I. General Information
School Name: Wood Elementary School
School District: SD#70 Pacific Rim
Inquiry Team Members: Sara Johnson: sjohnson@sd70.bc.ca, Sara Fudge: sfudge@sd70.bc.ca, Jocelyn Finely: jfinely@sd70.bc.ca, Darren Homan: dhoman@sd70.bc.ca
Inquiry Team Contact Email: sjohnson@sd70.bc.ca
II. Inquiry Project Information
Type of Inquiry: NOIIE Case Study
Grade Levels Addressed Through Inquiry: Primary (K-3)
Curricular Areas Addressed: Language Arts – Reading
Focus Addressed: Literacy
In one sentence, what was your focus for the year? We wanted to explore ways to include and leverage student voice and goal setting when planning for and implementing reading intervention.
III. Spirals of Inquiry Details
Scanning: After administering the Acadience Reading Screener to a class of 21 Grade 2 students, we noted a group of students not meeting the benchmarks and found 10 students in the red range for both nonsense word reading (NWR) and oral reading fluency (ORF). We checked in with these students and found that these students had a limited understanding of how to improve their reading or how they would be able to recognize personal reading growth and development. Rather than having goals determined solely by teachers, students were invited to reflect on their strengths, areas for growth, and progress over time. This approach aligns with the First Peoples Principles of Learning by supporting students in developing a sense of ownership and agency. Students engaged in ongoing reflection about their reading growth celebrated successes and identified next steps, demonstrating that learning involves patience, effort, and personal growth.
The inquiry also reflects the principle that learning is holistic, reflexive, reflective, experiential, and relational. Students were not viewed as a set of scores; instead, assessment data became a starting point for conversations between students and teachers about their learning experiences. Through goal-setting conferences, progress monitoring, and graphing their growth, students developed a deeper understanding of themselves as readers while building positive relationships with teachers who supported their learning journey.
Focus: We were aware that Acadience Reading would be a valuable tool for teachers to target individualized and class-wide reading instruction, but we were curious how we could incorporate student goal setting into the process. Based on the findings of Downs, Martz and Mohr (2025) in their study of high performing teacher teams who elicited the most student growth as measured by student performance on Acadience Reading, we learned that student centered goal setting was integral for maximum student reading development. We wanted to explore ways to collaborate with students to give them more autonomy and efficacy in their learning. We felt that student goal setting could transform assessment from something done to students into something done with students, which is consistent with the relational and learner-centered nature of the First Peoples Principles of Learning.
Hunch: Our hunch was that with more open communication with students about what and why we were monitoring reading with Acadience Reading, students would be more knowledgeable about the skills and abilities they were working towards. We thought that if we included students in the goal setting and progress monitoring process by using graphs, rubrics, questionnaires, and conferencing, we could foster student engagement and autonomy and ultimately reading achievement.
New Professional Learning: We explored a variety of learning resources to help us design targeted reading interventions for our small groups. Members of the group who had previously completed Acadience training supported other teachers with administering and scoring progress monitoring. We utilized the book Reading Assessment Done Right by Stollar and Winn, as well as the book It’s Possible by Montgomery and Hanlin to help us design and implement reading interventions for small groups and whole class. Having regular check-ins between the classroom teachers and the inclusion support teacher was imperative.
Taking Action: We focused first on phonics and decoding within our small groups because these were the earliest areas where students showed difficulty. We created two intervention groups: one focused on CVC words, and another slightly more advanced group working on blending CCVC and CVCC words, digraphs, and eventually long vowel patterns. Small group reading support was in addition to whole class phonics instruction that was delivered using the UFLI program following the grade 2 scope and sequence. Students in the intervention groups were getting small group decoding and phonics practice that targeted gaps and provided a double dose of instruction. As students worked on their beginning decoding skills, we set goals with them to get closer to the Nonsense Word Fluency benchmark goal. Students graphed their progress until they met and exceeded the benchmark goal. They showed a lot of excitement and pride as they witnessed their progress. Following this, we began progress monitoring with fluency using timed repeated readings of decodable texts as well as grade level texts. After mid-year class data collection, whole class fluency work began as data showed high accuracy but slow rates. The Partner Reading/Paragraph Shrinking protocol based on Lindsay Kemeny’s iteration found in her book 7 Mighty Move was implemented for 8 weeks. We used Rasinski’s Fluency Rubric to set goals with students that targeted their individual fluency and prosody needs.
Checking: By the end of the year, students demonstrated growth not only in their Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) scores, but also in their understanding of themselves as readers. Throughout the inquiry, students remained engaged in monitoring their progress and took increasing ownership of their learning. They became more confident in articulating specific strategies that would help them continue to improve and were able to identify evidence of their growth over time. Students recognized that fluency involves more than reading quickly; they understood the importance of reading accurately, smoothly, and with expression. Through goal setting, progress monitoring, and participation in repeated reading activities, students learned that repeated practice supports reading fluency and comprehension. They also developed a stronger understanding of the reading process, recognizing that successful readers do not rely on guessing words but instead apply their phonics knowledge and understanding of morphology and spelling patterns to decode unfamiliar words. This increased awareness and helped students become more strategic, self-reflective, and empowered readers.
Reflections/Advice: Through this inquiry, we learned that combining universal screening, targeted intervention, progress monitoring, and student goal setting can have a powerful impact on both reading achievement and student engagement. While improvements in Oral Reading Fluency were important, one of our most significant findings was that students became active participants in their own learning. They developed a greater understanding of what skilled reading looks like, how reading skills improve over time, and what strategies they could use to continue growing as readers.
Our work also reinforced the importance of a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework. Universal screening allowed us to identify students who needed additional support, while progress monitoring helped us determine whether our interventions were effective. Aligning Tier 2 interventions with core classroom instruction ensured that students received consistent, targeted support. Rather than waiting for students to fall further behind, data allowed us to respond early and adjust instruction based on student needs.
One of our strongest recommendations for other educators is to begin screening and intervention cycles as early as possible and to involve students in the process from the beginning. Student-friendly goals, regular reflection, and opportunities to graph and discuss progress increased motivation and ownership. We also learned the value of focusing on a small number of clearly defined goals and using data to guide instructional decisions.
Perhaps the most important lesson was the need for dedicated collaboration time. Meaningful implementation of an MTSS approach requires classroom teachers, support teachers, and other educators to have opportunities to review data together, identify trends, plan interventions, and monitor student progress. Regular data meetings create shared responsibility for student success and help ensure that instructional decisions are informed by evidence rather than assumptions. Moving forward, we believe that protected collaboration time is essential for sustaining effective literacy practices and improving outcomes for all learners.