Introduction

Literacy Instruction and the Role of the Reading Specialist

It is my belief that literacy instruction should be systematic, differentiated, and should unquestionably encompass the five key components of high-quality reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000). In addition, literacy instruction must be fun and interesting for all students. The Reading Workshop is a wonderful framework that contains the elements of proper literacy instruction. The teacher models a concept, the children then have independent practice with the concept at their individualized level, and the teacher is able to meet either one-on-one or in leveled small groups to focus in on the needs of the students. Additionally, the reading curriculum should contain the five key components and ensure that the components are intermingled throughout the year, so students can practice their reading skills and strategies with a variety of texts. My experience with literacy instruction has primarily been with emergent and developing readers. With children in these stages of reading development, book selection is extremely important. A teacher must have available books on their students’ various levels that are of interest to them, with a large selection to choose from. The students must be motivated to read by the teacher, as well as by the books found in the classroom.

A Reading Specialist is a teacher who specializes in the area of literacy, which includes both reading and writing. The role of the Reading Specialist is to support classroom teachers with their literacy instruction, perform assessments on struggling readers, offer professional development on current trends and research within the field of literacy, suggest reading and writing strategies for parents to use at home with their children, devise individualized literacy plans for struggling students, and work with struggling readers utilizing a tailored plan to meet their individual needs. In my opinion, a Reading Specialist plays a critical role in the school environment. Most classroom teachers are overwhelmed with the day-to-day activities, paperwork, lesson plans, etc. A Reading Specialist can greatly assist these teachers by modeling reading lessons and offering quick suggestions on how they can easily improve their literacy instruction to make it more impactful. It is my hope that one day I can perform this role in a school because it is one of great importance.

An Overview

This case study provides a detailed synopsis of a variety of assessments and accompanying results from tutoring sessions that have been conducted over a three month period. The subject is a male second grade student who has had difficulty with reading since entering the first grade in 2008. Background information about the child will initially be presented in order to have a better understanding of him as a struggling reader. Following the introduction, an outline of the administered assessments will be provided, along with the findings of each. An expanded discourse concerning the assessments’ results will then be offered. Based on the results of these assessments, there will be a list of suggested recommendations for the student’s future reading instruction. Finally, the case study will conclude with a reflection of the tutoring process, as well as a brief commentary regarding the student’s progress over the three month period.

Background Information

M. is a 6 year old male second grader whom I had as a student in my classroom for first grade last year. I immediately thought of him when we were told we needed to tutor a student. Last year I had to I&RS him for reading difficulties. M. was having trouble correctly blending and segmenting CVC words, correctly spelling CVC words and first grade word wall words, as well as having problems writing grammatically correct sentences and stories. M. had wonderful auditory comprehension skills but had difficulty understanding stories when reading independently, due to fluency issues. The outcome of the referral identified him as having a slight case of ADHD, with no existing learning disability. The doctor’s report did identify a slight hearing impediment in one ear, but it may have been caused by an ear infection. Based on this diagnosis, he has been placed in resource room for language arts/reading in second grade. In my opinion, much of his difficulties are developmental due to the fact that he has a December birthday (5 years old when he entered first grade) and he never went to preschool prior to entering Kindergarten. It is also helpful to note that he is currently in speech classes for a lateral lisp. M. is a very happy child who is extremely motivated to learn, despite encountering many reading challenges.

Tutoring Summary

Assessments Administered

Reading Interview, Reading Attitude, and Book-Handling Knowledge / Results
Burke Reading Interview
(administered in Sept. and Nov.) / - Word attack strategies consistent
- Positive self-belief about reading ability
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (administered in Sept.) / Recreational: 93%
Academic: 98%
Full Scale: 95%
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (administered in Nov.) / Recreational: 85%
Academic: 100%
Full Scale: 93%
Book-Handling Knowledge Guidelines / Mastery of all concepts except for:
- difficulty explaining quotation marks
Word Recognition Assessments / Results
QRI Word List / Independent: Pre-Primer
85% automatic, 5% identified, 90% correct
Independent: Primer
75% automatic, 15% identified, 90% correct
Frustration: Level One
25% automatic, 25% identified, 50% correct
Frustration: Level Two
15% automatic, 25% identified, 40% correct
Fry Sight-Word Inventory / First 100: Not Read = 10, Decoded = 6
Second 100: Not Read = 37, Decoded = 1
Third 100: Not Read = 47, Decoded = 3
Comprehension Assessments / Results
QRI Comprehension / Independent: Pre-Primer
Instructional: Primer
Frustration: Level One
Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, and Spelling Assessments / Results
Test of Phonemic Awareness / Mastery in all areas except for:
- Rhymes
- Phoneme Identity
Informal Phonics Inventory / 55/93 = 59%
Most difficulty with:
- Rule of Silent e
- Long Vowel Digraphs
- r-Controlled Vowels
Z-Test / Unable to make comparisons with familiar spelling patterns in 18 out of 37 common rimes
Qualitative Spelling Checklist / Within Word Pattern
Early to Middle Stage of Development
Primary Spelling Inventory (PSI) / Within Word Pattern
Early to Middle Stage of Development
Fluency Assessment / Results
QRI Oral Reading Rate / Primer: 37 wpm, 29 cwpm
Level One: 31 wpm, 3 cwpm
NAEP Rubric / Mostly a Level 3, depending upon the book being read
Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) /
Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) / 63 wpm, Uncorrected Errors = 3
60 (wcpm) / 63 (wpm) = 95% accuracy
60 wcpm = great progress in fall of grade 2

Burke Reading Interview, Reading Attitude, and Book-Handling Knowledge

Our first tutoring session began with the administration of the Burke Reading Interview. M. was extremely eager to get started with his tutoring sessions and answer all of my questions in great detail. He was able to articulate the strategies he uses when he comes to words he doesn’t know: sound a word out, look at the first letter of the word, ask three friends, and play guess the covered word. His belief about what makes a good reader was someone who could read chapter books because (according to him) all chapter books have hard words. He indicated that he learned to read by practicing his reading everyday so that it would be perfect. M. believes that he is a good reader because he was able to read a couple of words in a chapter book once. In our final tutoring session I had administered the very same Burke Reading Interview to M. again, with slightly different results. I noticed that he gave shorter answers as compared to the first time. Hi primary reading strategies when he comes to an unknown word is to think, get a picture in his mind, and reread the sentence. He still believes that someone who can read a chapter book is a good reader. He continues to believe that he is a good reader but now it is because he is able to sound out words. M.’s notion of what makes a good reader was aligned with what McKenna and Stahl (2003) observed in most struggling readers. They noticed that struggling readers perceive good readers as “those who say the words correctly” (p. 187).

Additionally, I administered the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey in both September and November with an 8% decline in M.’s positive recreational reading attitude, however there was a 2% increase in his academic reading attitude. I did not find this to be surprising because has always been a very motivated student in the classroom. Lately, I have noticed that M. has not been as interested in our tutoring sessions as much as he was in September. I believe that M. receives so much intervention during the day, including resource room and an aide in his classroom to redirect him, that when it comes to his recreational time he is not as enthusiastic about reading for fun as he once was. Also, I think that due to his ADHD, he has a lot of trouble sitting still throughout the day and when there is time for free play he likes to take advantage of that, as any child would. I do not believe M.’s recreational reading attitude decline stems from his reading difficulty because according to the Burke Reading Interview, he sees himself as a good reader.

M. scored extremely well on the book handling assessment. His only difficulty was with the explanation of quotation marks. He does know the use for quotation marks because when he reads aloud he takes on the character’s voice, but it was obvious he could not formulate the right words to explain, so he just shrugged when I asked him about them.

Word Recognition Assessments

The first word recognition assessment given was the QRI word list. According to Leslie and Caldwell (2006), a relationship exists “between performance on the word lists and word recognition in context” (p. 46). Therefore, if M. could read the words in isolation, then he will find success on a test of comprehension at a similar instructional level. I began with the Pre-Primer list because I knew he would be able to read many of the words and we would be able to slowly work our way up to his frustration level. I was strategic in doing so because I did not want to alter his confidence level by starting with a difficult word list. M. was able to get 90% correct on the Pre-Primer and Primer word lists, which indicates that these would be his independent levels. One would then surmise that Level One would probably be his Instructional level, but he scored a 50% on the Level One word list, and even lower on the Level Two. I think this discrepancy occurred due to the fact that there are many words on the Primer list that were first grade word wall words last year. Whole word recognition has always been one of M.’s strengths (as apposed to decoding) so I was not surprised that he scored so well on a list of words he had seen and practiced many times before. It is my belief that M.’s instructional level is Primer and that his true Independent level is Pre-Primer. As you will see in later QRI results, he has consistently scored at these levels.

With the administration of the Fry Sight-Word Inventory, M. did fairly well on the first 100 words; he only missed 10 words. There was a significant decline in his success on the second and third lists of 100 words; he missed 37 and 47 words, respectively. Unfortunately, there is no way to calculate a score for the Fry Sight-Word Inventory, so it is impossible to identify any miscue patterns. “Any word that is not pronounceable automatically simply requires more practice!” (McKenna & Stahl, 2009, p. 116). M. would need more practice with the words that he missed.

Comprehension Assessments

Based on M.’s scores on the QRI word lists, I had a suspicion that M. would fall somewhere between a Primer and Level One for his Instructional level. First, I administered The Pig Who Learned to Read, a Primer comprehension story. M. had a total of eight miscues: 100% had similar beginning, 88% had a similar ending, 0% had the same vowel pattern, 38% maintained acceptable grammar, and 25% retained the meaning. I found these results to be significant because he misread the vowels on all eight of his miscues. However, because he only had eight miscues, I wanted to see how he would score on the Level One inventory. In a subsequent tutoring session, I administered Mouse in a House, a Level One comprehension story. M. had a total of 28 miscues: 82% had similar beginning, 61% had a similar ending, 29% had the same vowel pattern, 25% maintained acceptable grammar, and 29% retained the meaning. I felt that, again, M. had made significant errors in the area of his vowel sounds. McKenna & Stahl (2009) indicate that a low percentage of vowel pattern similarity is a common pattern. “Vowel sounds are more variable than consonants and thus are more easily confused by readers, especially those experiencing difficulty” (p. 81). It was obvious that M. would see the first and last consonant, but guess at the vowel sound in between.

With regard to the grammatical reading errors, it may be important to note that I was not surprised at his incorrect use of grammar because often he uses incorrect grammar in his everyday speech. The amount of grammatical miscues “must always be interpreted with reference to the student’s speech pattern” (McKenna & Stahl, 2009, p. 81). Given that M. at times exhibits poor spoken grammar, he was unable to pick up the grammatical errors he was making as he read.