4
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
,

S
e
t
t
i
n
g
,

P
l
o
t
:

E
0
3
.
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
1
-

A
s
k

a
n
d

a
n
s
w
e
r

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

t
e
x
t

a
n
d

m
a
k
e

i
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s

f
r
o
m

t
e
x
t
,

r
e
f
e
r
r
i
n
g

t
o

t
e
x
t

t
o

s
u
p
p
o
r
t

r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
.

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
:

E
0
4
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

I
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
:

E
0
4
A

K
.
1
.
1
.
2

D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e

a

t
h
e
m
e

o
f

a

t
e
x
t

f
r
o
m

d
e
t
a
i
l
s

i
n

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
;

s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e

t
h
e

t
e
x
t
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
e

a
n
d

C
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
:

E
0
4
.
B

C
.
2
.
1
.
2
-

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
e

a
n
d

C
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
:

E
0
4
.
B

C
.
2
.
1
.
2
-

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
e

a
n
d

C
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
:

E
0
4
.
B

C
.
2
.
1
.
2
-

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.

C
o
m
p
a
r
e

a
n
d

C
o
n
t
r
a
s
t
:

E
0
4
.
B

C
.
2
.
1
.
2
-

U
s
e

t
e
x
t

s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e

t
o

I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
e
.
g
.
,

c
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
,

c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
,

c
a
u
s
e
/
e
f
f
e
c
t
,

p
r
o
b
l
e
m
/
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
.

T
e
x
t

F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
:

E
0
4
.
B

C
.
2
.
1
.
3
-


I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

a

t
e
x
t

o
r

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

s
o
u
r
c
e

a
n
d

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

h
o
w

t
h
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s

t
o

a
n

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

o
f

t
e
x
t

i
n

w
h
i
c
h

i
t

a
p
p
e
a
r
s
.

T
e
x
t

F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
:

E
0
4
.
B

C
.
2
.
1
.
3
-


I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

w
i
t
h
i
n

a

t
e
x
t

o
r

d
i
g
i
t
a
l

s
o
u
r
c
e

a
n
d

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

h
o
w

t
h
e

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s

t
o

a
n

u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

o
f

t
e
x
t

i
n

w
h
i
c
h

i
t

a
p
p
e
a
r
s
.


D.H. X X X X X 13/18
A.J. X X X X X X X 11/18
K.R. X X X X X 13/18
C.Y. X X X X X 13/18

Total Average Percent Correct: 69.4%