IRI Administration for Grade 2

IRI ADMINISTRATION

IRI Administration

The Child’s Background

MT is a 7-year-old girl in 2nd grade. The initials MT are hypothetical and have been used to protect the confidentiality/privacy of the child. The child attends ……….. In her class, there are a total of 19 learners. It would be prudent to note that MT could be deemed a normal learner owing to the fact that she has not been diagnosed with any learning disability. MT comes from a single-mom household. She has never met her father. Her mother is an investment advisor at a leading investment bank. She has two siblings – an 11-year-old brother who is in junior high school and a 2-year-old sister. MT’s mother is not actively involved in her learning owing to the demands of her job. It should, however, be noted that MT’s aunt who moved in with them approximately 1 year ago (after losing her job as a cashier due to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown) has been assisting MT with homework and other learning skills after school and during the weekends. Up until now, MT has not had any significant issue with regard to reading and comprehension. She comes across as a ‘bubbly’ and easy-going child. Her behavior and mannerisms are appropriate for her age. It is important to note that at present, MT displays some difficulty reading above her independent reading level. Concerns, as will be highlighted below, also emerged with regard to her reading comprehension – in which case she appeared to struggle from time to time.

The Nature of the Problem and Informal Reading Inventory Process

The Independent Reading Inventory (IRI) process was conducted in an empty classroom so as to minimize distractions. Effort was made to make MT comfortable by explaining certain aspects of the process to her in advance and getting to know whether there were any concerns or queries she had. The process begun following MT’s confirmation that she was ready to proceed. We started with the Word Recognition Inventory’s Premier (A) portion. It is important to note that this decision was made owing to MT’s grade level (i.e. 2nd grade) and the need to commence reading two levels below the said grade. MT did not have any difficulty with this section of the WRI. Next, we moved to the First WRI portion. Just as was the case in the Premier WRI portion, MT did not display any significant challenges reading through the wordlist. However, her first attempt at pronouncing the words ‘does’ and ‘drank’ were not successful – although she quickly corrected herself in the second attempt.

In the WRI 2 (C) section, MT was as confident as she was in the first two sections. However, unlike was the case in the first two sections, she appeared to hesitate from time to time – but this did not hinder her forward march. In the WRI 2 (D) section, MT charged through the first 10 words confidently. However, she was unable to read the word ‘bundle’ which was number 11 on the list. We moved forward but she once again got stuck at number 15 with the word ‘score’, and at number 16 with the word ‘tune.’ We stopped at this point. I reassured MT that her performance had so far been exceptional. I also explained to her that we were now going to vary our approach and instead of reading through words, I wanted her to read and understand a short passage – after which I would float a few questions to her. She appeared enthusiastic and was willing to proceed. She went through the first Oral Reading exercise (Level 2 - C) with only a few challenges encountered. During this particular exercise, it was clear that MT was actively deploying the ‘cross check’ approach – in which case she would hesitate from time to time and appear to gauge whether the word sounded right before verbalizing it. When it came to the comprehension questions, MT was able to correctly answer 4 of the 8 questions correctly – with the overall comprehension errors indicating frustration level.

We then moved to the Silent Reading portion (Level 2 - C). Surprisingly, MT was able to complete the silent reading task even faster than she had completed the Oral Reading portion. Her performance on this front was also better than was the case in the previous portion. This is more so the case with regard to the number of questions correctly answered in this front, i.e. 6 out of 8 questions. On the basis of her performance on this front, it would be prudent to note that First (B) happens to be MT’s independent comprehension level, whereas Level 2 (C) is more representative of her highest independent oral reading as well as word accuracy levels.

We then moved on to the next Oral Reading exercise, i.e. at Level 2 (D). This time round, MT appeared keener in her approach (i.e. in comparison to the earlier Oral Reading exercise). This is more so the case given that she took more time and was more deliberate in her deployment of the decoding self-monitoring strategy. Thus, she was able to quickly correct any wrongly pronounced word. From time to time, she also appeared to go back and rethink whether a word she had read made sense within the overall sentence context. Her performance on the performance queries front, however, matched those of Oral Reading exercise (Level 2 - C). When it came to Silent Reading, MT’s performance on this front was indicative of a Buffer Comprehension Level. Once again, I reassured her that I was happy with the rate of our progress and proceeded to explain the next task to her.

Next, we moved to Oral Reading at Level 3 (E). To a large extent, MT appeared to struggle from the onset especially when it came to names of people and places. She demonstrated clear signs of frustration from early on including fidgeting continuously in her seat, seeking out my help with reading some words, scratching her head, and making facial expressions of doubt and uncertainty. Thus, it was clear to me that that this was a difficult task for MT. Although she was able to read through the entire passage, she required my help all through. Of the ten comprehension questions, she was able to only answer three. The conclusion made at this point was that MT’s frustration level was at Level 3 (E).

During the transition to the Listening Capacity Test, I explained to MT what the exercise involved and what was expected of her. I asked her to be attentive as I read the passage aloud and pointed out that I would be floating some queries at the end of the exercise to gauge her comprehension of the passage. She was largely alert throughout my reading of the passage. However, from time to time, I had to remind her to refocus, i.e. following her shifting of attention to various items in the classroom. At the end of the exercise she was able to answer three of the ten comprehension queries.

In the final analysis, it would be prudent to note that the performance of the 7-year-old was laudable. This is more so the case given that she demonstrated commitment to the process and was a willing participant. Towards this end, the conclusion was reached that the learner for her grade level as well as age, she demonstrated suitable/proper reading levels.

Results Analysis

On the basis of the exercise described above, MT’s performance on the WRI front was excellent from the onset. However, she encountered difficulties in WRI 2 (D) section – hesitating from time to time – in which case she started encountering difficulties with the 11th word on the list, and again got stuck at the 15th and 16th words. From a general perspective, it would also be prudent to note that although MT demonstrated suitable/proper reading levels, her reading comprehension was not at par with the appropriate grade and reading level. For this reason, an overall finding can be made to the effect that the relevant interventions should be put in place to further enhance MT’s reading comprehension.