audiobooks, but she rarely used her content map to aid her comprehension. She did not communicate how she solved learning
reading problems. Nela read texts only what interested her; when her interest waned, so did her level of achievement.
9. Wellem
This student was a reluctant participant for most of the sessions. He was eager to be part of the group and liked being excused from class,
however, once he arrived, Wellem had very few positive comments to contribute to discussions. In January, Kevin suddenly decided to quit
participating. After the researcher spoke with him and talked with his parents by phone, Kevin returned to the sessions; however, he did not put
forth his best effort to complete tasks. Wellem was easily distracted by others and would behave in various ways to avoid completing
assignments. For example, he would often ask to use the washroom immediately after being assigned an independent task. Sometimes he
would rush through a task so that he could be the first student to complete it.
Table 4.9 Data Collection Summary for Wellem
data collected Jan
Feb March
April attendance of in study
89.5 time in school
in class 93.6
92.8 reading ability
L process 68
72 L outcome
1 2
1 sstreatment
LT with sc 60
88.9 statistic
LT with sk 3
5 miscue errors
36.4 19.9
indicates improvement, LT = Local Text, sc=scanning, sk=skimming
Table 4.9 displays the quantifiable data collected from January to March 2011, regarding Wellem‘s reading ability attitudes and
achievements. Wellem showed improvement in some areas from January to March. His participated in learning process improved over time. He
showed better self-monitoring for understanding when doing the task during the miscue analysis assessments. In January, 36.4 of the errors
made affected his understanding of learning reading, but only 19.9 of this type of errors were made during the March assessment.
Improvement was seen in the qualitative data, as well. As recorded in the researcher learning log, she noticed that oral discussions
about the learning reading material, both before and after his reading attempt, helped Wellem to clarify concepts. While Wellem did not like to
talk about what he learnt before, talking nonetheless helped Wellem to understand the learning process
. He said, ―I want to learn more if the test
comes .‖ When encouraged to slow down and ―see a movie running in
your head,‖ he was able to recall more content. Some o
f Wellem‘s reading ability behaviour showed that he continued to struggle to understand what he learnt before. His
participating study in Januaryr stated that he wants to improve his learning reading problem, but by April it had changed He often learn at a
pace that was too rapid for his level of process. Often, Wellem ‘s jotted
content map, unrelated words. These notes lacked organization and made providing an accurate retell from informational. He stated that he enjoyed
all of the opportunities to use local texts, but his navigation of finding those texts was poor. Often, Wellem needed assistance to find the right
words to answer. He rarely tracked visually to aid comprehension while listening to audiobooks or to classmates reading aloud. He stated that he
really liked English but some stranger words make him to be careless in learning
reading. He said that ―learning reading is boring‖ and that he learns
―only for school,‖ which contradicted his March statement, ―I learnt
every night.‖ Kevin stated that ―good learners learnt every night.‖ When asked what he learned from the project he said, ―I learned nothing.‖
When asked what do you know about yourself as a learner he wrote ―2b a
good learne r.‖
10. Zion
