Emily Trucks

Education 316
December 2, 2015

Data Meeting Written Form

Meeting Name: Morning Intervention 2015
Date: December 2, 2015
Participants: Mary Kathryn Gates, Amanda McKay, Emily Trucks, and Trace Crossings Teachers

1. What was the intended goal of this meeting?

The goal of this meeting is to discuss the progress made in Morning Intervention
by Ibrahim, Sebastian, and Stephanie in the Fall of 2015.
2. What does the data show us?
Student

Observations

Ibrahim

We find Ibrahim to be a bit of a fuzzy spot in our observations. We have realized,

unfortunately, that we do not know him that well. Achievement wise, he falls in the middle
of Sebastian and Stephanie. He enjoys reading, but is intimidated by read-aloud
opportunities. Ibrahim is very soft-spoken. We worry about classroom participation. If he
gets overlooked in a group of three students, we imagine that he gets overlooked quite
frequently in a group of twenty-plus. We want to find a way to boost Ibrahims confidence
in his abilities. We also want to find a way to get him to speak with us!

Sebastian

Sebastian is a confident conversationalist, though ironically he is a timid reader. Our

interactions with Sebastian have revealed that he is influenced by the Spanish language that
is spoken at home, though he is not considered to be ELL. We find that Sebastian is reading
slightly below level, and his struggles lie in fluency of automaticity and prosody. He enjoys
reading but his comprehension is a little broken.

Stephanie

Stephanie is a student who is in Morning Intervention because she is behind in math, but
she is on-level in reading. She will often fly through the assessments and does very well on
them. This is why we wonder why she was in intervention this semester. She is frustrated
with being there because she is ahead of the other students. She is missing valuable
instruction time. She also does not come much on Thursdays because she does First
Priority. She is very quiet, and is not conversational. When we ask her questions, she will
only respond with short sentences.

3. Successes
Each of the three students have warmed us to us over the time we have spent with
them this semester. We look forward to next semester and getting to know these
students more. For us especially, we have learned how to assess and analyze
results. We think that this experience has been beneficial for us as pre-service
teachers to work one-on-one with students and follow their progress.
3. Challenges
Throughout our time in Morning Intervention this semester, we have
discovered three areas of concern: time management, the teacher-to-student
ratio, and failure to make a true impact on these students. How do you feel
these issues would be best addressed?

Reflection
I feel that our data meeting went very well. I was a bit nervous about this presentation
because I was not sure I was equipped to present the information in a way that would be easily
understood. However, Mary Gates, Amanda McKay, and I were able to share our successes and
failures confidently with our peers.
We, as a team, were able to convey the message that we looked at our students as far
more than a number on an assessment scale. We do genuinely care about them and their
wellbeing, which made Morning Intervention difficult for us because we did not have the
opportunity to get to know these students at a deep level. We focused more on our anecdotal
notes during this meeting than our numerical data because we believe that the students feelings
toward instruction, and even everyday life, are far more important than the assessments we were
given to complete.
With this being said, I feel that we could have made more of an effort to display our data
in an aesthetic way that would have been easy for our classmates to interpret. We could have
included graphs to aid our audience in the understanding of our results.
Dr. Hoaglund, our facilitator, made very positive comments on our presentation, saying
that we had met a teacher leadership standard. That, I must say, was a much-need confidence
boost for me and the two other members of the triad.
I will take what was discussed in this meeting and apply it to my next semesters work,
both in the Morning Intervention classroom, and on the Morning Intervention team. I feel that
communication was the main issue across the board: between members of triads, between
members the Morning Crew, and between us and the professors. I would like to apologize for
that and ensure that next semester will indeed go more smoothly for us as a whole.

Notes
Taken by Amanda McKay during our Data Meeting
Group 1: 3rd grade. Interactive read alouds, Target: decode two syllable words. Tristen does not
demonstrate phonological awareness.
Christian: Target: comprehension, used choral readings.
Nadia: Scored much higher than the rest on elementary spelling interview.
Problems: inconsistent attendance, behavior
Our presentation:
Multiple different levels. Very quiet students.
Sebastian is a confident conversationalist. doesnt like spelling. Stephanie is advanced, and
Ibrahim is in the middle.
Problems: Time management, teacher to student ratio.
Group 3: 2nd grade. one struggled in reading, one had a bad attitude. One loves reading, one
strongly dislikes reading. One reads for fun much more than the other. Attitudes toward reading
were improved in both students. Challenges include time of day, their attitude, and the amount of
time.
Group 4: 2nd grade. Following the pattern of one trouble maker, and one sweet spirited student.
One student cannot read and thus, cant comprehend. comprehension is there when the passage is
read by the teacher. The other student can read and write, but still struggles with comprehension.
Group 5: 4th grade boys. target area: cause and effect Yopp singer difficult because they were
already blending phonemes together. Assessments not geared for 4th grade. Challenges included
the limited time, not having every student every day, and planning what is most beneficial.
Time: 11:20