Case Study of a Struggling Reader
Katherine Rydzy
Diagnosis and Correction of Reading Difficulties
Fall 2010
Introduction:
Literacy instruction is teaching designed to provide students with the skills and strategies necessary to embark on the lifelong process of learning about oneself and the surrounding world through interactions with texts, known as being literate. Each person has a different path towards literacy, encompassing different types of texts and focuses within those texts. Effective literacy instruction results in learners that can decode, comprehend, and discuss text. They are proficient in working with texts in a variety of formats, including reading aloud and silently, being read to, using print and web sources, and all genres of text. Effective instruction will develop adults that can use the written word to accomplish their goals, including personal and professional interests and obligations. Literacy instruction needs to focus on reading for information and enjoyment. It also addresses all areas of literacy including comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and writing. Technology plays an ever increasing role in literacy instruction. Students not only need to be technologically literate, but they need to use technology as a tool for developing literacy. Literacy is the most important element of the elementary school curriculum. It is the foundation used for learning in the content areas. Today’s teachers need to have a strong understanding of the strategies used to teach literacy and design a balanced curriculum for their implementation.
Literacy teachers know that instruction is never one size fits all. Each student has a unique list of strengths, weaknesses, and interests. The literacy instructor has a responsibility for tailoring curriculum to that list and selecting materials to engage the learner. The literacy instructor is successful when students develop strong literacy skills and the ability to pursue their own goals through literacy experiences. The classroom teacher is the first line in literacy instruction, but other school personnel contribute to a school’s literacy environment.
The Reading Specialist has a unique position within the school environment. As a highly trained reading educator, the Reading Specialist is able to provide differentiated reading instruction to students when they fail to make progress in the normal reading classroom. The Reading Specialist goes above and beyond the classroom teacher to develop a profile of a student learner through the use of assessments and observation. From this data, the Reading Specialist develops an instructional plan that targets the weaknesses of the student in a one-on-one or small-group setting. The Reading Specialist can also share this data with the classroom teacher to improve classroom instruction. The Reading Specialist works to remediate a student’s reading weaknesses through targeted instruction in critical literacy areas, such as decoding, comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, and writing. When the student has meet the grade level benchmarks for knowledge, skills, and strategy use, the student can exit the Reading Specialist’s program and thrive in the mainstream classroom.
The Reading Specialist is also a resource for other literacy teachers. Serving as a mentor or coach allows the Reading Specialist to increase the number of students receiving high quality literacy instruction. The Reading Specialist helps other teachers through the use of observation, modeling, providing feedback, and sharing resources. In conjunction with school leadership, the Reading Specialist may present information to teachers in a one on one, small group, or whole faculty setting. The Reading Specialist is often the bridge between school leadership’s ideals and the day to day practices within a school’s classrooms.
This case study presents an overview of one learner. It shows assessments that can be used to study a student’s abilities and how that data can be interpreted to make recommendations for future instruction. It combines knowledge about the student’s background and previous learning situations with input from the classroom teacher and multiple literacy assessments. From this data, a pattern of strengths and weaknesses is identifiable and gives insight to the student’s literacy needs.
Background Information:
This case study analyzes the reading abilities of Justin, a second grade boy. He has a history of reading difficulties. His first grade teacher recommended retention at the end of the previous school year. Justin’s mother did not agree with the decision, and thus, Justin was promoted to second grade in September. He is currently being tested for special services, but not receiving any. The tutor knew Justin prior to the beginning of this study, teaching him for two months at the beginning of his first grade year.
Justin is experiencing challenges in his second grade classroom. His teacher states that he works very slowly and has difficulty with classroom tasks. He is unable to copy from the board accurately and cannot read the instructional materials used with the lessons. He requires more support from the teacher than other students. She states that he is reading significantly below grade level. Justin has prescription glasses, but they are damaged and he wears them infrequently.
Justin is motivated to grow as a reader by his family. He enjoys reading to his younger brother and looks for stories that they can read together. Justin’s mom is enrolled in an adult education program also. Her goal is to get a diploma so that she can get a better job and buy a car for her family. Justin sees that doing well in school allows people get the things they want as adults.
Since Justin understands the importance of school, he works very hard and cooperates with teachers. He is a happy child that enjoys school. Even when the tasks on his desk are well beyond his instructional level, he continues to try and give his best effort. He enjoys reading, but is afraid of scary books, as indicated by the Burke Reading Inventory. He is not cognoscente of the limitations of his reading abilities.
Tutoring sessions occurred during the school day in the school conference room. This provided a quiet and comfortable environment for the student-tutor interactions. Justin enjoyed having a special time during the day to work with the tutor, away from the rest of the class. He looked forward to playing literacy games and reading books.
Tutoring Summary (Synthesis of the Work Completed this Semester):
Word Recognition Assessments / ResultsQRI word lists / Instructional: Pre-Primer 1
Frustration: Pre-Primer 2/3
Fry Sight Word Inventory / First 100 Words: 50 automatic, 11 identified
Second 100 Words: 7 automatic, 21 identified
San Diego Quick Assessment / RR-Level 2: independent
Level 3: frustration
Oral Reading Assessments / Results
QRI passages-accuracy / Pre Primer 1: frustration (independent acceptability)
Pre-Primer 2: frustration
Pre-Primer 3: frustration
QRI passages – comprehension questions / Pre Primer 1: independent-100%
Pre-Primer 2: instructional-80%
Pre-Primer 3: frustration-40%
QRI passages – retelling / Pre Primer 1: 2/10 ideas = 20%
Pre-Primer 2: 6/15 ideas = 53%
Pre-Primer 3: 4/21 ideas = 19%
QRI passages-rate (WPM/CWPM) / Pre Primer 1: 42/24
Pre-Primer 2: 41/31
Pre-Primer 3: 51/3
QRI passages-total passage level / Pre Primer 1: independent
Pre-Primer 2: frustration
Pre-Primer 3: frustration
Silent Reading Comprehension Assessment / Results
DRA passages-retelling / Level 3: 9/11 ideas = 82%
Level 4: 7/9 ideas = 78%
DRA passages-comprehension rubric / Level 3: adequate comprehension- 75%
Level 4: adequate comprehension- 75%
Level 6: some comprehension- 46%
DRA passages-total passage level / Level 3: instructional
Level 4: instructional
Level 6: frustration
Listening Comprehension Assessment / Results
QRI passages-retelling / Pre-Primer 1: 4/ 12 ideas = 33%
Pre-Primer 2: 4/17 ideas = 24%
Pre-Primer 3: 10/28 ideas = 36%
Level 1: 9/44 ideas = 20%
Level 2: 11/52 ideas = 21%
Level 3: 18/55 ideas = 33%
QRI passages-comprehension / Pre-Primer 1: independent-100%
Pre-Primer 2: frustration-0%
Pre-Primer 3: independent-100%
Level 1: independent-100%
Level 2: instructional-75%
Level 3: frustration 63%
QRI passages-total passage level / Pre-Primer 1: independent
Pre-Primer 2: frustration
Pre-Primer 3: independent
Level 1: independent
Level 2: instructional
Level 3: frustration
Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, and Spelling Assessments / Results
Phonemic Awareness Inventory / Rhyming Pairs: mastery
Generating Rhymes: no mastery
Phonemic Isolation for onset/final sound: mastery
Phonemic Isolation for middle vowels: no mastery
Phonemic Identity: no mastery
Categorization: mastery
Blending: mastery
Phoneme Addition: mastery
Phoneme Deletion: developing mastery
Phoneme Substitution: no mastery
Phoneme Segmentation for individual sounds: mastery
Phoneme Segmentation for beginning and ending clusters: no master
Alphabet Recognition / Upper Case: 26
Lower Case: 24
An Adaptation of Hearing Sounds in Words / 35/39 mastery
Informal Phonics Inventory / Consonant Sounds: 20/20 mastery
Consonant Diagraphs: 1/5 systematic instruction
Beginning Consonant Blends: 10/20 systematic instruction
Final Consonant Blends and ng: 3/12 systematic instruction
Short Vowels in CVC Words: 8/10 mastery
The Rule of Silent E: 0/4 systematic instruction
Long Vowel Diagraphs: 2/10 systematic instruction
Dipthongs: 0/6 systematic instruction
r-Controlled Vowels and –al: 1/6 systematic instruction
Total: 45/93 systematic instruction
Z-test / 13/37
Qualitative Spelling Checklist / Middle Letter Name-Alphabetic Stage
Elementary Spelling Inventory / 19/62, mid to late Letter Name Stage
Fluency Assessment / Results
Curriculum Based Fluency Measure
Oral Reading Fluency Scale / 18 WPM
8 WCPM (below 10th percentile for Gr. 2)
44% Accuracy (frustration)p’
Oral Reading Fluency Rubric / 1
Word Recognition Assessments
Justin was assessed using the QRI-5 word lists. The Pre-Primer 1 list has 17 words. Justin read 12 automatically. An additional 2 were identified. Three words were miscues, resulting in an instructional rating. At the Pre-Primer 2/3 level, the list is made of 20 words. Justin read 8 words automatically, with an additional 3 identified. There were 9 miscues. This earned a frustration rating. At both levels, Justin’s miscues had the correct initial sound, such as water for with or play for place.
On the Fry Sight Word Inventory, Justin had 50 of the first 100 words in his sight vocabulary. He was able to decode an additional 11 words. On the second 100 words, Justin has 7 in his sight vocabulary, with another 21 decoded correctly. He guessed the word “wild” three times: for world, word, and would. In addition, he frequently omitted sounds in consonant blends. For example: log for long, fin for find, thig for thing. Again, the pattern of using the onset of the word to guess the word continued.
On the San Diego Quick Assessment, Justin was able to differentiate between letters, name letters, and identify sounds correctly. He read fun for run on the level 1 list and wor for work on the level 2 list. He scored an independent rating for these passages. At the level two, Justin reached frustration. He had 6 words incorrect, but self corrected 1 word.
Oral Reading Accuracy and Fluency
Oral reading accuracy was assessed through the use of the QRI-5. Justin scored at the frustration level on a Pre-Primer 1 passage. He was assessed at the Pre-Primer 2 and Pre-Primer 3 levels with the same result. A record of Justin’s oral reading shows the strategies he uses while decoding text. If pictures were present, he relied on them to read the text, causing his acceptability for the Pre-Primer 1 passage to increase to independent. This caused errors such as
· carpet for rug,
· dancing for doing a jig,
· I can do water the plants for I can work at home.
Justin also relies on the first letter of the word to decode unknown words, such as wait for write or where for work. In a few instances, Justin used context to decode a word, such as is for was. Justin does not monitor for meaning, nor self correct his errors.
Justin’s fluency was scored using the Oral Reading Fluency rubric. He scored 1 out of 4 points. When given second grade texts, Justin’s reading is word by word, with a very slow reading rate. He read 18WPM at a second grade level, with only 8WCPM. His abilities are below the 10th percentile for his age. His accuracy was 44%, well into the frustration range. He was guessed randomly at words, with no strategy use observable, not even his fall-to strategy of using the first letter. A transcript of his reading attests to this: Then had sail to 2:00 January ant the had more people came.
Comprehension and Retelling
Justin’s reading comprehension and retelling were assessed in three areas, oral reading, silent reading, and listening. The results were similar for all formats, within one instructional level from each other.
Oral reading was assessed using the QRI-5. Justin’s comprehension was independent at the Pre-Primer 1 level. He was able to answer questions with 100% correctness using picture cues from the text. Even though he demonstrated a full understanding of the story, he was able to retell only 20% of the story, the final two ideas. Justin scored instructional at the Pre-Primer 2 level. Again, his correct answers relied on information supplied in the illustrations, not the text. His retelling increased to 53%. Justin scored higher for this element because he included many aspects of the illustrations in the retelling. He had only two lines of the text in his retelling. Justin scored at the frustration level for the Pre-Primer 3 text. He was able to identify the problem in the text, but no other information. There were no illustrations to support his reading for this passage. He retold 40% of the story. This included only the most important plot events with no supporting details.
Silent reading was assessed using the DRA-2. Justin scored at the instructional range for levels 3 and 4. This is comparable to a Primer and early first grade passage. The DRA looks for more general information in a retelling, and Justin scored 82% and 78%, respectively. His retellings focused on the characters and setting of the stories, with less attention to the plot events. Justin reached frustration at level 6, a mid-first grade passage. At this level, his retelling included many details that were not accurate. As part of the DRA-2 assessment, Justin made personal connections to the passages. At level 3, the connection was loosely related to the plot events. By level 6, the connection was very distant, almost to the point of absolutely no connection.
Listening comprehension was assessed using the QRI-5. There was a disruption to the linear progression for Justin’s reading levels in this area. He started independent, frustrated at the next level, then returned to independent for two levels, followed by instructional and frustration as the levels increased. It seems that content and mood figured into Justin’s listening abilities. Justin was able to answer all the questions correctly at the Pre-Primer 1 level and none correctly at the Pre-Primer 2 level. The responses he provided had no relation to the text. They were based on his prior knowledge for the content. He explained that he was having trouble concentrating on the task while completing the Pre-Primer 2 activity. The Pre-Primer 3 passage was completed a week later, and Justin was able to answer all the questions correctly. He also answered the level 1 questions with 100% correctness. The length of the level 2 passage increased significantly, and Justin had more difficulty answering the questions. He scored in the instructional range. He had trouble recalling elements of the text. At level 2, Justin had even less success recalling and interpreting facts from the story. His responses included assumptions about the text that were not accurate. He also drew in details from his prior knowledge to support the story, but they were inaccurate. For example, the text discusses Carlos watching the lions. Justin described the Lion stage. The element of a stage is not in the text. Justin applied this to the story, losing touch with the actual plot. Retelling rates for stories read to Justin varied little, regardless of the comprehension level. The lowest rate was for the level 1 passage, 20%, and the highest rate was for the Pre-Primer 3 passage, 36%. There is no discernable pattern for Justin’s retellings. Sometimes he omits the setting, while other times he omits the goal of the story. In some instances, the retelling is sequential; including details from the story in the order they were told. Other times, he jumps around telling the beginning, end, and then middle.