ARTIFACT #5: LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY

Artifact 5 is a case study conducted for EDCS 647. The purpose of the study was to run
through a number of assessments types, as many as were applicable for the target student---while
we tried to select a student who would benefit from intervention, the main purpose of this project was
to try out a variety of assessments for the experience of selecting different tools to obtain a complete
picture of the student. My target student was a first-grader who could not yet identify letters by
sound, nor write letters when requested by name/sound. The student was hearing-impaired and was
supposed to be wearing hearing aids in both ears, however his equipment was not working and he
had been waiting for repairs for majority of the school year up to the time of this project. It happened
that I had been teaching the student the year prior, and so was familiar with his case and had an
intervention in mind to try. This case study taught me the value of a well-rounded approach as,
despite working with the student for over a year, I was surprised to see him differently due to the
range of assessments used. I also learned how to create graphs to show results of intervention.
However, the biggest lesson learned from this project (and why I am so glad to share it here) is that I
learned use the cognitive model to help organize all of the assessments. Doing so helped me to
understand what it means to have different cognitive pathways---now I could really see that when
one pathway is delayed, or in the case of my hearing-impaired student, partially blocked, there really
are different routes to fall back on.

******************************************************************************************************
Norene Ajimine FALL2016
Literacy Learner Case Study

I. Brief Background and Reason for Project Focus

As a prospective reading specialist, it would be beneficial for me to learn to utilize a

model of reading assessment as a means of organizing and interpreting the plethora of

observations and data that will be collected on students targeted for reading intervention.

Examining student performance through the lens of a model will help me to recognize

patterns in the data, determine a course of instruction, identify students strengths, and

identify which aspects of reading knowledge are creating reading problems (McKenna &

Stahl, 2015). Of a variety of models that may be found currently in-practice, I have elected

to apply the cognitive model because I agree with McKenna & Stahls supposition that the

whole point of reading is to comprehend the text, and the cognitive model they prescribe

provides three pathways towards this goal (2015):

Pathway 1: Automatic Word Recognition

fluency in context
decoding and sight word knowledge
print concepts and phonological awareness
Pathway 2: Oral Language Comprehension
vocabulary knowledge
background knowledge
text and sentence structure knowledge
Pathway 3: Strategic Knowledge
knowledge of strategies for reading
specific purposes for reading
general purposes for reading

Having three pathways corroborates an observation I have frequently made during

my experience as a special education teacher: students who demonstrate difficulty with

elements of automaticity (Pathway 1) still manage to achieve some comprehension of text.

Through the lens of the cognitive model, I now perceive that utilizing student strengths to

create interventions might be surmised as helping students detour to more smoothly

functioning pathways while the troublesome one is brought up to speed. To proffer the

cognitive model as a precept for troubleshooting reading would enable me to reassure

students/parents/teachers that alternative paths are not taken instead of reading but are, in

and of themselves, essential components toward achieving overall literacy.

The purpose of this Learner Literacy Case Study is to practice applying the cognitive

model of reading assessment towards identifying and addressing the needs of a student,

Ben, who demonstrates significant delay in reading.

II. Home and Family

Ben is being raised by his biological mother. There has been no mention of

involvement of biological father. A baby brother was born last year. Mom works as counter-

help at a plate-lunch food venue located close to home, often at night. She also sometimes

attends classes at night. She lives with and turns to extended family for assistance with

childcare. The family lives in low-income housing within walking distance of Bens school.

Ben usually walks to-and-from school in the company of his uncle or grandfather. It

regularly happens that no one comes to pick Ben up, and he is brought to the office to wait

for pick-up. There is a high-level of inconsistency with communication folder to-and-from

school (e.g. following through on homework, returning field trip forms, attending parent-

teacher conferences). However, when teacher makes direct requests via phone calls / text

messages, mom has been responsive in following-through with those specific requests. Mom
tries to stick to English when she speaks to Ben, but the extended family tends to speak more

Ilocano than English when at home.

As a toddler, Ben was diagnosed to have hearing loss in both ears. He was provided

with hearing aids, however past teachers shared that he would refuse to wear the hearing

aids and would often break them. His cooperation improved during his Kindergarten year,

with implementation of structured behavior expectations.

III. Affective Factors

Ben is self-motivated to keep up with his peers in school. Care needs to be taken to

build up his tolerance for failing, especially when in view of peers---this includes adhering to

a consistent behavior management, as earning a consequence is a fast-trigger for tantrum

behavior that can escalate. Ben has responded positively to tracking results of his work (e.g.,

graphs of spelling test scores, or checklists of things accomplished). He readily accepts the

idea of sharing a watch-out (an error) with the class when this is presented as helping

classmates who made the same mistake.

Ben appears to enjoy read-alouds in class, however he is more focused when time is

taken to apply drama-strategies that allow him to act out what he has heard. From his

responses, clearly there are many times he was not sure about what he was listening to---or

had the wrong word/idea completely---and modeling from peers helps him to understand

the passage better. When reading in a group, he is willing to focus on his copy of the text

being read however he often will look at neighboring peers to see if he is in the right place.

He is sometimes able to finger-hop from word-to-word accurately. During choral reads, he is

willing to follow-along, but most of time his voice is echoing what others say first. He can
really get into stories---sometimes a little overly exciting---and he may need reminder to use a

softer voice.

In class, writing tasks often go along with or closely follow reading, so it is noted that he

has increased tolerance of writing tasks (as compared to Kindergarten year). He is now able

to efficiently copy simple text from the projector screen or whiteboard (10+ feet away), and

will make an effort to sound out words. He has a short list of 1-3 letter basic words he can

spell independently. During writing tasks, he turns frequently to drawing which has always

been a strength for him.

Ben participated in taking the Garfield Elementary Reading Attitude Survey, and

scored a 78%. At first I was surprised he likes so many things about reading---given how

much he struggles and how low his tolerance point for challenging academics sometimes

can be, its hard to accept that the only items he really dislikes is going to the bookstore

and reading on summer vacation. Then I realized I was thinking only about his present

level of ability, and not any aspirations he may have---it is a nice reminder that those of us

who support Ben need to help him resolve genuine, profound difficulties with reading in a

way that does not crush his enthusiasm!

IV. School Literacy History

There are three factors in Bens case that indicate he probably entered preschool with

less knowledge of vocabulary and phonemes than typical peers of his age-group. These

factors are 1) coming from a low-income home, 2) being an English Language Learner (ELL),

and 3) having bi-lateral hearing loss.

A study by Hart and Risley (2003) measured the number of words spoken to children in

three different income brackets. They concluded that by the time children reach the age of
three-years, those in taciturn low-income families had heard about 30-million less words than

those in upper-level income.

Based on assessment by school-level ELL program, Ben is at NEP level 10 (entering).

Though he converses in English easily at school with teachers and peers, at home mom is the

only family who speaks consistently in English with him. Students who are ELL typically

struggle with phonemes because not all sounds in English are represented in their native

language (Irujo, 2007). As many of Bens extended family do not speak English at home, Ben

has limited models for hearing the sounds of the English language.

Despite a year in preschool, by end of Kindergarten Ben was only able to identify 1/26

letters by sound. This significant delay in making sound-symbol correlation was attributed by

teachers and speech pathologists to his hearing loss and his opposition to wearing hearing

aides till the age of five. A study by Asker-Arnason, Wass, Gustafsson, & Sahlen adds a

slightly different viewpoint, namely that delays in developing letter/word recognition in

children with hearing aids (as compared to children of typical hearing and children with

cochlear implants) occur because those with hearing aids try to rely on phonological

strategies to a greater extent and thus not develop reading skills (2015). Those with more

profound hearing loss (the cochlear group) were thought to turn to orthographic cues earlier

when learning to decode. Orthographic cues, being visually based, avoid the compromised

audio route and provide a quicker path to fluency. This idea appears to make sense when

applied to Ben. Being moderately hearing impaired, he can hear some sounds so continues

to struggle to discriminate between sounds---for certain sounds this effort may eventually

prove fruitless, but for all sounds this effort takes considerable space in his working memory

and thus impedes the development of fluency (Asker-Arnason, et al. 2015).

This combination of low-income, ELL and hearing impairment places Ben in A Perfect Storm

of literacy challenges! Start-of-year testing for the current school year (first-grade) show that

Ben could identify 9/26 letters by name, 1/26 letters by sound, and was at reading level 1 of

the Rigby Reading Diagnostics Kit. He is in an RTI group with 3 other students, all of whom are

included on the grade-levels watch-and-monitor list and will receive some mid-cycle

assessment at least every 2-weeks. At the time of writing this part of the case study, RTI

cycles are scheduled for 6 weeks and Bens group is in middle of their first RTI-cycle. One of

the supports they are receiving during RTI sessions is direct reading instruction using a

resource called Teach Your Child to Read in 100 Easy Lessons" (Englemann, Haddox, &

Bruner, 1983).
Literacy Learner Case Study, Part2
V. Pre-tests Given and Summary of Test Results

Since my purpose is to utilize the three Pathways of the cognitive model to describe

the strengths and needs of Ben, I have taken his assessment results and placed them along

the cognitive pathway that they correspond to. This is to show where he is in regards to

becoming an independent reader.

Assessments for Pathway 1, Automatic Word Recognition:

The flowchart below (figure 1) depicts the order of skills acquisition that, per the

cognitive model, develops automatic word recognition (McKenna & Stahl, 2015). Listed

directly beneath the flowchart are titles of assessments corresponding to the pathway. The

arrows indicate the reading skill that was addressed. Details of each assessment are then

described in the tables that follow.

print concepts Pathway 1:

decoding
and
and sight word
fluency in Automatic Word
phonological context Recognition
knowledge
awareness

(McKenna and Stahl, 2015, p. 8)

o Rigby Reading Diagnostics Kit (running record)

o school level RTI placement test
o Book Handling and Knowledge Guidelines

Figure 1. Assessments that fall along Pathway 1 of the cognitive model. This figure shows
what reading skills along Pathway 1 are being addressed.
Book Handling and Knowledge Guidelines (McKenna and Stahl, 2015)

Purpose: Describe students readiness for reading printed text. Since this assessment
features basic print orientation and bridges to some printed text features, it feels
appropriate for this students level.

Assessor checked off items demonstrated, and

made some observational notes.

Strengths as indicated by this assessment:

Question / task
1. locate the beginning and
ending of a story
2. demonstrate top-to-
bottom, left-to-right tracking
3. identify period and
question mark
What Ben did
The assessor held a small book upside-down and offered it
to Ben. Ben readily accepted the book, turned it right-
way-up to look at the cover, and then opened the book to
look at the pages. As he studied the pages, he would
sometimes exclaim over the pictures. He would also touch
some of the printed text but did not read any text aloud.
When the assessor prompted him to locate the beginning
and ending, he promptly did so by opening the book and
flipping pages till he decided on where the
beginning/ending was and presented these to the
assessor---he was not confident about his final decisions,
though he was correct.
Ben was not able to read most of the words in the book.
However he did sometimes point at words with his finger,
and hop from word to word. He did demonstrate top-to-
bottom, left-to-right orientation.
When assessor pointed out period and question marks, Ben
was able to say what they were.
 Needs as indicated by this assessment:
Performance notes Implications
Ben was unable to Recognition of punctuation comma marks is a part of Core
identify exclamation Core State Standards (CCSS).
point, or comma. As Ben was able to pick-up knowledge about periods and
questions marks through regular class sessions, it is
anticipated he would likely do similar with commas and
exclamation points. Therefore addressing this through Tier1
instruction appears to be appropriate.
Ben was unable to In light that Ben attended at least one full year each of
isolate individual letters PreK and Kindergarten, in classes that regularly addressed
within words. phonemic awareness, it is a concern that he is only able to
identify one letter by name/sound at the start of 2nd-
quarter of 1st-grade.
Figure 2. Results of assessment. This table provides details of how student performed when
assessed on print concepts.
RTI placement test (a common grade-level assessment used at Bens school)
Purpose: Describe students emergent ability with phonics. This survey starts with letter
recognition by name and sound, and advances through nonsense and real CVC, CVCC,
etc.

Strengths as indicated by this assessment:

Question / task What Ben did
1. identify lowercase letters Ben was willing to work through the entire testing session
by sound cooperatively and in good spirits (even though he was not
able to actually do much of the work).

Per Friesen (2011), student engagement is one key to

success. So it is a good sign that, despite being unable to
read most of the letters presented to him, Ben was still
willing to enthusiastically work through the entire
assessment.

Assessor did offer moral-support whenever he would look

up at the assessor for confirmation: no matter what he
said, the assessor smiled, nodded, or otherwise indicated
he was doing great.
Needs as indicated by this assessment:
Performance notes Implications
10/17/16 Pre-test This level of letter identification is considered to be well-
Ben is able to identify 1 below per 1st-grade expectations, and is an area of
consonant by sound: s concern.
Figure 3. Results of assessment. This table provides details of how student performed when
assessed on sounds of individual letters.
Rigby Reading Diagnostics Kit (a common grade-level assessment used at Bens school)

Purpose: Describe students ability to read text and establish what reading level to work
on for independent reading and for instructional reading. The Rigby kit provides a running
record of a students reading of a leveled text, and it also provides at least 3
comprehension questions.

Strengths as indicated by this assessment:

Question / task
1. Answer comprehension
questions after reading a
Level 1 book on his own.
What Ben did
Level 1 books feature very few words in a set pattern, and
lots of large photos. Ben was not able to read very many
of the words, but he was able to read the photo and
successfully answer 3/3 comprehension questions. This
ability indicates an understanding of concepts of print
(McKenna and Stahl, 2015).

Needs as indicated by this assessment:

Performance notes Implications
Ben was only able to Independent reading at Level 1 is considered to be well-
read a few of the below per 1st-grade grading expectations, and it is an
words in a Level 1 area of concern that Ben still struggles to read text at this
book. He is very level.
dependent upon
photos to guess at
words and to answer
comprehension
questions.

Figure 4. Results of assessment. This table provides details of how student performed when
assessed on decoding.

Assessments for Pathway 2, Oral Language Comprehension:

The chart below depicts the order of skills acquisition that, per the cognitive model,

develops oral language comprehension (McKenna & Stahl, 2015). Directly beneath the

flowchart, the assessment Rigby Benchmark Kit and On-demand Performance words
used in the text are simple, pre-primer level basic words, and this shows that Ben is able to

not yet working on listening to text that addresses formal academic vocabulary. The On-

demand results show whether Ben can independently perceive/express structure of text and

sentences.

background vocabulary
knowledge knowledge
Pathway 2:
Oral Language
Comprehension
text and sentence
structure

(McKenna and Stahl, 2015, p. 8)

o Rigby Reading Diagnostics Kit (listening comprehension)

o On-demand performance assessment (writing sentences)

Figure 5. Assessments that fall along Pathway 2 of the cognitive model. This figure shows
what reading skills along Pathway 2 are being addressed.

Rigby Reading Diagnostics Kit (a common grade-level assessment used at Bens school)

Purpose: Describe students ability to read text and establish what reading level to work
on for independent reading and for instructional reading. The Rigby kit provides a running
record of a students reading of a leveled text, and it also provides at least 3
comprehension questions.
Strengths as indicated by this assessment:
Question / task What Ben did
1. Answer comprehension Ben was unable to read the words in the Level 2 book, so
questions after having the assessor elected to run a listening comprehension
book read to him. assessment by reading the text to Ben and asking the
comprehension questions. Caldwell (2008) describes this
technique for obtaining an idea of what reading
comprehension might be were there no decoding
problems.
Since Ben was able to answer all questions, we surmise that
though he is not able to decode Level 2 text, he is able to
comprehend the language of Level 2 text.

When assessor read Level 3 book to Ben, he was able to

answer 2/3 question.
 Figure 6. Results of assessment. This table provides details of how student performed when
assessed on listening comprehension.

On-demand Performance Assessment (Calkins, 2016)

Purpose: Describe students ability to independently generate a writing piece, following a

format that has been practiced in class. Calkins (2016) explains On-demand Performance
Assessments reveal what of instruction has truly sunk-in and what the next steps might be in
developing the desired skill. In this case, we are using the results of attempting to write
sentences as a secondary means of assessing whether Ben independently makes sound-
symbol correlations and whether he perceives text format. Our primary source of these skills
is along Pathway 1, where we assess Bens ability to decode. However, observing him write
also will inform us of the following: Are letters of a single word are grouped closer together?
Is there a discernable space between words? Does the first letter of a word correspond to
the initial sound of that spoken word? Does he end sentences/phrases with an appropriate
punctuation mark?
Ben was able to independently:
Copy text from whiteboard.
Generate a letter-string
Create drawing/s that answer
the prompt
Next steps as indicated by this
assessment:
Work on sound-symbol
association: Whether letter sounds
were accurate was ascertained
by having Ben read what he
wrote as he touched his writing---
there was no correlation between
the words he said and the letters
he touched.
Work on appropriate spacing
between words: The letter-string
that Ben composed does not
exhibit groupings of letters that
indicate words. Appropriate
grouping will show what the initial
sound of the words are, and help
readers (including Ben) read what
he has written.

Figure 7. Results of assessment. This table provides details of how student performed when
assessed on writing sentences.

Assessments for Pathway 3, Strategic Knowledge:

 The flowchart below depicts the order of skills acquisition that, per the cognitive

model, develops strategic knowledge, the ability to use the strategies needed to achieve

ones purpose in reading the text (McKenna and Stahl, 2015, p. 8). Arrows indicate the

purposes along Pathway 3 that are addressed by the On-demand Performance

Assessment and Elementary Reading Attitude Survey. The On-demand Performance

Assessments (2016) was adapted to assess how well Ben could independently create a web.

Creating a web assesses strategic knowledge because the ability to select specific

information from text and ascertain whether the information is the main idea or a supporting

details is an indication of whether Ben can apply reading towards accomplishing a specific

reading comprehension task. The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey provides insight on

Bens attitude towards reading, and what he values about the task.

general knowledge of
specific strategies
purposes purposes Pathway 3:
for reading for reading
for reading Strategic
(enjoyment, literal (study for test, find (skim, scan, read Knowledge
comprehension) information) closely)

(McKenna and Stahl, 2015, p. 8)

o On-demand Performance Assessment (create a web)

o Elementary Reading Attitude Survey

Figure 8. Assessments that fall along Pathway 3 of the cognitive model. This figure shows
what reading skills along Pathway 3 are being addressed.

Elementary Reading Attitude Survey

Purpose: Describe students general attitude towards reading and whether it is an activity
they are willing to engage in or not.
 Ben scored a 78%.
This indicates that, mostly, he enjoys reading (or, he did not
understand the questions). This is indicates a high-level of
enthusiasm for reading despite significant delays and
difficulties with the task

Figure 9. Results of assessment. This table provides details of how student performed when
assessed on interest in reading.

On-demand Performance Assessment (Calkins, 2016)

Purpose: Describe students ability to independently generate a writing piece, following a

format that has been practiced in class. In this case, we have adopted the guidelines of
Calkins On-demand Performance Assessment (2016) to discover whether Ben is able to
independently create a web. The creation of the web required that Ben listen to a story
(while holding a copy of text), extract information from the text that appropriately
answered a prompt, place the information into the correct corresponding area of the web
to indicate whether it was a main idea or related supporting detail, and draw/write to
effectively enough to communicate the information to a reader.

Ben was able to independently:

Locate the center of the paper and place the bubble for the central idea there.
Create an organizer that had the general look of a web (i.e., bubbled ideas
connected to a central idea).
Next steps as indicated by this assessment:
Follow procedural steps---he was observed to be drawing bubbles first and these
were way too small to fit anything in them! The correct procedure is: draw and write,
circle the whole idea (drawing and words), then check (think) if there is a connection
(if yes, draw a connecting line from the bubble to the central idea; if no connection,
X-off the bubble).
 Identifying the main idea---he needed assistance for expressing the central idea of
his web.

Figure 10. Results of assessment. This table provides details of how student performed when
assessed on creating a web.

Interpretation to determine next steps:

Bens overall performance reveals his skills on all three Pathways are just beginning to

emerge, and indicates a number of next-steps to focus on:

1) Print concepts:
Continue to build awareness of punctuation and an understanding of
what these text features denote.

2) Phonological awareness:
Develop sound-symbol correlations for individual letters.
Learn to isolate sounds in words.

3) Writing:
Leave appropriate spacing that denotes words/initial sounds.
Develop sound-symbol correlations for individual letters.
Follow procedures so webs are clearer.

In regards to print concepts, Ben does demonstrate he is able to recognize periods

and question marks following general instruction to the whole class. So it is anticipated he

would be able to continue learning other punctuation as the class receives instruction on

this. Therefore text features are not a concern requiring intervention at this time.

In regards to phonological awareness and writing, a common need is to develop

sound-symbol correlation. Since developing these sound-symbol association would help

both reading and writing performance (Beck and Beck, 2013), I decided to focus on

providing interventions for identifying sounds of letters and developing correlations to

graphemes.
VI. Lesson Plan Overview

In order to address sound-symbol correlation, I decided to combine three

interventions: 1) a phonics tutoring program called Sound Partners (Vadasy, Wayne,

OConnor, Jenkins, Pool, Firebaugh, and Peyton, 2005), 2) increasing the intensity of

instruction to a daily one-to-one tutoring ratio, and 3) using an adapted a set of phonics

visuals.

In regards to selecting Sound Partners as in intervention, a review by What Works

Clearinghouse, Sound Partners was found to have positive effects with alphabetics, fluency,

and comprehension. It is a program that is designed to be simple to run, so volunteers and

classroom aides may help with tutoring. The program was designed for one-to-one tutoring

and in most cases begins at that intensity. However once students get used to the routines,

the designers claim it is possible to present the lesson to a small group (Vannasy, Wayne,

OConnor, Jenkins, Pool, Firebaugh and Peyton, 2005).

In regards to increasing the intensity of instructional delivery to one-to-one sessions

occurring daily, per Slavin, Lake, Davis, and Madden (2010 the most effective Tier 2 and Tier

3 RTI interventions were one-to-one tutoring using proven methods. In order to accomplish

this, the classroom RTI routine was changed to provide a window of about 20 minutes during

which I could slip in regular one-to-one time with Ben. The weekly routine was also changed

to provide daily RTI rotations within the classroom, which is an increase from the grade-level

minimum requirement of 3 days per week.

In regards to the phonics visuals, these were adapted to incorporate general

guidelines for effective phonics instruction and specific modifications that benefit learners

who are deaf/hard-of-hearing (DHH). Generally speaking, per Murray (2012), the following

four steps raise the effectiveness of phonetic instruction: (1) focus on the individual
phoneme, (2) make the phoneme memorable, (3) explicitly raise students awareness of

the phoneme, and (4) apply phonemic skills to reading via short 10-20 minutes sessions. Of

particular benefit to DHH, Schirmer and McGough (2005) found that deaf/hard-of-hearing

benefit when phonemes are paired with hand gestures or finger spelling. In addition, my

personal observation of programs marketed as instruction for DHH, such as Foundations for

Literacy (Lederberg, Easterbrooks, Miller, Tucci, and Connor), is that the visual cues appear

to be using mnemonic cues that bring to mind the noise a letter sound makes (as opposed

to just the initial sound of a word that starts with that letter). I also took into account that

Ben responded in the past to mnemonic cues that reminded him of what numerals look like.

Based on this information, I devised visual cue cards to provide:

The noise a letter makes: Typical phonic cues require students isolate the initial sound
of a word (e.g. B is for ball, /b//b/ ball). Ben in not able to isolate sounds. So noises
from the environment, or that naturally arise from specific situations, are selected to
showcase the letter sounds.
Dually purposed mnemonics: These cue both the situation that the noise of the letter
occurs, and the shape of the letter that needs to be drawn.
Simple hand sign or gesture paired with each letter.
The lesson plan for combining the three interventions is summarized below:

Lesson Foci/Date Objectives Instructional materials On-going

(include including performance, conditions, (what will use to deliver the main
and criterion. State the Common Core State objectives of the lesson) assessment
Standard at the end of each objective. (to measure attainment
of objectives)
read and write letters When presented a printed 1) Visuals that cue the noise * cold probes of
(by sound) lower-case letters in random of the letter as well as how to instructed sounds
order, student will identify the write it. and also of
begin week of 11/14 letter by sound with a success mastered sounds
rate of at least 90% over 3 Borrowing ideas from two (following 2wks &
CCSS: recording opportunities. programs: 1) Childhood 4wks of no-
RL1.2 Demonstrate Early Intervention (CEI) sound instruction)
understanding of When sounds of letters are cards, and 2) Jolly Phonics.
spoken words, presented in random order,
syllables, and sounds. student will write the correct
letter with a success rate of at
RF1.3 Know and apply least 90% over 3 recording 2) The sequence of letters
grade-level phonics opportunities. will be coordinated with their
and word analysis skills appearance in the program
in decoding words. Sound Partners.
 read and write CVC When presented with printed Sound Partners lessons *daily CCSS lesson
words CVC words, student will
correctly read the words with a
begin week of 11/14 success rate of at least 90%
over 3 recording opportunities.
CCSS:
RF1.4 Read with Upon verbal request, students
sufficient accuracy will correctly write the CVC
and fluency to support word with a success rate of at
comprehension. least 90% over 3 recording
opportunities.
Figure 11. Lesson Plan for Interventions. This table outlines how interventions will be
delivered.

VII. Summary of results

The graph below (figure 12) traces Bens performance during a six-week RTI cycle. The

data points represent the number of letters Ben can identify (either say or write) by sound.

The first data point (10/17) is the baseline. When the three data points before the bold line

(10/24, 10/31, and 11/4) were recorded, Ben had been receiving a tutoring intervention

called Teach Your Child To Read in 100 Easy Lessons (Engelmann, Haddox, and Bruner, 1983).

In the weeks following the bold line (11/14, 11/21, 11/28), Ben had been receiving the

combination of Sound Partners, one-to-one sessions, and adapted visual cues.

Data points indicate the number of

letters Ben can identify by sound.
Figure 12. Graph of weekly performance probes. This graph effect of interventions on Bens
ability to identify letters by sound.

Figure 13. Data for graph. These are the writing samples taken during Sound Partner sessions
that were used as data points.
 As a post-intervention assessment, an On-demand Performance Assessment was

conducted. Ben composed a written summary of a short story that was read to the class.

The students had been practicing the following format for summarizing stories, Somebody

wanted ___________ but ___________ so___________. Ben was allowed to start the piece on

his own. After 5-minutes, he had not written anything so dictation of his response was taken.

The dictated record was covered, and the assessor wrote out the cueing phrase with blanks

for Ben to fill-in. As Ben sounded out words, he would loose track of what word he needed

next, so the assessor would remind Ben of the dictated phrase as needed. As Ben sounded

out words, he sometimes could not recall the form of the letter. If he got stuck for more than

20-seconds, the assessor would 1) provide the verbal mnemonic. If this did not help, the

assessor added the hand-motion. Ben was able to write 8 of the letters he had learned

during the intervention period.

With a little prompting, Ben was able to write

eight letters by sound: m, t, r, d, s, n, h, a

Figure 14. Post-intervention writing sample. With some reminders of the mnemonic or the
hand-sign, Ben was able to write 8 letters he had learned during intervention period.
 As a post-intervention assessment, the RTI placement test was re-administered. This

time Ben was able to read 8-consonants by sound and 2-vowels by sound.

RTI placement test (a common grade-level assessment used at Bens school)

Purpose: Describe students emergent ability with phonics. This survey starts with letter
recognition by name and sound, and advances through nonsense and real CVC, CVCC,
etc.

Strengths as indicated by this assessment:

Question / task What Ben did
1. identify lowercase letters Ben was now able to read 8/26 consonants and 2/5 vowels
by sound by sound.

VII. Reflection

In regards to Sound Partners: I found that what the designers had claimed to be
true---the very simple and clean design made it very feasible to opportunistically jump

between one-to-one tutoring and small group instruction. The built-in reading and writing

routines worked synergistically to strengthen Bens ability in both areas with the added

advantage of producing automatic data for performance tracking.

Figure 15. Page from Sound Partners. This is the simple and clear design that makes small
group instruction feasible.

Figure 16. Student work sample. Each Sound Partners lesson generates a writing sample,
which is easily collected as progress data.

In regards to increasing instructional intensity to one-to-one ratio: Ben did benefit from

one-to-one sessions, especially due to his impaired hearing which caused his initial pace to

be much slower than that of peers with typical hearing. However once he achieved
adequate fluency with targeted letter sounds, it was very motivating for him to join a small

group (2-3 peers of similar reading ability).

In regards to adapted phonics visuals: Ben responded well to these cards, and was

able to immediately show some retention of vocalizing and writing letters by sound. The

original plan was to introduce a new cue card one at a time, following the instructional

sequence of Sound Partners. However, Ben picked up the mnemonic, hand sign, and letter

noise much faster, so visuals were added as fast as his pace with them. My feeling is that he

has had a lot of previous exposure to letter sounds so this was information he was already

aware of. I think the cue cards anchored his knowledge by using pathways that gave him

the surety his impaired audio pathway could not.

mnemonic: two-scoops ice-cream

noise: mmmmmmmmmm
write: two-scoops (the bumps of the m are the
scoops of ice-cream)

mnemonic: cat plays castanets

noise: /k//k//k/
write: follow the curve of the castanet (real
castanets are used in the introduction

mnemonic: bird poops on me

noise: iiiiiiii (short i)
write: the line of the i is the boy and the dot
is the poop falling on him
Figure 17. Examples of adapted phonics cues. These provide an alternative to typical
phonic visuals that require students to isolate the first-sound (e.g., B is for ball, /b//b/ ball).

Breaking the 4th-wall, and taking a moment to step out of this paper to reflect on the

experience of writing it: Ill have to remember to imagine what artifacts will look like when

they are scanned into the appendix of my paper for impartial readers to peruse. My data-

taking habit of notes on scratch paper and post-its, or scribbles on the back of my hand with

a sharpie, wouldnt be all that convincing to impartial readers. . . unless they were

teachers. I think skills like observational assessments on such things like book handling may

be better off video-taped because just looking at the form is quite lame---even if I included

the observational notes on the assessment form itself, that still wouldnt be more than just my

word about what happened.

Overall reflection of this Literacy Learner Case Study: Just as McKenna and Stahl

(2015) described would happen, looking through the lens of the cognitive model helped to

organize my learning about assessments. I happen to prefer the cognitive model over the

other models I have met thus far, however I would think similar organization of assessments

could be done with whatever model a person selects. Though the cognitive model

describes three-pathways to reading comprehension, I am sure I can apply the idea to all

other subjects because for every subject there is a need to learn vocabulary and to become

fluent in both oral comprehension and decoding the new words. For every subject, there is

also a need to learn strategic, efficient ways to accomplish specific tasks. The cognitive

model provides an explanation for how accommodations and modifications are still

addressing the target subject---with this in mind, I can more easily see where and how to
build the bridges students need to their stronger Pathways while they continue to work their

way through a path that is delayed. I think it is important for teachers to learn to

troubleshoot learning difficulties in this manner. I often hear it said that an intervention is a

Tier 3 intervention just and only because the instructional intensity was increased to one-to-

one tutoring. I do not agree with that because often that means the student is essentially still

banging their head against what has not worked for them for years. I think its important that

when kids arrive at Tier 3, there is something about that intervention that provides an

alternative cognitive path so they (1) learn to wield and trust in their strengths to gain the

skills they need, and (2) pinpoint and continue working on their exact and finite difficulty.

XI. Recommendations to Teachers

Dear _______________,

Thank you for allowing me to work with Ben over these past few weeks! The

assessments conducted provide a picture of Bens strengths and suggest what his next steps

towards becoming a proficient reader might be. I have attached a copy of the results we

reviewed with Bens support team---please let me know if you have any questions.

Based on the assessments, Bens strengths include being able to demonstrate pre-

reading book-handling skills (such as being able to track text top-to-bottom and left-to-right).

He is able to demonstrate listening comprehension for text that is beyond his ability to

independently decode. He envisions himself as someone who enjoys reading and has

shared some of the ways you have encouraged him---thank you for your efforts at keeping

his enthusiasm alive through his struggles!

 Based on assessment results and input from team, it is recommended that Bens next

steps include a priority on learning to identify letters by sound. Instruction on reading letters

works synergistically with instruction on writing letters, so developing awareness of which

sounds and symbols go together will benefit his ability to both decode text and compose

written pieces. A combination of interventions that have had promising initial results is

utilizing a phonics program called Sound Partners, alternating one-to-one tutoring and small-

group instruction, and using phonics cues adapted to accommodate for his impaired

hearing.

If we base instructional planning around the precepts of the cognitive model of

reading, there are three areas to develop as Ben learns to read: automatic word

recognition, oral language comprehension, and strategic knowledge. This means that while

Ben catches up on learning his letter sounds (automatic word recognition), he can still

develop the other two areas for an authentic approach towards literacy. Since Ben

demonstrates the ability to comprehend text read aloud, providing the accommodation of

reading text to him will develop his understanding of materials, procedures, and vocabulary.

Since he demonstrates emergent ability to examine text/illustrations to find information,

explicit instruction on text structure and on graphic organizers would continue to develop his

abilities as a strategic reader. Since his hearing is impaired, Ben would benefit from the

addition of visual cues to help him recognize key words in text, independently access

reference charts, and generally advance his ability to associate meaning (as opposed to

impaired sounds) to printed text.

I look forward to continuing to work together with you on Bens reading!

Sincerely,

Norene Ajimine
literacy specialist
*********************************************************************************************************
references

Asker-Anrason, L., Wass, M., Gustafsson, F., & Sahlen, B. (2015). Reading comprehension
and working memory capacity in children with hearin gloss and cochlear implants or
hearing aids. The Volta Review, 115(1), 35-65.

Beck, I., & Beck, M. (2013). Making sense of phonics the hows and whys. New York: The
Guildford Press.

Caldwell. (2008). IRI process. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/y3yvey

Calkins, L. (2016). Writing pathways: Performance assessments and learning progressions,

grades K-8. New Hampshire: Heinemann.

Englemann, S., Haddox, P., & Bruner, E. Teach your child to read in 100 easy lessons. New
York: Simon & Shuster, 1983.

Freisen, H. (2011). Spelling lessons: A step toward recuperation from educational distress.
Adult Basic Education and Literacy Journal, 5(2), 103-105.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by
age 3. American Educator, 27(1), 4-9.

Irujo, S. (2007.) What does research tell us about teaching reading to English language
learners? [ELL e-newsletter] Retrieved from Course Crafters, Inc. website
http://www.coursecrafters.com/what-does-research-tell-us-about-teaching-reading-to-english-language-
learners/

Lederberg, A., Easterbrooks, S., Miller, E., Tucci, S., & Connor, C. Foundations for literacy flyer.
Retrieved from http://clad.education.gsu.edu/files/2014/07/Foundations-for-Literacy-
recruitment-flyer1.pdf

McKenna, M., & Stahl, K. (2015). Assessment for reading instruction. New York: The
Guildford Press.

Murray, B.A. (2012). Tell me about freds foot again. The Reading Teacher, 66(2), 139-144.
doe: 10.1002:TTR.01096

Schirmer, B., & McGough, S. (2005). Teaching reading to children who are deaf: Do the
conclusions of the national reading panel apply? Review of Educational Research,
75(1), p83-117.
Slavin, R., Lake, C., Davis, S., & Madden, N. (2010). Effective programs for stuggling readers:
A best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6(1), 1-26.
http://ac.els-cdn.com.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/S1747938X10000400/1-s2.0-
S1747938X10000400-main.pdf?_tid=df55d568-ba94-11e6-9994-
00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1480906104_7ecbbb0db073360777eb235f9eb5cb74

What Works Clearinghouse. Sound partners review. retrieved from

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/EvidenceSnapshot/475

Vadasy, P., Wayne, S., OConnor, R, Jenkins, J., Pool, K., Firebaugh, & M, Peyton, J. (2005).
Sound Partners. Boston: Sopris West.