laurenwilliamsportfolio.weebly.comlaurenwilliamsportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/...studen… ·...

Running head: STUDENT CASE STUDY 1

Signature Assignment: Student Case Study

Lauren Williams

RDG 532: Language and Literacy 2

Arizona State University

Spring 2012

Juan

Age 14

DOB: 10/12/1997

Grade 8

STUDENT CASE STUDY 2

Introduction

Juan is a 14-year-old male in grade 8. He is classified as an English language learner

(ELL), despite being proficient in most areas of the Arizona English Language Learner

Assessment (AZELLA). While he still ranks as “Intermediate” in listening and in

comprehension, his strong scores in all other areas, such as speaking, writing, and reading

push him just far enough over the line as to be considered proficient, but still an ELL. Juan’s

ease of oral communication quickly deceives those he communicates with, and he

repeatedly scores at or above the 50th percentile on the Arizona Instrument to Measure

Standards (AIMS) reading strand (see Appendix A). His one detraction falls in the

comprehension of informational texts, and for this reason, he has yet to pass the reading

assessment of the AIMS. His writing scores are similarly low, in that he consistently

receives half the points or less for each writing trait (see Appendix B). Juan struggles most

with voice, word choice, and sentence fluency. Juan’s school frequently grades him as “Falls

Below,” with smatterings of “Approaches” and “Needs Improvement” throughout his

reading and writing grades (see Appendix C). His baseline test similarly placed him in the

initial category of “Falls Far Below” and increased him to “Approaches” for the last two

quarters (see Appendix D), which signifies Juan’s capability and desire for improvement.

Juan was selected for this case study on the basis of his polarity in comprehension of

texts. His ability to comprehend literary text is growing with him and frequently

approaches or meets standards, while his comprehension of informational texts is

stagnating. For the purpose of this study, the focus will be on Juan’s comprehension of

informational texts, particularly persuasive and functional texts. The hope is that


increasing his ability to comprehend this type of text might alleviate some of the stress that

seems to be dragging down the rest of his comprehension skills.

Juan is a quiet boy. He answers questions in simple short statements and chooses

not to elaborate on longer answers without prompting. He generally dislikes having to be

in school day in and day out. He enjoys soccer and video games, hanging out with his

friends, and watching TV. He is, by all accounts, a typical middle school-age boy. Getting

Juan to open up about his family wasn’t difficult, but getting him to talk at any length or

with any specificity took coaxing. Juan lives at home with his mother, father, three brothers

and two sisters. His oldest sibling is 22-years-old and is still in high school. The youngest is

very young; Juan stalled when asked the specific age, simply stating that his youngest sister

“doesn’t go to school yet.” His mother and father work all day at unspecified jobs, and after

school, as Juan put it, “sometimes they let me go outside and play soccer.” Juan also comes

from a religious family, offering that his whole family goes to church every Sunday. Both

Juan’s parents speak Spanish, and although they can understand English to a certain extent,

particularly when spoken by Juan himself, Juan explained how he must often translate for

them because “they don’t know how to say it [in English.]” His siblings, for the most part,

speak English, save the youngest, who still only speaks Spanish. Juan got his start learning

English in “Head Start” before entering Kindergarten, and felt that learning English was

actually a fairly easy task. His AZELLA scores corroborate this, as his climb to proficiency,

while not lightning fast, is steady and rather uniform.

Like most kids his age, Juan isn’t a big fan of school. In class he doesn’t raise his

hand. He talks out of turn with his neighbors. He completes in class assignments after

several turns of prompting. He, along with all the other students, would easily prefer to be


outside playing soccer or at home playing Call of Duty. Yet, something stands out about

Juan, particularly in his most silent moments. He outwardly seems to dislike school as

much as the next kid; however, the book cannot be judged by the cover. Although, he

ignores assignments, chats with friends, and generally rebuffs the concept of sitting still in

a chair for hours on end, when asked first what he likes about school, he quickly named his

teachers, particularly his math and science teachers, who “teach well.” It is interesting that

Juan first pointed out his math teacher as one of the reasons he enjoys school, for it is in

math that his scores are lowest, and more so, that he continues to decrease in skill.

According to his baseline tests, his math proficiency has actually gone down each quarter,

while his reading has gone up (see Appendix D). This highlights a unique quality in Juan,

wherein the thing he is best at is not the thing he likes most. Perhaps, with a stronger

desire for achievement, Juan could improve his scores and reach the standards.

When asked what he would like to do when he graduates, Juan had no answers.

College? No answer. A job? No answer. Juan interestingly has no dream to speak of, or at

least, does not wish to speak of his dream. Part of the inquiry of this case study will be to

divine from Juan his personal dreams, as dreams are a splendid catalyst for achievement.

To start, evidence exists for Juan’s love of science. In his reader interview, Juan described a

story he enjoyed by Daniel Keys. As Juan described it, the story is about a mentally disabled

man who becomes part of an experiment to increase intelligence. Juan found the story “fun

and interesting” because it’s “like a science project.” He openly reveals a love of detective

shows and science fiction, and when asked what he would like to learn more of, he quickly

replies “science,” adding “social studies” as an afterthought.


Juan’s reader interview reads with a stutter (see Appendix E). When asked why he

thinks people read and if he likes to read, he replies simply “no” and “don’t know why they

read.” From this moment, judgments are made that Juan is an abrupt child who hates

school and resents having to sit and answer questions. However, to interact with Juan tells

otherwise. He is kind and willing. He never rolls his eyes or attempts to interrupt with off-

topic or inappropriate comments. He engages on a level of maturity rarely seen in a boy his

age. He is respectful and when asked to do something, or step away from his friends or a

fun-filled movie day to answer seemingly pointless questions from a random person he just

met, there are no muffled notes of discontent. Rather, he seemingly increases in respect.

There is a hidden deepness to Juan. For instance, he provided The Tell-Tale Heart by

Edgar Allen Poe as a favorite story, he thinks people write because “they write what they

think” and “they dream too much,” and he believes a good piece of writing is signified

simply by “thoughts.” On the surface these remarks seem like short rebuffs to get on to the

next question, but Juan took his time to answer. He thought hard about why people write,

even though he has a particular distaste for the activity. He came to the consensus that

people must write because they are filled too full with interesting thoughts and dreams

that must get out. This came out in one word, “thoughts,” but Juan allowed that word to

linger there, filled to the brim with meaning. Juan noted in his reader interview that he has

trouble with spelling and vocabulary. He acknowledged this as his number one downfall

when it comes to reading. He doesn’t think he is a good reader because he can’t “spell some

words,” and that if he were the one helping someone with trouble reading, he would first

help them learn to spell. A question begins to formulate on whether Juan is a writer


internally, a writer without the tools necessary to write, a writer struggling to get out in

short sentences, abrupt words, and meaningful silence.

In this case study, the focus narrows in on Juan’s comprehension of informational

texts. However, Juan’s ambition to succeed by way of personal dreams and his potential to

thrive as a reader and writer when given the proper tools is paramount to this

achievement. It’s easy to prescribe medicine for the symptom, but to truly cure the

problem, one needs to examine the root cause. Juan notes that when he doesn’t understand

something he is reading, he reads it again and again until he finally gets it. This is not a fun

way to learn or even pass through life. While there isn’t enough time over the course of this

case study to delve into Juan’s personal desires, it is important to recognized that what Juan

really needs is something that will uproot his imbedded sense that school is boring and

provide him with dreams and ideas for life.


Assessments

Reading Skills

In order to find a solid baseline for Juan’s reading skills, Juan read from a series of

texts selected to gauge his reading level. First Juan read selections from literary texts,

including To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee (1960/1982), The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton

(1967/1997), Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954), and Treasure Island by Robert

Louis Stevenson (1883/2001), all of which he never before read. Because Juan’s AIMS and

benchmark test scores noted his middling abilities in comprehending literary texts, having

Juan read from these selections was unnecessary, but not unhelpful. For instance, reading

something he is fairly comfortable understanding, Juan reads quickly with only a mild

stutter over difficult words or complex phrases. Although he read texts of mixed Lexile

reading levels from 750L with The Outsiders to 1100L with Treasure Island (MetaMetrics),

he said each text was as easy as the previous and was able to give a general explanation of

what he read. Juan’s struggles with literary reading, while in need of some guidance and

focused attention, pail in comparison to his skills with informational texts.

To assess Juan’s information comprehension, he read long sections of text from two

sources. The first was a selection from his social studies civics text, United States

Government: Democracy in Action (Remy, 2002). While he had never read this passage

before, he had read extensively from the text in class throughout the school year. As he

read, Juan made very few mistakes beyond the mild stutter exhibited during the literary

readings. The miscue analysis of his reading is nearly free of errors save one instance

where he replaced the word “as” with “on.” When asked to retell what he read, he pulled

out a few facts from his memory, such as “George Washington was the first president,” and


the full list of qualifications for President, which he recited perfectly. When asked if he felt

the text was easy to read and understand, he responded vehemently, “yes.”

The second text Juan read was from an unfamiliar children’s nonfiction book series

called World in Conflict. This small hardcover text, Rwanda: Country Torn Apart by Kari

Bodnarchuk (2002), was written for a younger audience than Juan. Juan, although an 8th

grader who easily read his school’s textbook, struggled immensely with this text. The book

is a historical account of the conflict between two Rwandan tribes and the issues their

conflict has drudged up for the peoples of Rwanda. The section Juan read was the

introduction, which provided descriptive background information about Rwanda, what it

looks like, where it is situated, and how the country is divided up.

Juan read the section twice. First, he read aloud for the miscue analysis. Many of his

stumbles came up as he read strange words, or words that began on one line but ended on

the next. Words such as “terraced,” “eucalyptus,” and “characteristics” particularly threw

him off. While he did very well attempting to sound them out and correct himself, he did

not know the meaning of any word he struggled through. “Diversity,” for example, was a

one word for which he could not find meaning in his prior understanding reserves. When

asked to retell what he read, Juan simply couldn’t, or wouldn’t. While he was able to tell at

least one or two details from the previous text, he could not find one detail in his short-

term memory to offer up. A few guiding questions, such as “What did Rwanda look like?” or

“Is Rwanda made up of deserts or forests?” were of no help. Although, Juan was able to

answer the question “The reading compares the size of Rwanda to what US state?” with the

correct answer, “Maryland.” During the second reading of the selection, Juan stopped

between paragraphs or particularly dense sentences to retell; yet, even then, he was unable


to summarize what he just read. One interpretation of Juan's strong reading skills with the

civics text and his failing ability to comprehend the Rwanda text is in his familiarity with

the two texts. He is used to writing style of the civics text, having read from it many times in

the last six months or so, while the writing style of the new text is foreign to him.

Writing Skills

On top of the miscue analysis, Juan’s writing samples were also collected for

assessment. One informal sample was taken from his daily journal (see Appendix F), while

the second, a formal writing sample, came from the AIMS writing test (see Appendix G). In

his journal, Juan answered the question “If you had $100,000 to give away, and you cannot

spend the money on yourself, what would you do with the money?” Juan’s answer, while

extremely short, in a case of quality over quantity, was surprisingly insightful. Juan’s

answer was to divide up the money and give half to schools “that don’t have books” and the

other half to “open a new library for the kids to read books for free.” Juan shows an

astounding concern for others, which becomes further apparent in his formal writing.

When asked to write about an imaginary instance in which he would give advice to

someone, Juan chose to write about giving advice to his overweight friend and offering to

help him lose the weight. While Juan is obviously concerned about the welfare and success

of others, he does not show as much concern in his own success. When asked for the

sample from his journal several hours after the assignment was completed in class, Juan

admits he simply did not do the work since he forgot his journal that day. When suddenly

supplied with a piece of paper and instructed to spend ten minutes completing the task, he

begrudgingly does so, yet he still comes up with a thoughtful answer.


In that answer Juan’s issues with writing come forward for attention, such as his lax

use of capitalization, save a couple random words here and there. He also tends to confuse

tense and lose track of syntax, placing commas haphazardly throughout or forgetting the

beginning of sentences. On the 6+1 Traits of Writing Rubric (Education Northwest, 2010),

Juan would score about a 2 or 3 in conventions, but about a 4 or even a 5 for ideas. In his

formal writing, Juan makes a great deal less errors, whether in his draft or his final paper,

which are nearly identical. In this case, there seems to be more issues of semantic errors,

such as when he writes, “I will tell him that he is over weight and that he should stop eating

less.” It’s easy to infer that Juan means to tell his friend to eat less food or to stop eating so

much, but he confuses the meaning in both the draft and the final paper. In his formal

writing, Juan would receive about a 3 for most of the 6+1 Traits of Writing, and about a 4

for ideas and organization.

At this point, the baring that Juan’s writing skills have over his comprehension of

informational texts is unknown, not that it is unknowable. For the sake of this case study,

however, the focus will not be on Juan’s personal writing or his reading of literary texts.

While he has several struggles that are in need of attention, they are not as immediately

worrisome as his inability to retell a section of informational text he has just read moments

earlier. His inability to also answer questions directly about the text is equally troublesome.

The next section of this case study outlines several intervention mini-lessons and explains

how they will be used to cater to Juan’s needs in the comprehension of informational texts.


Intervention Plan

Based on the information collected over the previous two weeks, the following

interventions will focus on reading comprehension of informational texts. Juan’s school

records point out his low achievements on the AIMS, the district benchmark tests, and in

his class activities, particularly when it comes to informational texts. During the miscue

analysis, Juan was skillful enough with literary texts to move on, but his inability to

summarize his readings from a lower-level informational text warranted a second look. In

his writing, Juan seemed to struggle a bit with semantics, and even Juan said his vocabulary

is limited. For this reason, these interventions will attempt to increase Juan’s skills at

reading material of which he struggles to make meaning. While Juan read the text about

Rwanda, he frequently stumbled over words he didn’t know, which caused him to stop

comprehending the text as a whole, and instead, focus on saying the word properly. When

asked if he knew what the word he just spent all that time sounding out meant, he said no

and inquired no further. These interventions will attempt to help Juan around difficult

words to get at the overall meaning of the passage, and construct the meaning of those

difficult words from the context of the passage.

The first mini-intervention is a lesson on skimming modeled after a similar lesson

by Turner (2004). The student skims a short passage of text for about 15 to 30 seconds.

Then, they turn the text over and answer 5 to 10 questions about the text’s main points. If

they don’t get any of the answers correct, then they do not know how to skim or need more

instruction of skimming. Next, discuss skimming with the student. Explain what skimming

is and ask why he thinks skimming would be useful. Finally, assess the student by having

him skim a different text for 15 to 30 seconds and then answering another series of


questions about that text. The student should be able to answer a few of the questions. If

unable, the student needs more practice skimming.

The next three mini-interventions are connected as they deal with different aspects

of comprehending one text. In this mini-intervention, before starting in on reading the text,

the student scans the material for certain touchstones. First, the student takes note of the

title of the reading or chapter, and skims for any subheadings, charts or graphs, pictures,

maps, etc. The student records these in a guided reading packet such as the one by Bucks

County Community College (n.d.) or a personal reading journal. From this first skimming,

the student writes down what he thinks the reading will be about, or what the overall

theme is. He explains what clues lead him to this belief. He also writes down a few

predictions about the text, drawing upon any prior knowledge. The student also poses a

question or two about the topic to be answered at a later date. This mini-intervention, like

all the following interventions, should take 15-20 minutes.

The third mini-intervention involves dissecting the reading for the main idea. The

student reads the text through once to get a feel for the material and writing style. Then,

the student reads the text again, but this time, slowly, underlining out important points and

highlighting unusual words. The student stops after each paragraph or section and

annotates in the margin the main idea of that paragraph or section. He then writes down

what he believes to be the main idea of the whole text in the guided reading packet

followed by a list of supporting examples from the reading, such as quotes or paraphrased

lines of text. The student then lists the unusual vocabulary and attempts to define these

words from their understanding of the text first, then using a dictionary.


The fourth mini-intervention is a retell. At this time, the student recalls from their

memory, and having completed the guided reading packet, a summary of the text. They

may speak or write the retell, but it must be in their own words. The student may also

attempt to answer their questions for the first intervention. The student then engages in a

discussion of the text with the teacher or another student. In this discussion, they consider

the relationship of the ideas in the text to the outside world, they pick out which idea they

felt was the most important, and they compare, contrast, and group the ideas. Then, they

reread the introduction and conclusion and explain if their initial thoughts about the text

were correct or why they were incorrect.

For the fifth mini-intervention, the student works on speed-reading with use of the

computer. In this lesson, the student completes a series of speed-reading challenges on the

free resource center website supplied by Interlink Language Centers (2008). There are five

exercises of increasing difficulty that the student may try. The first exercise asks the

student to read a short sentence with one word highlighted. After five seconds the sentence

is removed from view and the student is ask to select the highlighted word from a choice of

three similar words. The second exercise is similar to the first except the highlighted word

is instead and underlined phrase or series of words within the sentence. The third exercise

flashes a question on the screen for three seconds, then provides three possible answers.

For example, the first question is “How long have you been in the US?” The possible

answers are “I’ve been here for four months,” “I came to study English,” or “I enjoy studying

in the US.” The student must select that answer that properly answers the question, in this

case, the first answer. The fourth exercise flashes a sentence on the screen, then the student

selects the subject of the sentence. This can be tricky as the subject may not always be


obvious or there may be a lot of nouns in the sentence that can throw off the reader. The

final exercise asks the student for the meaning of the sentence. This is the most difficult

exercise, as it requires the student to think beyond what is directly stated. Each exercise

gives a different length of time for reading, from 2 or 3 seconds to 15 seconds, depending

on the difficulty of the challenge. The student may only get through the first couple of

exercises in the time allotted for the intervention. If the student is finding the easy

exercises too easy, they can skip to the harder exercises.

During whole-class lessons, it can be a lot of work to ensure each and every student

is on track and following along. For this reason, it is important to set aside meetings with

each student to discuss with them their progress and needs. During these meetings, the

teacher and student should come up with a game plan to differentiate class instruction for

that student. For example, if the class is doing a group reading exercise, it may be better for

the student to read quietly and complete his guided reading packet, than for him to take his

turn reading aloud and not understanding what he is reading. The student may need

graphic organizers for note taking during group lectures that will help him keep pace with

the other students. Also, having designated buddies for partnered discussion of reading will

allow the student to become comfortable and engaged during the discussion. If the student

is constantly partnering up with new people, he might find it hard or be too embarrassed to

speak up during discussion, not knowing how new partners will react to his reading

struggles. These intervention plans will be discussed with more specificity in the next

section, with each implementation reflection


Implementation and Reflection

Interventions

In the first mini-intervention, Juan practiced skimming a short article from TIME for

Kids. The article was a call for entries to a debate about vending machines in schools (TIME

for Kids Staff, 2012). After 20 seconds of skimming, Juan turned the paper over and

attempted to answer a series of verbal questions, such as “What was the title of the article?”

(Answer: Debate!), “What was the main point of the article?” (Answer: pros and cons of

school vending machines), and “What did the article want you to do?” (Answer: submit a

personal argument). Juan couldn’t answer any of the questions. Juan turned the paper over

and was asked to search for the answer to each question. With the questions given

beforehand, he was able to look for the answers, but still could not answer correctly on the

main point of the article. The concepts of a heading, a subheading, and thesis statements

were new to Juan. He had never learned to read the first sentence of each paragraph or look

for key words. After discussing the merits of skimming, with Juan suggesting that skimming

would be helpful on tests when there is a time limit, and after understanding what to look

for when skimming, Juan skimmed a second debate article from TIME for Kids about the

banning of dodge ball (TIME for Kids Staff, 2011). This time, he was able to answer

questions about the title and the main point, but wasn’t entirely correct in his answers.

Still, in the first 15-minute intervention, Juan was about to accept skimming as a viable

strategy when reading informational texts. He agreed that skimming is helpful to

understand a bit about the text before reading the article in its entirety.

The second mini-intervention expanded on skimming with speed-reading. Using the

Interlink Language Centers (2008), Juan answered speed-reading questions from the first


exercise, the easiest level of difficulty. He was able to answer only a few questions

correctly. During this intervention, Juan’s difficulty with vocabulary became further

apparent. He struggled a great deal to overcome complex words, never fully making the

connection between the sounds and the meaning. In the next intervention, vocabulary is

touched on briefly, but any intervention beyond this case study should focus heavily on

vocabulary building and exercises to circumvent Juan’s impulse toward sub-vocalizing. As

for the success of this intervention, Juan was unable to progress beyond the first exercise in

the 15 minute time period. Therefore, this lesson was successful only in its ability to further

assess Juan’s needs, but not in its ability to help Juan with his comprehension of

informational texts.

The third mini-intervention introduced Juan to the structure of an article from TIME

for Kids, which he then organized into his guided reading packet. Juan needed a lot of help

during this process, but he seemed to respond well to the guided reading packet (see

Appendix H). Juan started by using his newly learned skimming strategy to look for

headings, subheadings, and any photos, charts, graphs, etc, to determine the structure of

the article, entitled “Race to the South Pole” (Plasket, 2011). He did perfectly well on his

own, finding each component of the article without any trouble. While he was able to

summarize what he already knows about the topic, when asked to develop questions about

the text, Juan was completely thrown. He needed several prompting questions before he

could come up with his own.

The fourth mini-intervention has Juan explore the same article further. This time,

Juan agilely searched for and found the main point, but needed help looking for supporting

evidence. It was clear Juan didn’t know how to separate supportive and important


information from extraneous information. However, with a bit of guidance and

conversation, he was able to extract one supporting details. If the mini-intervention had a

longer timeframe, he may have been able to find a few more supporting examples. Juan

spent a larger portion of the time attempting to define two vocabulary words using the

context of the article. One word, he was able to find a definition within the text, but the

other word remained undefined. The length of time he devoted to the vocabulary section

brought back forward the idea that Juan needs more help with vocabulary development.

In the fifth mini-intervention, Juan talked aloud about the article, but did not put any

pen to paper. In the 15-minutes of this final intervention, Juan dodged writing like a bullet.

He readily summarized the reading verbally, talked about the main point and how the

supporting details connected to the main point, and even spoke about his personal interest

in adventure. However, getting him to write those thoughts proved impossible within the

timeframe. Juan’s avoidance of writing is noticeable in class as well. Each and every day,

when the students enter the room, they write in their journals for 10 minutes. Juan spends

5 minutes sharpening his pencil, picking his nails, and writing the journal question down

painstakingly slow. The next five minutes draw out an average of three succinct and well

thought out sentences; the minimum requirement is 10 sentences.

Reassessment

Juan was reassessed with two texts, both informational, in two settings. First, Juan

read another article from TIME for Kids called “Solar Storm Hits Earth” (Kraus, 2012) in a

secluded space. Second, during a whole class silent reading session, Juan read from an

unfamiliar text about human rights violations. The text was a heavily edited compilation of

excerpts from an article by the organization United for Human Rights (2012). In the first


setting, Juan made few mistakes in his reading, although his sub-vocalizing was still ever

present, and was able to summarize the article adequately. In the second setting, Juan

stumbled a couple times over the more difficult material, but he was able to answer a few

questions about the text correctly. Due to time constraints, neither assessment was as in-

depth or comprehensive as it needs to be to truly determine Juan’s growth over the course

of the five interventions. However, with both texts, Juan utilized his new skimming strategy

without prompting. When asked how he was able to summarize the material and answer

the questions without having much time to read, he responded, “I skimmed it.” Two weeks

earlier, he had asked for a definition of “skimming.”

By the end of the interventions, it has become clear that Juan is greatly in need of a

stronger vocabulary. If interventions were to continue with this student, an emphasis on

vocabulary development would become the focus. For example, Juan would spend more

time defining words within context. To develop a larger, more complex personal word

bank, a daily vocabulary journal would be utilized. Juan is also in need of daily cultivation of

his skills as a writer. Perhaps, time spent writing about things that interest Juan would

ignite a spark. In general, Juan is in need of daily, focused interventions if he is to bring his

grades and test scores up to an acceptable level.


References

Bodnarchuk, Kari. (2000) World in conflict: Rwanda: Country Torn Apart. Minneapolis, MN:

Lerner Publishing Group.

Bucks County Community College. (n.d.) Reading Comprehension Strategies for

Informational Texts. Retrieved from

http://www.bucks.edu/media/bcccmedialibrary/pdf/ReadingComprehensionStrat

egiesforInformationalText_000.pdf

Education Northwest. (2010). 5-Point 3-12 Writer’s Rubric. Retrieved from

http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/140

Golding, William. (1954). Lord of the flies. Kirkwood, NY: Putnam Publishing Group

Hinton, S. E. (1967/1997). The outsiders. New York, NY: Puffin Books

Interlink Language Centers. (2008). Free English lessons for the ESL resource center.

Retrieved from http://eslus.com/LESSONS/READING/READ.HTM

Kraus, Stephanie. (2012, January 30). Solar storm hits earth. TIME for Kids. Retrieved from

http://www.timeforkids.com/news/solar-storm-hits-earth/27666.

Lee, Harper. (1960/1982). To kill a mockingbird. Philadelphia, PA: Warner Books

MetaMetrics. (2012). The Lexile framework for reading. http://www.lexile.com/

Plasket, Kelli. (2011, December 14). Race to the South Pole. TIME for Kids. Retrieved from

http://www.timeforkids.com/news/race-south-pole/23816.

Remy, Richard C. (2002). United states government: Democracy in action. Columbus, OH:

Glencoe/McGraw-Hill

Stevenson, Robert Louis. (1883/2001). Treasure island. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.


TIME for Kids Staff. (2011, December 13). Debate! TIME for Kids. Retrieved from

http://www.timeforkids.com/news/debate/23691.

TIME for Kids Staff. (2012, January 18). Debate! TIME for Kids. Retrieved from

http://www.timeforkids.com/news/debate/26426.

Turner, C. (2004, Oct. 11). Reading strategies mini-lesson: skimming. Retrieved from

http://faculty.rcoe.appstate.edu/smithtw/RE_3150_web/Reading_Minilessons/

RE_3150_f04/ChrisTurnerStrategies.htm

United for Human Rights. (2012). Human rights violations. Retrieved from

http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/violations-of-human-

rights/article-3.html


Appendix A


Appendix B


Appendix C


Appendix D


Appendix E


Appendix F


Appendix G


Appendix H


Source: Bucks County Community College. (n.d.) Reading Comprehension Strategies for Informational Texts. Retrieved from http://www.bucks.edu/media/bcccmedialibrary/pdf/ReadingComprehensionStrategiesforInformationalText_000.pdf

laurenwilliamsportfolio.weebly.comlaurenwilliamsportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/...studen… ·...

Documents

Transcript of laurenwilliamsportfolio.weebly.comlaurenwilliamsportfolio.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/...studen… ·...