(ARTIFACT 7, continued---file was too large to upload in one piece.

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,
and criterion. State the Common Core State
(what will use to deliver the main
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
word with a success rate of at
 and fluency to support least 90% over 3 recording
comprehension. 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.