Part 1- Action Plan

Describe at least three data sources and the expected benchmark for each (i.e., how are
students expected to perform for grade level expectations).
Data Source 1: iReady testing is based off of reading and tests the students’ ability in different
skill areas. iReady scores help teachers design individualized instruction that best meets the
needs of all students. The on-grade level benchmark for fourth grade students is 557-629.
Data Source 2: VLT- The VLT is used to evaluate student learning, determine effectiveness of
classroom instruction, communicate the level of learning for each standard, and determine
student’s needs for remediation. The benchmark for this assessment was 70%.
Data Source 3: Ready Reading Unit 1 Interim Assessment- this assessment is an end of unit
assessment that students take from their Ready Reading books; it assessed students on skills
such as finding main idea and details, understanding historical, technical, and scientific texts,
summarizing informational texts, and supporting inferences about informational texts. The
benchmark for this assessment was 70%.

Describe each child’s strengths and weaknesses based on data described in section a. How did
students perform on each of the data sources listed above? What are each student’s
strengths and weaknesses based on the data collected above? One student must be an ELL.
Nolan
iReady
Grade 1 for comprehension for informational text, grade 3 for comprehension of literature,
grade 3 for vocabulary, grade 3 for phonics, tested out of high frequency words and
phonological awareness. Overall, grade 2.
VLT
77 %
Ready Reading
65%

According to the iReady assessment, Nolan’s strengths include high frequency words and
phonological awareness. His weaknesses include comprehension for informational text (grade
1) and literature (grade 3), vocabulary, and phonics. He received a satisfactory score for the
VLT, which tested him on the standards taught during the first nine weeks: main idea and
details, vocabulary, supporting evidence, etc. He scored below the benchmark for the Ready
Reading assessment, which tested him on main idea and details, understanding different types
of text, summarizing informational texts, and supporting inferences about informational text.

Nicole (ELL)
iReady
Grade 3 for comprehension for informational text, grade 2 for comprehension of literature,
grade 1 for vocabulary, tested out of high frequency words and phonological awareness, grade
3 for phonics. Overall, grade 3.
VLT
58%
Ready Reading
59%

According to the iReady assessment, Nicole’s strengths include high frequency words and
phonological awareness. Her weaknesses include comprehension of informational text and
literature and vocabulary. She did not receive a satisfactory score in her VLT and she scored
below the benchmark for the Ready Reading assessment.

Daniel
iReady
Grade 3 for comprehension for informational text, grade 3 for comprehension of literature,
grade 3 for vocabulary, tested out of high frequency words, phonics, and phonological
awareness. Overall grade 3.
VLT
50%
Ready Reading
59%

According to the iReady assessment, Daniel’s strengths include high frequency words, phonics,
and phonological awareness. His weaknesses include comprehension for informational text and
literature and vocabulary. He did not receive a satisfactory score in his VLT and he scored below
the benchmark for the Ready Reading assessment.

Brynden
iReady
Grade 3 for comprehension of informational text and literature, grade 3 for vocabulary, tested
out of high frequency words, phonics, and phonological awareness. Overall, grade 3.
VLT
50%
Ready Reading
59%

According to the iReady assessment, Brynden’s strengths include high frequency words,
phonics, and phonological awareness. His weaknesses include comprehension of informational
text and literature and vocabulary. He did not receive a satisfactory score on his VLT and he
scored below the benchmark for the Ready Reading assessment.

Describe specific skills to be addressed during intervention period (based on data sources
described above; targeted skills must match assessment data collected). What is your
intervention goal for each student (be specific here)?
By looking at their results, I can see that they all struggle in the same areas but are not all at the
same level. Their iReady results tell me that they all have difficulty with comprehension of
informational text and literature and vocabulary. The VLT is based off of standards that were
taught during the first nine weeks and asked the students questions regarding vocabulary,
comprehension, and main idea and details. I would like to focus on vocabulary development
since being able to understand vocabulary is a big part of comprehension. Students cannot
understand what they read if they are having trouble with understanding vocabulary.
Nolan- Nolan’s intervention goal is to show improvement with the different progress
monitoring tools over time. During the weekly vocabulary quizzes, I would like to see
improvement for each quiz. He should be receiving a satisfactory score of at least 70% by the
end of the intervention period.
Nicole- Nicole’s intervention goal is to reach at least 70% in vocabulary achievement by the end
of the intervention period. This will be tested through the vocabulary quizzes. She will receive
accommodations where needed and will hopefully be able to increase her vocabulary
achievement from first grade.
Daniel- Daniel’s intervention goal is to reach at least 75% in vocabulary achievement. He placed
at the third-grade level for vocabulary on iReady but scored a 50% on the VLT.
Brynden- Brynden’s intervention goal, similar to Daniel, is to reach at least 65% achievement in
vocabulary. He also placed at the third-grade level for vocabulary on iReady but scored a 50%
on the VLT.

Describe the intervention schedule (how often you will meet, how long, etc.)
I will meet with my group of students at least two times a week but will attempt three times
depending on time. We will meet in the mornings during our regular intervention schedule
from about 8:00-8:30.

Describe specific activities to be used during intervention period that address the skills
identified. How will activities impact the targeted skills? How will you address and teach the
targeted skill(s)?
 I will work on vocabulary development by teaching different vocabulary development
strategies, such as working with context clues. We have already worked with context
clues a little bit in class and this group of students had a lot of difficulty with the
concept. I want to give them the chance to find unfamiliar words in context and be able
to figure out the meaning.
 I will use semantic maps to develop vocabulary. With these maps, the students will be
working with words, definitions, context, synonyms and antonyms. The semantic maps
will allow them to not only learn the words, but practice using the words appropriately
and identify the different aspects of the word and its identifiable traits.
 I like the idea of using the game “making choices” to help with vocabulary development.
With this game, students are instructed to say the word when the situation applies to
the word or remaining silent if it does not. For example, “say radiant if one of these
things would make a person look or feel radiant: winning a million dollars, winning a
gold medal, cleaning your room, etc.”
 With the sorting hat activity, students are asked to sort words into categories. I could
either give them the categories to sort the words into or have them create their own
categories based off of the words they are given.
 With word pairs, students are given a pair of words and they must evaluate whether the
words are the same, opposite, go together, or are unrelated.
  My CT also has different types of task cards where the students look at a card and
record answers/information on a recording sheet. These could include giving the
students definitions and having them write what the word is on the recording sheet, or
could be matching, working with synonyms or antonyms. This activity could be used as
the progress monitoring tool where I will give the students at least five minutes each
week to work on word matching.

The activities will impact the targeted skills because they will be giving the students direct
practice with vocabulary development and will allow them to see their progress immediately.
Each activity has a different purpose and gives students the practice with vocabulary
development in different ways. I want the students to be able to use vocabulary by recognizing
it in context, understanding synonyms and antonyms, and being able to determine definitions
by understanding all of those components.

Describe the progress monitoring tools to be used during intervention period. How often will
the progress monitoring tools be used? How do the assessment tools assess the target
skill(s)?
To monitor progress over time, I will develop quizzes to test their vocabulary knowledge based
off of what we worked on for that time period. I will keep records of their results during the
intervention period and determine next steps based off of results. I will administer these
quizzes every two weeks, a total of 3 times.
I will also give them about five minutes of vocabulary matching probes each week, at least
once. This will give them time each week to work on their vocabulary development.
I would like to incorporate a small assessment to administer half-way through the intervention
period that will test the students on their ability to understand vocabulary in a text. This will
give them practice with vocabulary and comprehension in informational text.
These tools will directly assess their progress in vocabulary development and show me what
they have learned and still need to work on. I am hoping that these monitoring tools will help
the students see their progress over time and want to continue developing their vocabulary and
will help me design a successful intervention period.

Part 2- Summary and Reflection

Intervention Activities
I did my best to meet with my students twice a week on Mondays and Tuesdays which included
the instruction, and once on Friday to have them take the weekly assessment. Each session was
30-minutes long and took place in the beginning of the day from 8:00-8:30.

Week 1
March 4th
For the first day of the intervention plan, I printed out a list of common 4 th grade vocabulary
words and gave a copy to each student. I read the words aloud and had them highlight the
word if they have never heard of the word before, underline it if they have heard it but do not
know what it means, and leave it blank if they know the word. I used this list to determine
which words to use as vocabulary words for the next few weeks of intervention.
March 5th
I printed out worksheets on prefixes and suffixes to give the students some extra practice
before moving on with the vocabulary instruction. They completed one worksheet on prefixes
and one on suffixes. I went over the instructions and modeled what my expectations were for
the worksheet and then they worked independently to complete the worksheet. When they
were all done, we went over the answers and they marked their work.

Week 2
March 25th
The first day of the week consisted of an introduction to the vocabulary words for the week.
The students used their technology to review ten new vocabulary words using Quizlet. First, we
went over the words together as a group using the flashcards and then they navigated through
the different activities on Quizlet individually. These activities included memory, quizzes, and
games to improve their knowledge of the vocabulary and give them the repetition needed
when learning new words.
March 26th
In order to provide opportunities for practice with the vocabulary words, the students
completed semantic maps. Typically, the intervention group has four students, but one student
did not show up, so each student had three words to complete semantic maps on and I
modeled an example with one of the words. With the semantic maps, the students wrote the
vocabulary word in the center of the circle, came up with examples of synonyms and antonyms,
drew a picture of the word, wrote the definition of the word, and used the word in a sentence.
Once everyone was done with their semantic maps, we shared them with the group. I made
copies of each students’ maps and sent them home with the students to examine. Using
semantic maps helps with vocabulary development because it requires the students to use the
word in different ways, which increases their understanding of the word and its meaning.
March 29th
The last day of the week for interventions included having the students complete a quick
formative quiz on the vocabulary words for the week. This quiz was a ten-question matching
quiz where the students had to match the vocabulary word to the correct definition.

Week 3
April 1st
The first day of the week consisted of an introduction to the vocabulary words for the week.
The students used their technology to review ten new vocabulary words using Quizlet. First, we
went over the words together as a group using the flashcards and then they navigated through
the different activities on Quizlet individually. These activities included memory, quizzes, and
games to improve their knowledge of the vocabulary and give them the repetition needed
when learning new words.
April 2nd
I attempted to do the game “making choices” where the students would be told to say the
word “generous” when a given situation relates to the word or stay silent if it does not, such as
“helping a neighbor with a chore, lending money to a friend, taking candy from a baby, etc.” We
attempted to play the game for about 5 minutes before I changed the activity because they
were not responding well to the activity. Instead of the game, I had the students write
sentences using the vocabulary words. The students wrote one sentence for each word and had
to use it correctly. This activity helps with vocabulary development because it allows the
students to practice using the word in different context and teaches them to use the word
correctly.
April 5th
The last day of the week for interventions included having the students complete a quick
formative quiz on the vocabulary words for the week. This quiz was a ten-question fill-in-the-
blank quiz where the students were given the definition and had to use the correct vocabulary
word to fill in the blank.

Week 4
April 8th
The first day of the week consisted of an introduction to the vocabulary words for the week.
The students used their technology to review ten new vocabulary words using Quizlet. First, we
went over the words together as a group using the flashcards and then they navigated through
the different activities on Quizlet individually. These activities included memory, quizzes, and
games to improve their knowledge of the vocabulary and give them the repetition needed
when learning new words.
April 9th
The students completed an activity that required them to identify the meanings of the new
vocabulary words when given in a sentence. The students each received a paper with ten
sentences including one vocabulary word each. They were required to read through the
sentences and identify the meanings of their vocabulary words by looking at the context. This
activity is helpful for vocabulary development because the students learn and practice how to
identify unfamiliar words in the context they are in.
April 12th
The last day of the week for interventions included having the students complete a quick
formative quiz on the vocabulary words for the week. This quiz was a ten-question matching
quiz where the students had to match the vocabulary word to the correct definition.

Week 5
April 15th
The first day of the week consisted of an introduction to the vocabulary words for the week.
The students used their technology to review ten new vocabulary words using Quizlet. First, we
went over the words together as a group using the flashcards and then they navigated through
the different activities on Quizlet individually. These activities included memory, quizzes, and
games to improve their knowledge of the vocabulary and give them the repetition needed
when learning new words.
April 16th
For the last week of interventions, we did a task card activity where the students got to play
BINGO with the vocabulary words and definitions. I altered a task card activity where the
different cards were either definitions, synonyms or antonyms of a vocabulary word and their
BINGO boards had all of the vocabulary words from the last few weeks on it (30 words). I
decided to include all words that have been introduced and worked with to increase the length
and difficulty of the game. Playing BINGO helps with vocabulary development because it
requires the students to identify the correct vocabulary word when given the definition,
synonyms, or antonyms in order to progress in the game (or win). The winners received a
lollipop.
April 19th
The last day of the week for interventions included having the students complete a quick
formative quiz on the vocabulary words for the week. This quiz was a ten-question fill-in-the-
blank quiz where the students were given the definition and had to use the correct vocabulary
word to fill in the blank.

Description of Results
Before I started interventions, I administered a pre-test to each student. The pre-test included
all 40 words that the students were going to be working with over the next few weeks and the
students matched the definition to the correct word. At the end of interventions, the students
took the same test again to see how much they progressed.

Brynden
Pre: 13/40- 33%
Post: 22/40- 55%
The results show that Brynden showed progress from is pre-assessment to his post-assessment;
however, he did not achieve his goal of receiving a 65% on the post-assessment. He showed an
increase of nine points (22%) on the post-assessment and stayed consistent with his scores on
the weekly assessments.

Nicole
Pre: 8/40- 20%
Post: 30/40- 75%
The results show that Nicole’s assessment scores increased by 22 points (55%) from pre-to-
post. Her original goal was to achieve a 70% on the post-assessment and she exceeded her goal
by 5%.

Daniel
Pre: 12/40- 30%
Post: 36/40- 90%
The results show that Daniel’s assessment scores increased by 24 points (60%) from pre-to-
post. His original goal was to achieve a 75% on the post-assessment and he was able to achieve
a 90%, which is better than the goal I set for him.

Nolan
Pre: 11/40- 28%
Post: 32/40- 80%
The results show the Nolan’s assessment scores increased by 21 points (52%) from pre-to-post.
His original goal was to achieve a 70% on the post-assessment, and he received an 80%.

The table below shows the pre- and post- assessment results as well as their weekly assessment
results. If the post-test score is in green, the student reached their goal; if it is in red, the
student did not reach their goal.

Pre-Test March 15th March 29th April 5th April 12th Post-Test
Brynden 13/40 ABSENT 3/10 5/10 5/10 22/40
Nicole 8/40 9/10 8/10 10/10 7/10 30/40
Nolan 12/40 7/10 8/10 8/10 7/10 36/40
Daniel 11/40 8/10 7/10 10/10 8/10 32/40

The students all improved their assessment scores from pre-to-post, but generally stayed
consistent with their weekly assessment and did not show any significant patterns. During the
intervention period, they improved as we progressed through each week because they were
getting used to the instruction and were more engaged as we continued with the work. Their
behaviors during intervention increased more each week and it seemed like they were more
confident in their work and more excited to learn the vocabulary/show me what they learned.

Overall Summary and Recommendations

I started this reading project hopeful and excited to help my four students develop their
vocabulary skills more in preparation for FSA Reading. I had a good start with planning and
preparing for the days that I would do interventions, but the schedule created did not go as
planned because days were often moved around or changed for my CT’s or the students were
not present. As a result, I did not get to implement the full six weeks of interventions. The
results of the interventions tell me that growth occurred, but I was hopeful that each student
would reach their goal, which was not the case. I ended up doing different activities than I had
originally planned for the intervention plan due to the other activities not working as well as I
thought or the students not responding to the activities, but it worked out in the end.

Nolan- Nolan has the potential to do great work, but often moves too fast or distracts himself
by joking around too much or not taking things seriously.
Future Recommendations: to continue working on developing vocabulary through context clues
and practice using vocabulary words in different ways. Nolan likes to speed through his work or
ask questions before reading directions, which hurts his grades. It would help him to have a
weekly vocabulary list to study and work with throughout the week (or two) because it would
develop his vocabulary more and would hopefully put him at his grade level in vocabulary.

Brynden- Brynden is a student who never wants to do any work and is never motivated to do
anything; therefore, it is extremely difficult to work with him and successfully teach him. I have
tried to interest him in the instruction by relating topics to what he likes and have tried to
motivate him more by praising him when he does something well. As well as being unmotivated
at all times, he rarely comes to school on time and often missed interventions because of it.
Future Recommendations: Brynden needs more support with his learning because he has the
potential to do great work but needs to be guided in order to do so. During my time with him in
interventions, I noticed how much better he responds when he is receiving guidance. His
handwriting is nearly impossible to read and there were times where I had to sit down with him
and have him explain his answers and why he chose them. When he was able to sit and talk
with me instead of being required to write, he showed more achievement.

Daniel- Daniel tries really hard to complete his work and do everything correctly, but
sometimes just falls short. He is always eager to answer my questions and give his input.
Future Recommendations: Daniel loves answering questions and has too many “Aha!”
moments in a day to count on two hands, but often moves too fast with his work or guesses
when he does not understand something. He progressed tremendously throughout the
intervention period and always asked me questions for clarification. My future
recommendations for Daniel would be to provide him with more one-on-one or small group
instruction because he responds better in smaller groups or individually.

Nicole- Nicole is my ELL and typically does well in class, but when it comes to vocabulary, she
struggles a little more than her classmates. She is able to focus on what she needs to complete
and self-advocates by telling me when she wants me to read something to her or help her.
Future Recommendations: Nicole is my ELL student and she performs very well in class. I saw
her open up more and become more comfortable during the intervention plan and I noticed
when she is more engaged and participates in the discussion, she performs better. Being an
English language learner, she is already at a slight disadvantage compared to her classmates,
but always keeps up with her class in terms of the workload. I was actually surprised to see that
she tested at a first-grade level in vocabulary because of how well she does in class, but once I
started interventions, I understood why. She has a hard time identifying definitions and
vocabulary when she does not have context clues to help her figure out the words. My future
recommendations for Nicole would be to continue working on vocabulary development by
utilizing different activities and strategies because she really needs to have those basic
vocabulary skills in order to achieve in other areas.

Reflection
I had difficulty planning this intervention plan and being able to stick with it due to changes in
the schedule. I was only able to implement interventions on Monday and Tuesday mornings
and give progress monitoring assessments on Friday mornings. Sometimes my intervention
schedules would be messed up because one of my CT’s needed some of the students for her
interventions and other times, we did not get the chance to do interventions because we had to
complete other assignments or lessons. Another aspect of the project that I found difficult was
the data collection in the beginning because I only had enough information from their VLT
assessments that could be used to help me plan my intervention schedule. I used their scores
from iReady and Ready Reading assessments; however, I could only access their scores, not a
detailed review of their achievement. My students were also not always all present, or came
late, which made it harder to keep a consistent schedule for everyone. Overall, I did the best I
could with what I had and tried to make sure that the students were receiving enough
instruction to help them, but I do not think I succeeded as much as I would have liked to with
this project. I do think it was a successful intervention because results show that each student
improved from the beginning to the end, but I wish it could have blended in more with what we
were doing in class. I did not end up doing all of the activities that I had originally planned
because the students did not understand them, or I decided not to based on their reactions to
the activities.

If I were to do this reading intervention again, I would try to include more activities that the
students were interested in and would plan more time for interventions. The size of my group
was small enough, but I think the interventions would have worked better if I could have done
them later in the day. My students often came late to school or needed to finish writing in their
planners before coming to interventions and a lot of time was lost. I wish I would have
connected interventions more to what we were doing during whole group and blended the
instruction a little more. This reading project helped me become a better teacher and learn
how to teach vocabulary skills and instruction. At the end of the interventions, I asked the
students to tell me how they felt about it and whether it was helpful or not. Most of the
students said that they found it helpful, but sometimes it was boring, and they could have done
the work individually at their seats. They all said that they enjoyed using their technology to
practice working with the vocabulary words and studying them. Overall, I enjoyed the project
and learned a lot about what it takes to plan an intervention schedule and activities.