First Grade Diagnostic Evaluation

Literacy Education (Birth – Grade 6) Literacy Practicum
Diagnostic Evaluation
Name: John Doe
Grade: 1
Age: 7
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
John Doe was brought to the NYU Literacy Clinic by his parents after having
completed the first half of 1st grade. His parents expressed their desire for J. D. to be able
to read an entire book on his own. They reported that although J. D. has an excellent
memory and enjoys reading, he has significant trouble with vowel combinations and he
often substitutes an incorrect word that is similar in meaning to the correct word. J. D.’s
parents reported that he loves reading about animals and the planet Earth. J. D. uses a
computer at home, and receives extra support from his school’s reading teacher.
J. D.’s reading teacher referred him to the clinic. She teaches him reading every
day for 50 minutes, and reported that he needs additional one on one support that will
allow his reading to become more reflective of his excellent intellect. She reported that
although J. D. is very bright, has a great vocabulary, and maintains a wealth of
background knowledge, he is still taking a significantly longer time to read than the other
children. Although J. D. is able to detect patterns in stories and recognize many sight
words, the reading teacher reports that J. D. experiences trouble listening carefully, is
often lost in his own thoughts, and requires frequent redirecting. She also reports that he
experiences trouble with letter-sound correspondences, handwriting, and letter and
number reversals. Overall, J. D.’s reading teacher suggests that additional work in
phonemic awareness, phonics, spatial orientation, and listening skills would be especially
helpful. She also stresses that J. D. responds most positively to structure, clear
expectations, one on one settings, and a variety of activities that are active, fun, and
stimulating.
During the testing, J. D. was initially quiet, but he responded appropriately to the
questions I posed. He was eager to read and he expressed that he enjoyed both academic
and recreational reading. He also expressed that he does not enjoy reading aloud in class,
and he dislikes it when the teacher asks him questions about his reading. However, J. D.
was very excited about coming to the clinic, and appeared very happy to be there.
TESTS ADMINISTERED
Qualitative Reading Inventory
N/A (too difficult, see below)
Word Recognition
preprimer, low instructional (70%)
Oral Reading
preprimer, frustration (17 miscues), 0 WCPM
Comprehension
preprimer, frustration (3/5 correct)
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)
Level 2, 97% - Independent
Level 3, 98% - Independent
Level 4, 89% - Instructional
Level 6, <88% - Frustration
DRA WCPM
Level 4: 47 WCPM
DRA Hasbrouck and Tindal Fluency, Winter
Level 4: 75th percentile
Words Their Way ESI Power Score
13/33
Words Their Way ESI Feature Score
13/24
Words Their Way Stage
Middle Letter Name – Alphabetic
TOWRE Sight Word Percentile
17th percentile
TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Percentile
35th percentile
Garfield Elementary Reading Attitude Survey
Recreational
Academic
Full scale
58th percentile
34th percentile
43rd percentile
Observation Survey
Letter Identification
Dictation (Hearing Sounds in Words)
Writing Vocabulary
53/54; Stanine 4-5
30/37, Stanine: 3
27, Stanine: 3
Concepts of Print
13/16
Fry Sight Word List
Sight Words
Decoded
Total
35/100
21/100
56/100
Informal Phonics Inventory
Consonant Sounds
Consonant Digraphs
Beginning Consonant Blends
Final Consonant Blends and ng
Short Vowels in CVC words
The Rule of Silent e
Long Vowel Digraphs
Diphthongs
r-controlled vowels and –al
TOTAL
19/20
3/5
18/20
7/12
8/10
0/4
2/10
1/6
2/6
60/93
OBSERVATIONS DURING TESTING
Word Recognition
Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI)
The Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) is an informal assessment that helps
teachers determine a child’s independent reading level, instructional reading level, and
frustration level. The teacher can also assess the child’s background knowledge in an
area, keep track of reading miscues, learn about the child’s fluency, and evaluate the
child.
In order to determine the appropriate QRI level with which to start, the child first
reads a graded word list. I wanted to know whether or not this assessment would be
appropriate for J. D.’s developmental level, so I started with the “preprimer” word list,
which is the easiest list for this particular assessment. J. D. read this list with 70%
accuracy, which is at the frustration level. Please see the Oral Reading section for
information about how J. D. performed on the text portion of the QRI.
Fry Sight-Word Inventory
The Fry Sight-Word Inventory assesses a child’s ability to recognize up to 300
words that occur most often in text. J. D. correctly read 56/100 words, and he
automatically decoded 35 of them. By looking at J. D.’s incorrect responses, it can be
seen that he often reads only the first letter or two and guesses the rest of the word. He
also confuses long and short vowels within words, and switches the letters b, d, p, and q.
Consider the following:
Actual Word
Or
By
Word
What
How
Many
Water
Come
Write
Do
Then
But
J. D.’s Oral Response
Off
Bee
Water
Which
Who
My
Worst
Came
Where
Boo
Theen
Bot
TOWRE
The TOWRE assessment also assesses word recognition by testing sight word
efficiency and phonemic decoding efficiency. For the first part of the assessment, the
child has 45 seconds to correctly read as many high frequency words as possible. The
words increase in difficulty as the list continues. For the second part of the assessment,
the child has 45 seconds to read nonsense words. The child must decode them, as he or
she would any other unfamiliar word. These words increase in difficulty.
In 45 seconds, J. D. was able to correctly read 15 sight words on the first part of
the test. While this only puts him at the 17th percentile among other 1st graders, J. D.
correctly identified 15/17 sight words correctly.
In 45 seconds, J. D. was able to correctly decode 9 “made up” words, or
phonemes, correctly. Although this only puts him at the 35th percentile among other 1st
graders, J. D. correctly decoded 9 “made up” words correctly. Among his mistakes,
some were because he read a short vowel as a long vowel, or visa versa, and some were
because he added an extra letter or sound at the end of a word. Consider the following:
“Made Up” Word
Ip
Ga
Ko
Ta
Om
Ig
Pim
Wum
J. D.’s Oral Pronunciation
Ip
Gap
Cop
Ta
Um
Ig
Pim
Wum
Oral Reading
Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI)
The oral reading portion of the QRI is designed so that teachers can assess many
different aspects of reading. The teacher ascertains the student’s prior knowledge by
asking a few questions and rating the given answers. The child then reads a passage
aloud while the teacher listens and records the child’s miscues. After the passage is read,
the child provides a retelling of the passage and answers comprehension questions.
I gave J. D. the easiest passage to read. J. D. scored at a frustration level, with 17
miscues while reading the text. Continuing with the QRI would be too difficult for J. D.,
and inappropriate for further assessment. In order to find an instructional level text, I
gave J. D. the Developmental Reading Assessment.
Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)
Similar to the QRI, the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) enables a
teacher to determine an instructional reading level. The child reads each passage aloud,
and then retells what he or she remembers from the story. Comprehension questions are
then asked by the examiner. It also informs the teacher about a child’s reading behaviors
in decoding, fluency and comprehension.
I administered levels 2, 3, 4, and 6 to J. D. (level 5 does not exist). J. D. scored at
an independent level for levels 2 and 3; that is, he would be able to read these texts by
himself. J. D. scored at an instructional level for level 4; that is, J. D. would benefit best
from reading these texts with a teacher. J. D. scored at a frustration level for level 6; that
is, J. D. would benefit from extra instruction before he attempts this level. For levels 2,
3, and 4, J. D. comprehended adequately, while with level 6, J. D. only had some
comprehension of the text.
At this point, I decided that level 4 of the DRA leveled texts would be most
appropriate to start using for instruction.
Reading Rate and Fluency
While the ultimate goal of reading is to comprehend, it is important that a child be
able to read at a rate that is appropriate for their particular grade level. That being said,
an emphasis on just trying to read quickly is never advocated. It is important to try to
read as quickly and fluently as possible, but never to the point where it sacrifices one’s
comprehension.
On level 4 of the DRA, which is his instructional level, J. D. was reading 47 words
correct per minute. According to the Hasbruck and Tindell norms chart, his fluency level
is at the 75th percentile when compared to other 1st graders reading at this particular text
level. However, it is important to note that this text level is below grade level for a midyear first grader.
Informal Phonics Inventory
At this point, I wanted to determine what J. D. knows about the alphabetic system.
I gave him the Informal Phonics Inventory, which is a criterion-referenced measure
intended to assess the child’s knowledge of letter sounds in isolation and in words.
J. D. scored very well on consonant sounds, beginning consonant blends, and
short vowels in consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) words. He will need a review of
consonant digraphs, such as “th,” “sh,” “ch,” “wh,” and “ph.” J. D. will need systematic
instruction of final consonant blends and ng, the rule of silent e, long vowel digraphs,
diphthongs, and r-controlled vowels and –al. For the exact scores in each of these
subtests, please see the above section, Tests Administered. Please note the following
examples where J. D. experienced difficulty:
The Rule of Silent E
Actual Word:
J. D.’s Response:
Cape
Tote
Cube
Kite
Keep
Teet
Cubby
Keet
Final Consonant Blends
Lilt
Lisp
Bask
Lint
List
Light
Lips
Bast
Lift
Lips
Long Vowel Digraphs
Loaf
Aim
Weed
Ray
Gain
Laughed
Am
Weed
Rary
Ga-een
Coal
Heat
Cow
He – at
Pre-reading Knowledge and Abilities (Concepts of Print)
In order to be true readers, children need to have a secure knowledge of some
basic concepts. They need to have a secure concept about print, understanding that words
carry meaning, knowing what print is used for, and possessing directionality. They also
need to have a comfortable knowledge of letters. Finally, they need to have an awareness
of phonemes or sounds in spoken words. This awareness is needed so that a child can
match written letters to individual sounds.
J. D. was tested in each of these areas and he showed that he is very
knowledgeable in these areas. J. D. understands the orientation of a book, print carries
meaning, directional understanding, speech-to-print matching, recognition of periods,
lowercase and uppercase letters, the concept of a letter, the concept of a word, and the
concept of the first and last letter in a word. J. D. did not know the name for a question
mark, the function or name for a comma, and the name for quotation marks. However, he
did know the function of a question mark and quotation marks.
Spelling
Words Their Way Elementary Spelling Inventory
The spelling inventory is an assessment that helps the teacher determine the
child’s stage of spelling development. Each word on the test is more difficult than the
previous word and contains features that the teacher can analyze to determine what the
child understands about spelling and what is difficult for the child.
J. D. had no trouble spelling initial and final consonants of words. He had
difficulty spelling the correct short vowels, as he only spelled 25% of the short vowel
words correctly. He spelled 1/2 words containing digraphs (sh/ch) correctly, and 2/6
words containing blends correctly. J. D. did not spell any words containing long vowels
correctly.
An analysis of his spelling mistakes puts him at the “Middle Letter NameAlphabetic” spelling stage. This means that instruction will start with short vowels, and
move on to digraphs, blends, and eventually long vowels.
Reading Attitude
Garfield Elementary Reading Attitude Survey
The Garfield Elementary Reading Attitude Survey is a quick survey that indicates
the student’s attitudes toward reading. I read each statement aloud and had J. D. choose a
Garfield picture that displays the emotion he feels about the statement. Overall, J. D. has
a positive attitude about both academic and recreational reading. He fell in the 43rd
percentile when compared with other 1st graders, which indicates that about half of all
first graders feel the same way that he does about reading. In general, J. D. enjoys
recreational reading more than academic reading. He does not like taking reading tests or
reading aloud in class. J. D. enjoys reading during free time and going to reading class.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
J. D. is a mid-year first grade student having difficulty with reading. He was
given the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) and found to be reading at an
instructional level for level 4. This level is equivalent to a pre-primer text, which is
appropriate for the beginning of first grade. There is a clear text structure with many
repeated phrases and words. The pictures always correlate to the text. After reading this
level, I realized that many of J. D.’s miscues were guesses based on the first one or two
letters of the target word. Information gathered from the Informal Phonics Inventory tells
me that although J. D. is confident reading words that contain consonants, short vowels,
and beginning consonant blends, he has trouble reading words that contain long vowel
digraphs, final consonant blends, and silent e. J. D. was also given the Words Their Way
Elementary Spelling Inventory Feature Guide, for which he was determined to be at the
Middle Letter Name – Alphabetic spelling stage. Interestingly, J. D.’s invented spelling
shows that he hasn’t yet mastered distinguishing short vowel sounds from each other
when spelling words. Yet, while reading, he is able to pronounce short vowel words
correctly. This is most likely because when reading, there are context clues, other letters
in the word, and structural elements of text that J. D. is drawing from to decode the
words. This indicates that J. D. needs systematic, explicit instruction of short vowels,
digraphs, and blends.
J. D. was also given the Fry Sight Word Inventory, for which he recognized
35/100 words as sight words. His lack of automatic sight word recognition significantly
hinders his fluency and comprehension during reading.
Throughout all of the assessments, J. D.’s comprehension has been excellent. His
prediction skills are always thoughtful and logical, and his final comprehension is often
on target, given he was able to decode the words in the passage. At this stage, his
comprehension is adequate.
I recommend the following goals and activities for J. D. to be implemented over
the next several months:
1) Develop decoding ability: Look from the beginning through the end of a word.
J. D. understands most aspects of the basic concepts about print, yet he is reading
below grade level with many miscues. Therefore, it appears that he needs systematic,
explicit instruction in decoding unknown words through the direct teaching of vowel
sounds, digraphs, and blends. J. D. is already monitoring text for meaning, syntax, and
visual cues, which is an excellent start. By teaching him more strategies, he will soon
develop better decoding skills. Learning about short vowels will particularly enable him
to figure out how to read and spell unknown words.
By engaging J. D. in matching games and picture sorts, he can start gaining more
knowledge of vowels, digraphs, and blends within words. J. D. should be able to match a
picture with its respectful text feature. For example, if one is teaching short vowels, J. D.
should match the picture of a cat with the symbol for “short a.” Likewise, if one is
teaching digraphs, J. D. should match the picture of a whale with the symbol for the
digraph “wh.” Another strategy is to read a list of words to J. D., show him the words,
and then ask him to sort the words according to text feature. For example, if one is
teaching blends, J. D. should put the word “brick” in the “br” column. Likewise, if one is
teaching long vowel digraphs, J. D. should put the word “leaf” in the “ea” column.
However, before teaching such long vowel digraphs, it is important to first teach all of
the preceding features.
J. D. can also benefit from building words with alphabetic letters or index cards
with individual letters. He can also write high frequency words that frequently appear in
texts at his level. This will allow him to make the connection between reading and
writing, and more importantly, will help to engrain the spelling and patterns of certain
words.
Another method to help J. D. develop word decoding strategies is to allow him to
dictate sentences in his own words to the teacher. The sentences should always be tied to
the texts he is reading. The teacher will write down the sentence, for accuracy’s sake,
and then encourage J. D. to try to write it himself. When J. D. gets to a difficult word or
misspells something, the teacher should help him figure out the spelling. Elkonin boxes
are perfect to use here. At J. D.’s stage, the boxes should consist mostly of individual
letters, but where there are difficult digraphs, blends, or long vowel digraphs, one box
should be designated for these. In some cases, it is most useful to tell and explain the
spelling to J. D., instead of allowing him to guess aimlessly. His developmental level
should constantly be kept in mind. Once J. D. writes his sentence correctly, the teacher
should write it on a sentence strip, cut it up word by word, and in some cases, segmenting
words, and have J. D. put the sentence back together. This activity can help develop J.
D.’s fluency, confidence, sight-word recognition, decoding and encoding skills.
Essentially, we want J. D. to be actively looking from the beginning of a word
through the end of a word. When assessed, he frequently based his guesses on the first
letter or two of a word. We want him to make a conscious effort of looking at every
letter or combination of letters in words. Once he has a better grasp on vowels, digraphs,
and blends, this will become an easier task. For every task that J. D. performs in the
clinic, looking from the beginning through the end of a word will be stressed.
2) Develop a sight vocabulary.
J. D.’s beginning base of sight words is relatively small, as evidenced by his
knowledge of 35/100 words on the Fry list. We recommend playing the game, “Three
Strikes and You’re Out,” which requires J. D. to correctly identify sight words within 1
second, 3 times in a row, to retire them from the pile. Children are often excited by this
game, and motivated to learn the words so they can remove them from the working pile.
Writing high frequency words, most of which should be embedded words in the text, can
also help develop a sight vocabulary.
3) Develop oral reading.
J. D.’s fluency is currently hindered by the difficulties he experiences
automatically recognizing the most frequently occurring words in English print and
decoding words. J. D. is unfamiliar with many words. At this point, his reading sounds
slow and laborious. He is still decoding words, and needs to go slowly in order to do so.
By reading stories repeatedly, J. D. will become familiar with the text, and will be able to
apply some oral reading skills. We will continue to assess J. D.’s oral reading by
tracking his Words Correct Per Minute (WCPM).
SUMMARY OF THE TUTORING
J. D. and I worked together approximately twice a week from February 2nd to
April 29th for a total of 19 one-hour tutoring sessions. The baseline assessments were
administered during the first two sessions (February 2nd and February 4th). Progress
monitoring assessments were conducted every other session, and the summative
assessments were administered during the last three sessions (April 20th, April 22nd, and
April 27th) along with other learning activities. The final session, April 29th, was a
celebration for all of the students who had participated in the clinic, and included an
opportunity for all students to read a text of their choice in front of parents, family, and
friends.
By the end of the tutoring, J. D. had moved from an instructional level D on the
Fountas & Pinnell book leveling system to nearly a level G. Likewise, on the
Developmental Reading Inventory, J. D. moved from a level 4 to a level 16. In other
words, J. D. progressed from being one half year below level to reading on grade level.
In regards to spelling, J. D. moved from the Middle Letter-Name Alphabetic stage to the
Early Within Word Pattern stage. This is also where children are expected to be
performing when they enter second grade.
Although J. D. would sometimes start the tutoring sessions by stating he was too
tired to read, he would always get excited by the subject matter or the reading games I
had planned. As soon as J. D. would get out of the tired mode, he would always be
vibrant and willing to work hard. He is a very bright child, and he loved to talk about the
books we were reading. In order to read books and complete activities in a timely
manner, I would often need to remind him to save his thoughts and comments until the
end. J. D. responds well to structure, and he was typically more motivated when I made a
checklist of items that we needed to complete each session. His motivation, and
consequently his reading and writing performance, was dependent upon his mood, but he
nonetheless followed directions, maintained a positive attitude about reading and writing,
and successfully completed the tutoring.
From the baseline assessment results, my primary goals for J. D. were to improve
his decoding skills, sight word vocabulary, and oral reading fluency. By improving these
fundamental abilities, I knew that J. D.’s comprehension and his attitude toward reading
and writing would subsequently improve.
The following activities were completed during each session (dependent on time):
1) High frequency writing
At the beginning of each session, I gave J. D. 3-4 words with which he had
recently come into contact, and asked him to spell the words. The difficulty of the words
were appropriate for an intensive, one-on-one tutoring session, so there were times when
J. D. did not correctly spell the words. In this case, I would first point out the letters he
had correctly identified, and positively reinforced his efforts in spelling the word. If
appropriate, I would use Elkonin boxes, which help to fix phoneme-grapheme
correspondences in a child’s mind. When a child hears a particular sound in a word, he
or she chooses the corresponding letter, and marks it in the correct box. At J. D.’s
developmental level, each letter gets its own box, except for digraphs, blends, and certain
endings. Once we have determined a correct spelling, I ask J. D. to write the word again.
I then cover the correct spelling, and ask him to write it as fast as he can and as big as he
can. This ensures he writes the word repeatedly, thus eventually internalizing it. I would
always recycle some of the words he spelled incorrectly into future tutoring sessions, to
ensure repeated exposure to these difficult words. High frequency writing helps a
student’s spelling, reading, and of course, writing.
2) Guided Reading
During each session, we followed a very structured approach called Guided
Reading. In preparation for Guided Reading, I would choose a book that was at an
instructional level for J. D. I would first read the title of the text while pointing to each
word and I would then have J. D. do the same. He would often eagerly read the title
before I could even tell him. I would then summarize the story in about four sentences,
and I would be sure to review the overall text structures and some of the difficult
vocabulary. I would also use the same verb tense in my summary as the tense in the text
to avoid any confusions. We would then engage in a picture walk, during which J. D.
would tell me what he thought was happening on each page, based on the pictures alone.
J. D. would then read the story from start to finish while I took informal notes of
difficulties to inform any post-reading teaching points. If J. D. had difficulty while
reading, I would prompt him to use various reading strategies to help him figure out the
trouble word. If J. D. read a word incorrectly, but couldn’t figure out whether or not it
was the correct word, some of the prompts included: “Does it make sense?” (with respect
to context and picture clues); “Does it sound right?” (do you know that word you’re
saying?); and “Does it look right?” (do the letters match the sounds you’re making?).
Following the reading, I would give J. D. specific praise, depending on what he did well.
This could range from using his reading strategies well to reading with expression and
great fluency. I would then pick one or two teaching points that corresponded with J.
D.’s difficulties as well as my objectives for the lesson, and we would look back in the
text together to review and reread. Although comprehension is not necessarily part of the
Guided Reading procedure, I would also ask one or two comprehension questions, just to
be sure J. D. grasped the material.
Eventually, J. D. became very comfortable with this structure, and he anticipated
my prompts and questions. This helped his motivation and his focus. He also developed
a strong sense of what he needed to do to improve, and he would eagerly tell me the
things he did well in a particular reading, as well as the areas in which he needed to
improve.
3) Structured Repeated Reading
We engaged in a Structured Repeated Reading of a text the session following the
initial read-through of a text. I would usually take a few high frequency words from the
text with which J. D. had difficulty, and have him spell them at the beginning of each
session (as described in point (1)). Depending on his previous success with the book, we
would review difficult vocabulary, and any orthographic teaching points that we had
previously explored. While J. D. read the text for a second time, I took a running record
to monitor his miscues and reading patterns, which would later be used to determine his
instructional text level. I also timed him in order to measure his fluency with respect to
words per minute and words correct per minute. These were key in J. D.’s progress
monitoring. Following the reading, I reviewed the miscues that corresponded to my
objectives and teaching points. I would frequently ask J. D. which strategy he could have
used to figure out a particular word or phrase. I posted some strategies on the wall above
our desk, so he could easily refer to them while reading His favorite strategies included,
“sound out the word,” “power punch (chunking the smaller components of a word),”
“looking at the picture,” “finding a word we already know within the hard word,” and
“re-reading or finishing the sentence.” Finally, during the following session, we would
read the text a third time. This was mainly for building J. D.’s fluency and confidence,
and was called a “Familiar Re-Read.”
For the majority of the time, J. D. enjoyed the repeated readings. Each session
brought him more and more success, and he found himself reading longer and more
difficult words. Each re-read also allowed him to read with more expression and improve
his fluency. At one point when he was frustrated with the difficulty of a text he had just
completed, I shared with him a little “secret.” I told him that since he was working so
hard and reading so well, I decided to challenge him with the most difficult book yet!
Since he had just successfully completed this book, although a little tired from working
so hard to decode it, he was thrilled and inspired to read more on this particular difficulty
level.
4) Word Work
In order to provide explicit, systematic phonics instruction, many tools were used.
I would often use word sorts with J. D. to teach short vowels, digraphs, blends, and
eventually, silent e and long vowels. The Words Their Way scope and sequence section
suggests a particular order for various picture sorts. Adopting this suggestion, over the
course of our sessions, we worked on the following sorts: /short a/, /short i/, /short o/,
/short u/, /short e/; /th/, /sh/, /ch/, /wh/; /c/, /h/, /ch/; /br/, /bl/; /st/, /sp/; /long a/, /long i/,
/long u/, /long e/. By completing these sorts, J. D. was able to practice hearing and
speaking the different sounds of the vowels, digraphs, and blends. These sorts were done
in conjunction with explicit, systematic phonics instruction. For example, before
attempting the picture sort with long vowels, I explicitly taught J. D. that sometimes,
when a word ends with an e, the vowel says its name. I also taught him that when the
vowel says its name, it is called a long vowel. We did a quick activity using words such
as “cap/cape,” “mat, mate,” “them/theme,” etc., and I explicitly taught J. D. the
difference in these words both orthographically and aurally. I often turned these word
sorts into a game where J. D. would either race against the clock or against me, which
helped tremendously to keep him on task and focused.
5) Sight Word Flashcards (Three Strikes You’re Out game)
At the end of each session, J. D. loved to play the game “Three Strikes You’re
Out,” which allows the child to practice his or her automatic recognition of sight words.
Based on J. D.’s results from the Fry Sight Word Inventory (first 100 words), I created
flash cards of words that J. D. either needed to review or that he needed to learn. At first,
I made about 20 flash cards consisting of these types of words. If J. D. automatically
identified a word (within 2 seconds), I would place it in one pile. If he did not
automatically identify a word, I would place it in a different pile. I would keep track of
which words he correctly identified. At the end of the game, I would go through the
words J. D. missed, and if he couldn’t get them a second time, I would tell him the word.
We would also discuss ways to remember what the word was (without necessarily
decoding it). We would go through this process at the end of each session, and after J. D.
identified a word three times, I would replace it with a brand new word. I made sure to
rotate the words such that there were always some familiar words to J. D.. Otherwise, the
game could become very discouraging.
Since I moved this activity to the very end of each session, J. D. has been
motivated to work hard throughout each session in order to complete this activity before
our time runs out. He enjoys seeing the progress he makes, as it is almost immediate. J.
D. also thrives off of my positive feedback when he gets a new word for the first time.
We always exchange high-fives after a job well done.
In addition to the five previous activities, I would also engage J. D. in a sentence
writing activity, which was always tied in with the readings. This activity can be seen
most readily in Marie Clay’s Reading Recovery program. I sometimes start by asking J.
D. a specific question, such as, “What do you like to do on a rainy day?” Other times I
would leave it more open-ended, and ask J. D. to tell me, in one sentence, how he felt
about something he just read. This, as expected, requires slightly higher-level thinking,
and was often more difficult for J. D.. Once J. D. generated a sentence, I would write it
down for my own records, and then I would ask J. D. to write his sentence word by word.
If he spelled a word incorrectly, I would help him correct it using Elkonin boxes, or, if
the letter pattern was irregular, I would sometimes simply tell him the correct spelling. J.
D. would correct his mistake, and continue writing the sentence. When he finished
writing it, I would have him run his finger under each word as he read it back to himself.
I encouraged him to fix his own mistakes if he noticed something. I would then write the
sentence on a long strip of paper, and I would cut apart the paper either word by word or
within words to test J. D.’s knowledge of orthography. J. D. would read each word or
part of a word as I cut them, and then he would rearrange the pieces to make his sentence.
Finally, he would read the entire sentence while running his finger under the cut up
pieces.
J. D. enjoyed this activity, and liked when I would glue his sentence pieces into
his writing book. He thoroughly enjoyed appreciating his own hard work! This kind of
motivation is what I strived for in every aspect of the tutoring. If I could find a way for J.
D. to appreciate the hard work he was doing, I knew he would be motivated to do that
activity in the future. Other activities like this included flip-books (featuring various
patters we had studied) and timed games (featuring similar patterns).
PRINCIPAL RESULTS
Data:
Baseline – February
Intermittent
Summative – April
Marie Clay’s Observation Survey
Letter Identification
Letter Identification
Test Score
Stanine Group
Writing Vocabulary (10 mins)
53/54
4-5
Writing Vocabulary (3 mins)
Test Dates: 3/4, 3/11, 3/25, 4/6, 4/8
Test Scores: 17, 12, 17, 17, 17
Test Score
Stanine Group
Writing Vocabulary (10 mins)
53/54
4-5
Test Score (# of words correct)
27
Test Score (# of words correct) 37
Stanine Group
3
Stanine Group
4
Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words
Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words
Test Score
30/37
Test Score
35/37
Stanine Group
3
Stanine Group
4
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fry Sight-Word Inventory – First 100 Words
Dolch Test (1 minute)
Test Dates: 3/4, 3/11, 3/25, 4/6, 4/8
Recognized immediately
35
Test Scores: 11, 11, 15, 12, 13
Recognized immediately
72
Decoded (hesitation)
21
Decoded (hesitation)
10
Total known
56
Total known
82
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE)
Sight Word Efficiency (SWE)
Sight Word Efficiency (SWE)
Raw Score
15
Raw Score
21
Standard Score
86
Standard Score
84
Percentile
17th
Percentile
14th
Phonemic Decoding Eff. (PDE)
Phonemic Decoding Eff. (PDE)
Raw Score
9
Raw Score
12
Standard Score
94
Standard Score
92
Percentile
35th
Percentile
29th
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Informal Phonics Inventory
Consonant Sounds
19/20
Consonant Sounds
20/20
Consonant Digraphs
3/5
Consonant Digraphs
4/5
Beginning Consonant Blends
18/20
Beginning Consonant Blends 20/20
Final Consonant Blends and ng 7/12
Final Consonant Blends and ng 12/12
Short Vowels in CVC Words
8/10
Short Vowels in CVC Words 9/10
The Rule of Silent e
0/4
The Rule of Silent e
4/4
Long Vowel Digraphs
2/10
Long Vowel Digraphs
2/10
Diphthongs
1/6
Diphthongs
1/6
r-Controlled Vowels and –al
2/6
r-Controlled Vowels and –al
1/6
TOTAL
60/93
TOTAL
73/93
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Words Their Way Elementary Spelling Inventory
Words Spelled Correctly
0/9
Words Spelled Correctly
4/16
Feature Points
13/24
Feature Points
24/43
Total
13/33
Total
28/59
Spelling Stage
Middle Letter Name – Alphabetic
Spelling Stage
Early Within Word Pattern
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Developmental Reading Inventory (DRA)
Level 2 – 97% accuracy – Independent
Level 10 – 96% accuracy – Independent
Level 3 – 98% accuracy – Independent
Level 12 – 93% accuracy – Instructional
Level 4 – 89% accuracy – Instructional
Level 16 – 92% accuracy – Instructional
Level 6 - <88% accuracy – Frustrational
Level 4 WCPM: 47 WCPM
Level 16 WCPM: 0 WCPM (16 mins to complete 270 words)
Level 4 Hasbruck & Tindell: 75th percentile
Level 16 Hasbruck & Tindell: <10th percentile
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Qualitative Reading Inventory -4 (QRI)
Pre-Primer (N/A)
Pre-Primer
Word Recognition
70% - Low Instructional
Word Recognition
80% - Instructional
Oral Reading
17 miscues, 0 WCPM – Frustration
Oral Reading
4 miscues, 28 WCPM – Instructional
Comprehension
3/5 – Frustration
Comprehension
Hasbruck & Tindell
4/5 – Instructional
25th Percentile
Primer
Word Recognition
80% - Instructional
Oral Reading
26 miscues, 0 WCPM – Frustration
Comprehension
5/6 – Instructional
Hasbruck & Tindell <10th Percentile
*For the intermittent running record
assessments of oral reading accuracy,
please see the Record of Book Level
sheet, attached.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Results:
Over the course of the tutoring sessions, J. D. moved from a level D to nearly a
level G in the Fountas & Pinnell leveling system. These levels are specific to J. D.’s
“instructional” reading level, or the level which is most appropriate to use for
instructional purposes. By the end of the tutoring, J. D. was reading at an “independent”
level F, and was ready to move to a level G text. For a detailed graph of J. D.’s reading
progress throughout the semester, please refer to the Record of Book Level sheet.
At the start of the tutoring, I administered the Qualitative Reading Inventory-4
(QRI) in order to assess word recognition, oral reading, and comprehension. The QRI is
slightly more difficult than what J. D. was ready for, as he did not score high enough for
the test to be applicable. At the lowest level, “Pre-Primer,” J. D. scored at a frustration
level for both oral reading and comprehension. His fluency was also 0 WCPM, which
meant that he was reading at a very slow and laborious pace. At the close of the tutoring,
J. D.’s performance on the QRI improved significantly. At the “Pre-Primer” level, J.D.
read the text with only 4 miscues, which also set him at the “instructional” level. J. D.
read the text at a rate of 28 WCPM. J. D. also responded correctly to 4/5 comprehension
questions after reading the text. When asked to retell what happened in the story, he
recalled all of the important details and characters. With respect to oral reading, he is at
the 25th percentile among other first graders at the end of the year, according to Hasbruck
& Tindell. Since J. D. read the text at an instructional level, I wanted to see if he was
able to read a more difficult text at an instructional level. I then gave him the “Primer”
level, where he demonstrated frustration accuracy levels. Interestingly, J. D. still
responded correctly to 5/6 comprehension questions, and correctly retold most of the
important details and characters from the story. However, since his fluency and oral
reading accuracy was at the frustration level, I did not continue to give J. D. more
difficult texts. However, the progress that J. D. made in fluency as well as oral reading
accuracy has been profound. This can be attributed to his mastery of short vowels,
blends, digraphs, and some long vowels, all of which were practiced throughout the
tutoring. This can also be attributed to J. D.’s new metacognitive knowledge, and his
ability to implement specific reading strategies in different situations. He also appealed
for help far fewer times than he did at the start of tutoring. J. D. is more confident and
capable in this respect.
J. D.’s performance on the Developmental Reading Inventory (DRA) also
improved significantly since the start of tutoring. A similar assessment that tests oral
reading accuracy, fluency, and some comprehension, the DRA allows for another
perspective on a child’s overall reading ability. At the start of the tutoring, J. D. read a
level 4 text at an instructional level with 89% accuracy. His oral reading fluency at this
level was measured at 47 WCPM, which put him at the 75th percentile according to
Hasbruck & Tindell. At the close of tutoring, J. D. read a level 16 text at an instructional
level with 92% accuracy. However, his oral reading fluency at this level was measured at
<10th percentile according to Hasbruck and Tindell. These assessment results point to a
few things. First of all, J. D. made excellent progress in jumping from an instructional
level 4 to an instructional level 16. His decoding abilities and his strategy-use have
improved significantly. Most times, when J. D. comes to a difficult word, he may
stumble, but he eventually gets it. This, of course, takes up time. J. D. is reading these
more difficult texts at a slower pace than most other 1st graders this time of year, but he is
still reading at an appropriate accuracy level. I did not give J. D. a level higher than 16
because his fluency would start to hinder comprehension and possibly even his positive
attitude toward reading.
J. D. also improved significantly on Marie Clay’s Observation Survey, which
assesses letter identification, writing vocabulary, and hearing and recording sounds in
words. On the letter identification assessment, J. D. showed he is still experiencing
trouble distinguishing between b’s and d’s. J. D. does not experience trouble when the b
or d is in context and if it is a word he has seen before. However, when decoding a new
word, J. D. will often make the “b” sound when he sees a “d,” and visa versa. This is
developmentally normal for first graders, and J. D. is able to identify all other capital and
lowercase letters quickly and easily.
On the writing vocabulary section of the assessment, J. D. was asked to write as
many words as he knew. This assesses one’s vocabulary and one’s ability to spell the
words correctly. J. D.’s score increased from 27 words, at the beginning of the tutoring,
to 37 words, at the end. He also moved up in the Stanine group from 3 to 4. This means
that J. D.’s writing vocabulary is slightly below average for a child his age, but it should
also be noted that he has made extreme progress with this. During the first assessment of
writing vocabulary, J. D. took about 15 seconds between each word to think of a new
word to write. He also spent more time figuring out the spellings of the words, and spent
a lot of time erasing and re-writing. He also required several prompts the first time
through. At the culmination of tutoring, J. D. eagerly went directly from one word to the
next without hesitation, and confidently spelled each word to the best of his ability. He
took up the entire 10 minutes to write and required little prompting. Research has shown
that some children cannot read words that they can write, and visa versa. I know that J.
D. is able to read all of the words he can write. He cannot, however, write all of the
words he can read. It is also interesting to note J. D.’s progress on the intermittent
assessments. Once a week, J. D. was given 3 minutes to write as many words as he
could. His scores, in chronological order, were 17, 12, 17, 17, 17. It does not appear as
though J. D. made much progress. However, in looking at his responses, he always wrote
varying words. Except for writing “J. D.,” “mom,” “dad,” and their variations, J. D.’s
vocabulary usually reflected whatever we were learning about. For example, I gave J. D.
the high frequency word “the” to write during one particular lesson. On the next writing
vocabulary assessment, he wrote “the.” This shows that although J. D.’s scores stayed
the same, he was continuously updating his vocabulary based on what we were learning
about. This is evident in the final assessment, where J. D. increased his score
significantly.
In the Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words section, J. D. increased his score
from a 30/37 to a 35/37. For the summative assessment, I read the sentence, “The bus is
coming. It will stop here to let me get on.” J. D.’s sentence looked as follows: “The bus
is cumeing it will stop he too let me get on.” Only 2 aspects of J. D.’s sentence are
marked incorrect, even though there are more than 2 errors. In this assessment,
punctuation and capitalization is not an issue; we are simply looking for the student to
hear the specific sounds and to correctly identify and write their respective letters. For
instance, J. D. lost a point for writing the letter “u” instead of “o” in the word coming.
He also lost a point for neglecting to add the letter “r” to the word “here.” “Here” is an
example of a word I know J. D. can read, but unable to correctly write. J. D. moved from
the Stanine group 3 to 4, which puts him in the average category for his age.
Perhaps the assessment on which J. D. made the most progress was the Fry Sight
Word Inventory. The inventory consists of several hundred words, but I only assessed J.
D. on the first 100 words, since 1st graders are expected to be familiar with at least the
first 100. During the initial assessment, J. D. correctly and automatically identified 35
words, while he decoded 21 words with hesitation. During the final assessment, J. D.
correctly and automatically identified 72 words, while he decoded 10 words with
hesitation. J. D. made excellent progress in this respect. This aspect of his reading has
helped him become a much more fluent reader, thus allowing him to read more difficult
texts. More work with sight words will allow J. D. to develop better fluency.
J. D. also improved on the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE). In the
Sight Word Efficiency section, his raw score improved from a 15 to a 21. This means
that given 45 seconds, J. D. was able to read 21 words on the TOWRE list. It is important
to note that his Standard Score went from 86 to 84 and his percentile went from 17th to
14th. Even though J. D.’s raw score improved from February to April, he fell into a
different age bracket in April, which caused his Standard Score (compared with other
children his age) and his percentile to drop. According to this one assessment, J. D.
needs more work in decoding and recognizing such words in order to be on par with other
children his age. Nonetheless, he did make progress in this area. In the Phonemic
Decoding Efficiency section of the TOWRE assessment, J. D.’s raw score improved from
a 9 to a 12. This means that given 45 seconds, he was able to read 12 non-words or
nonsense words. This purely tested his decoding ability. However, despite his increase,
the same above situation applies. Since J. D.’s April scores put him in a different age
bracket than his February scores, his Standard Score dropped from 94 to 92 and his
percentile dropped from 34th to 29th. In order for these scores to have increased, J. D.
would have needed to make more progress. According to this assessment, in order to be
on par with other children his age, J. D. needs to decode these words at a slightly faster
pace. Nonetheless, he made progress in this area.
On the Informal Phonics Inventory, J. D.’s scores increased significantly in the
areas I explicitly taught. In the final assessment, J. D. received perfect scores in
consonant sounds, beginning consonant blends, final consonant blends and ng, and the
rule of silent e. He got only one point off in consonant digraphs and short vowels in
CVC words. This was great progress, seeing as J. D. received no perfect scores in these
areas in the initial assessment, and completed 0/4 correct answers for the rule of silent e.
Overall, J. D.’s total initial score was 60/93, and J. D.’s total final score was 73/93. The
areas which I did not explicitly teach to J. D. were reflected in the assessments, as J. D.
maintained approximately the J. D.e scores from beginning to end in those areas.
Finally, J. D. performed significantly better on the Words Their Way Elementary
Spelling Inventory on the final assessment than he did on the initial assessment. On the
initial, J. D. did not spell any words correctly, and I only gave him 9 words to attempt.
On the final, I gave J. D. the J. D.e first 9 words, in addition to 7 more new words. This
time, he spelled 3 of the initial 9 words correctly, and 1 of the new 7 words correctly.
According to the Elementary Spelling Inventory, there are various spelling features of
each word that a student should be able to replicate in his or her spelling, and this
determines a particular spelling stage. On this initial assessment, J. D. received 13/24
feature points, and on the final, J. D. received 24/43 feature points. Overall, J. D.’s total
scores on this assessment were 13/33 on the initial and 28/59 on the final. J. D. also
moved up two spelling stages, according to the Words Their Way Elementary Spelling
Inventory. He had started at the Middle Letter Name Alphabetic stage and has
progressed to the Early Within Word Pattern stage. This is based on the way J. D. spelled
the words I gave him. He appears to have gained control over initial and final
consonants, short vowels, and digraphs. When it comes to spelling words that include
blends and long vowels, J. D. has difficulty. Consider the following examples:
Correct Spelling
J. D.’s Spelling
lump
train
shopping
chewed
lup
cheran
shapping
chooed
Although these words are spelled incorrectly, it appears as though J. D. knows
some other rules that might inform us of the reasons he spelled these in a particular
manner. For example, J. D. must know that “oo” makes the sound in “chewed.” It is also
interesting to note that although J. D. tried to represent the “tr” in the word “train” with a
“ch,” I know that he knows the difference in the sounds when reading words that contain
such digraphs and blends. J. D.’s invented spelling of “shopping” shows that he knows
the “a” can make the “short o” sound, as well.
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on my observations and the previous data, teachers and tutors might want
to consider the information below when working with J. D.. My recommendations
include focus areas that need explicit instruction, teaching strategies, and other
information I learned by working closely with J. D. over the past several months.
1) Continued Development of Decoding Strategies
Throughout the tutoring, my overarching objective was to get J. D. looking from
the beginning through the end of every word. He has progressed in this respect very well,
but as he continues to read more difficult texts, he will need continued reinforcement of
this strategy. During initial testing, J. D. would guess based on the initial letter or the
first few letters of a word, but he has refrained from doing that over the past month of
tutoring.
J. D. has become very proficient at decoding words, based on the focus areas I
have addressed and explicitly taught to him. The Informal Phonics Inventory postassessment suggests that future instruction should focus on explicitly teaching long vowel
digraphs (oa, ea, ai, ue, ee, ay), r-controlled vowels, and eventually, diphthongs.
Although I worked a few times with J. D. on long vowels and silent e, he still has trouble
decoding these words in the context of a story. It is important to explicitly review these
areas, as well as short vowels, digraphs, and blends, which we worked on numerous
times.
Improving J. D.’s decoding skills and strategies will improve J. D.’s accuracy
while reading significantly. Systematic, explicit instruction that is appropriate for his
developmental level is imperative, and should encompass the above focus areas.
2) Continued Development of a Sight-Word Vocabulary
Throughout the tutoring, I worked with J. D. on developing his sight-word
vocabulary. There are about 300 words in the English language that make up 65% of all
written material. It is important for a child to automatically recognize and read these
words. J. D. can automatically read 72 of the first 100 words on the Fry Sight Word
Inventory, so to better prepare him for 2nd grade, I would recommend using flash cards
with these words on it. Please note that J. D. does not need to know all 300 words until
about 3rd grade, but exposure to and practice with the first 200 words in the near future
would be extremely beneficial.
Improving J. D.’s sight-word vocabulary will help improve his fluency. He has
made significant progress, as he increased his knowledge from 35% to 72% on the Fry
Sight Word Inventory (first 100 words) from the beginning to the end of tutoring. I
attribute this success to playing the game “Three Strikes You’re Out” with J. D.. This
game always engaged him, and he always looked forward to playing it. He loved seeing
the progress that he was making, and consistently inquired how many times he had
recognized a certain word.
3) Continued Development of Oral Reading Fluency
Perhaps the most important area of future improvement is J. D.’s oral reading
fluency. J. D. has made significant progress in decoding difficult text, but he is still
reading word-by-word, and his WCPM (words correct per minute) is significantly below
grade level when he reads “instructional” level texts. On the QRI instructional level text,
J. D.’s WCPM was 28, which puts him in the 25th percentile according to Hasbruck &
Tindell. This means that, when compared to 100 other students at the end of first grade,
J. D.’s fluency is better than only 24 of them and less well than 75 of them.
Repeated, structured readings of books will help develop J. D.’s fluency. I
noticed that when I explicitly modeled reading fluently with expression and at an
appropriate pace, J. D. wholeheartedly embraced my advice and applied it to his reading
of a specific book. He increased his reading rate significantly on that book. Explicit,
direct modeling of texts with which J. D. is familiar is imperative.
Once J. D.’s fluency improves, he will be able to devote more of his cognitive
attention to comprehension, which is the ultimate goal of reading. Developing the above
points (decoding and sight-word recognition abilities) will also help improve J. D.’s
fluency.
4) Importance of Situational Factors
Although I have never observed J. D. in a classroom environment, based on my
individual work with him as well as his school reading teacher’s report, I would assume
that he is not as motivated as he is in one-on-one situations. Motivation is key in
reaching J. D., especially if one-on-one, targeted instruction is not feasible. If J. D. does
not see a purpose in an activity, he will find ways to not partake in it. In my experience
with J. D., these task-avoidance behaviors usually included complaints of fatigue, random
dialogue or stories to prolong completion of an activity (even if they were related), and
questions about the content to which J. D. already knew the answers. J. D. is very bright,
and he often engaged in these task-avoidance behaviors if he did not feel a true
connection to what we were doing.
J. D. thrives on choice and being able to track his own progress. I did not use any
behavioral rewards with J. D. I gave him one or two stickers at the end of each session,
but he never expected them or asked for them (in fact, he sometimes forgot about them!).
The motivation I used was embedded in the activities themselves. I knew the activities
he enjoyed and those activities that he did not care for. Interspersing these activities is
necessary whether in a whole-class setting or a one-on-one setting. J. D. also enjoyed
checking off activities when he completed them. Having that structure, where J. D. can
monitor his own progress, is essential to keep him focused and motivated. He also loved
participating in the Fry Sight Word Inventory game, called Three Strikes You’re Out, as
previously described. By placing this activity last, I ensured that J. D. would work
diligently to complete all prior activities in a timely manner so he could play the game
before we ran out of time. It only took one instance when we ran out of time to make
him focus more during the next session. It is not too often that you see a student so
intrinsically motivated in 1st grade, and I suggest that all teachers and tutors of J. D. do
their best to harness this type of motivation. J. D. does not need candy bars or stickers to
be motivated. He loves reading about his interests, which include anything to do with
animals, and he enjoys nonfiction books from which he can learn something new.
Overall, I would stress getting to know J. D. as an individual, and catering to his
interests and activities. He has a lot to say about many things, and he absolutely loves
learning. Honing in to this will ensure success for both J. D. and his teacher or tutor. J.
D.’s keen and scintillating personality, in addition to his insatiable desire to learn, will
surely serve him well throughout his experiences in school and beyond.
References
Bear, D.D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008). Words Their Way:
Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction, fourth edition. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Clay, M.M. (2005). An observation survey of early literacy achievement, second edition.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.G. (1996). Guided Reading: Good first teaching for all
children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2006). Qualitative reading inventory-4. Boston: Pearson.
McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, K.A.D. (2009) Assessment for reading instruction, second
edition. New York: The Guilford Press.
Pearson Assessments. (2006). Test of word reading efficiency (TOWRE). Boston.
Pearson.