Running Head: LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 1

Literacy Learner Case Study

Katie Hearl

University of Hawai’i at Manoa

EDCS 647
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 2

I. Brief Background and Reason for Project Focus

In today’s modern society, there is an emphasis placed on the importance of literacy both

in the classroom and beyond. Green (2009) states that literacy is defined as “an individual’s

ability to read, write, and speak in English, and compute and solve problems at levels of

proficiency necessary to function on the job and in society, to achieve one’s goals, and develop

one’s knowledge and potential” (as cited in National Literacy Act of 1991, 2006, p. 368).

McKenna and Stahl (2015) state that “as adults, we recognize that the general goal of reading is

to comprehend text” (p. 21). However, this concept is not realized by many students. Students

sometimes believe that the goal of reading is to read quickly or know what all of the words

mean. It is essential when working with students in regards to literacy to answer the question

“what does the child view as the goal of reading, in general?” (McKenna & Stahl, 2015, p. 21).

This gives educators a starting place to help share the purpose and goal of reading and literacy

with students. Students who struggle in any aspect of literacy oftentimes have “built negative

views of themselves as readers” (Goodman, 1996, p. 602 ). All students have literacy strengths,

no matter what their struggles may be. By shifting mindsets from a deficit model, which places

an emphasis on skills that students lack, educators can help “readers become more aware that

they are better readers than they think they are” (Goodman, 1996, p. 602).

Assessment plays a crucial and valuable role in literacy when used correctly. Certain

assessments are more valuable than others, based on the type of data and information one is

trying to discover. This data can come from a myriad of assessment sources and “this

compilation involves not only standardized test results, but also how the child reads the books

used in the classroom, informal reading inventory results, and other information” (McKenna and
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 3

Stahl, 2015, p. 9). Assessment can show how students are progressing over time, responding to

intervention and instruction, and give a snapshot of what a student knows at a specific point in

time.

In choosing a student for this case study, I wanted to work with a student who would

benefit from one on one direct instruction. I am currently teaching 8th grade English Language

Arts at Iao Intermediate School on the island of Maui. Although I could have chosen many

possible students out of the 151 I have, I thought back to a conversation I had with a friend in

June earlier this year. She has two children who struggle with reading. My friend feels as though

she has tried and failed over and over again in helping her children learn to read. I knew that her

children would benefit the most from one on one direct instruction and intervention. I chose to

work with her daughter, Casey, for this case study. Casey is a ten year old girl from Maui. She is

a homeschooled student. Casey’s primary ethnicity is Hawaiian and speaks English and

Hawaiian Pidgin at home. She speaks English proficiently. She does not receive any services or

have any special classifications. Casey likes to play outside, ride her bike, and play with her dog.

She helps out around the house doing chores and is a generally happy, upbeat child.

II. Home and Family

Casey is the youngest and second child in her family. She lives with her parents, her

maternal grandparents, and her older brother. In August 2016, her grandfather had a stroke,

which affected his speech. He receives several different types of therapy still and is continuing to

recover from the stroke. Casey’s parents are working parents, so much of Casey’s and her

brother’s education is taken on by her grandparents. Casey’s older brother is a year older than

her and has moderate to severe dyslexia and other health disabilities.
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 4

Because the two are homeschooled, the only other student that Casey compares herself to

is her brother. Because he struggles with reading, Casey sometimes takes on that persona as well

and limits herself with what she thinks she can do. Because her brother has some academic

struggles, Casey also tends to take on the responsibility of making sure that he comprehends

what is going on around him. During Casey’s interview, her brother also wanted to participate

and give his responses and answers to the questions. Almost every time after the question was

asked, Casey looked over to her brother to make sure he understood, gauge what he was going to

say, or elaborate on his answer.

Casey’s family has a generally positive attitude towards literacy. Her parents and

grandparents are dedicated to her education and want her to succeed. They encourage both Casey

and her brother to try to do the best they can and to push through when there are struggles. In

talking with Casey’s mother, she realizes that because her children struggle with reading, she

needs to do something now in order for them to correct it. She is not sure currently what that

means and knows that her children need help; she just does not know what specifically to do. In

talking with Casey’s grandmother, she says that Casey responds well to incentives used as

motivation tools. One of the biggest incentives that Casey has for doing well in school is a

monthly dinner and Barnes and Noble trip with her grandmother, which is earned for progressing

through school and/or good behavior. Her grandmother reports that it is a good motivation

incentive for Casey.

III. Affective Factors

Casey is a homeschooled student who is primarily taught by her grandmother four days a

week and either her mother or father one day a week. Her teacher sometimes depends on the
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 5

family’s work schedule and her grandfather’s rehabilitation appointments. She has never

attended a traditional school setting, either public or private. She has never had a teacher who

was not a family member. Her brother attended about a month of kindergarten before he

underwent some serious health issues that required multiple surgeries. Because of this, he missed

many days of school while recovering and his parents were told that if he missed any more

instructional time, Child Protective Services would be called. According to Casey’s mother, even

the school was provided with extensive documentation from the doctors explaining the situation,

the school did not work with the family at all. Casey’s mother says that once the threat of having

her child taken away was presented, she wanted nothing else to do with public school. She

removed her son from school and decided to homeschool him and Casey. Because of this

incident, public education is viewed in a negative way in Casey’s household.

Based on Casey’s responses to interview questions, she has a moderately neutral view on

reading. When asked about how she feels about reading, her response was “Odd. It’s kind of

hard.” Later on in the interview when asked what aspect of reading was a challenge for her, she

mentioned that it is challenging because “Some words I don’t know.” For Casey, she views

herself as a successful reader when she is able to decode and read all the words in the text. She

considers herself successful if she does not struggle with any of the words. Casey prefers to

connect her literacy and reading to her everyday life, rather than just to read for school. Her

grandmother said that Casey recently got a new cookbook and was extremely eager to read the

recipes and directions. She put her literacy skills into action by reading a recipe by herself and

making cornbread for her family. However, she put in a cup of baking soda instead of a teaspoon

because of a reading mistake. Her grandmother thought that it was a great teaching moment for
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 6

Casey because it reiterated the importance of using close reading strategies. When asked why she

thinks reading is important, Casey stated that it was “so we can get jobs. I don’t like jobs.” Casey

sees how reading can help her be successful in the future, but does not currently understand that

the main goal of reading is to comprehend.

IV. School Literacy History

Casey enjoys math and sees herself as a good math student. When asked what Casey’s

strengths are, her grandmother had many good character traits to list. She said that Casey is a

respectful person and a good listener who is hungry to learn. Casey’s parents have switched their

homeschool curricula many times since Casey and her brother began school. They have

primarily been using stand alone workbooks that seem to serve more as additional practice for

topics and concepts. The curricula they have used does not provide direct and explicit

instruction. For Casey’s literacy instruction currently, her family is using the online IXL

program. Both she and her brother started at the kindergarten level and worked through all of the

activities at that level before moving on. She is currently working through the first grade level

program. IXL does not provide direct and explicit instruction on literacy skills, so the skills she

is working on right now is a review of previously learned skills. The majority of the skills that

Casey is working on revolve around phonological awareness and phonic decoding. One thing

that Casey and her brother do not practice much is reading fluency because it is not included in

the IXL program. Casey’s grandmother reports that the online curriculum is much better for

Casey and her brother, because they are attentive, motivated, and eager to move up through the

levels. They are more engaged in school and learning now than they ever have been in the past.
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 7

Moving forward with this project, two areas of concern are phonics and fluency. Right

now, Casey has not mastered all phonic skills necessary for fluent decoding. Working with her

on these skills will hopefully show an improvement in decoding and fluency. Because she is not

in a curriculum program that uses any fluency, an introduction to fluent reading would also be

beneficial to her.

V. Pre-tests Given and Summary of Test Results

Because Casey is not one of the students I work with in my classroom and because she is

not frequently assessed in her homeschool curriculum, I did not have a good, clear idea of where

she really was at in her reading progress. Because of that and given her history, I started with

tests of phonological awareness and progressed from there.

One of the assessments that Casey was given that was quite informative was the Informal

Phonics Inventory. This assessment “provides a convenient means of monitoring specific skills

acquisition” (McKenna and Stahl, 2015, p. 112). The assessment assesses consonant sounds and

digraphs, beginning and final consonant blends and ng, short vowels in CVC words, the rule of

silent e, long-vowel digraphs, diphthongs, and r-controlled vowels and -al. Her final total score

on the Informal Phonics Inventory was 74 out of 93, which equates to 79% accuracy. Casey was

strong in identifying short vowels in CVC words and decoding words that used diphthongs.

Areas that show room for growth include beginning consonant blends and differentiating how

CVC words change when adding “e” to follow the Rule of Silent E. Casey does not blend

beginning consonant sounds together or words with similar rimes. Rather, she sounds out each

letter individually. This is something that she does when she is decoding an unfamiliar word,

even if the word contains rime patterns to words that she is able to read and identify.
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 8

The second informative assessment that Casey was given was the DIBELS Oral Reading

Fluency assessment. The DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency assessment measures “automaticity and

proficiency” (McKenna & Stahl, 2015, p. 168). A second grade level reading passage was

chosen for this assessment because right now, Casey is reading at about a second grade level and

is using curriculum that is at that level as well. It should be noted that with the DIBELS

assessments, “the text complexity of the passages is near the high end of the grade” (McKenna &

Stahl, 2015, p. 168), so “the second-grade passages are all written at a high second-grade level”

(McKenna & Stahl, 2015, p. 168). I wanted to see if her reading fluency was around the same

level as the other literacy skills on which she is currently working. The DIBELS passage that she

read was titled “Riding the Bus to School”. She read the passage as a cold read with 54 words

correct per minute (wcpm) and 2 errors the first time. Both errors she made were substitution

errors, substituting the word “for” for “of” and “cocoa” for “chocolate”. During her second

reading, she read 72 wcpm and during her third, she was at 81 wcpm. According to Therrien,

Gormley, & Kubina (2006), an adequate performance goal for a second grade passage would be

89 wcpm. Casey reads fairly accurately when reading out loud, but could use work on increasing

her fluency rate.

Based on these two assessments, Casey could benefit from direct and explicit instruction

in phonics-based skills and fluency skills. One area that I would like to focus on that will help

both her decoding and fluency skills is identifying words that share similar rime patterns.

According to Beers (2003), “rime patterns help readers identify chunks of words quickly” (p.

233), which could help not only identify and decode words, but also read them fluently in

context. McKenna and Stahl (2015) also support this approach when they state that “children
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 9

need to know patterns to help them identify individual words” (p. 14). Casey could also benefit

from repeated reading to help improve her fluency rate. Because she is currently not using a

curriculum that gives opportunities to read out loud and improve fluency, the more practice she

is able to get with oral reading, the better. For full lesson plans, please refer to Appendix C.

VI. Lesson Plan Matrix

Lesson Foci/Date Objectives ​(include Instructional materials ​(what will use On-going assessment ​(to measure
including performance, to deliver the main objectives of the attainment of objectives)
conditions, and criterion. lesson)
State the ​Common Core
State Standard at the end
of each objective.

Phonics: Student will be able to Index cards Informal Rime Identification

Onset/Rime decode words with Colored markers Word List : The student will
similar rime patterns have mastered this skill when she
11/17/17 without sounding out
Letter tiles
is able to read through the word
each letter sound Dr. Seuss’ “Cat In The Hat”
list with 80% accuracy and
individually and will be
without having to decode letter
able to group words
sounds individually. She will
according to similar
also be able to classify unknown
rime patterns. (RF 2.3)
words by identifying their rime
patterns.
Fluency: Student will be able Whiteboard DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency
Rereading and answer questions as Expo pens passage:
who, what, where,
Question when, why, and how to
DIBELS story passage The student will have mastered
Generation demonstrate Timer this skill when she is able to read
11/07/17 understanding of key the passage at 95% accuracy.
details in a text. (RL. After multiple readings,
2.1) student’s word correct per
minute score should have
Student will be able to increased.
fluently read with an
accuracy rate of 95% or
above to support
comprehension. (RF
2.4)
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
10

VII. Post-tests Given and Summary of Test Results

Because Casey is not a student in my class, I wanted to see if her pretests and post-test

showed any growth over the duration of this case study. Casey’s post-test results to indicate

growth are based on an Informal Phonics Inventory and DIBELS fluency passage. I also

administered a Word Identification Fluency assessment because I wanted gauge where Casey is

at with recognizing common sight words.

For Casey’s Informal Phonics Inventory post-test, I administered the same assessment

that I gave her for the pre-assessment. Her post-assessment score was 85 out 93 points, thus

earning her a 91% proficiency level on the assessment. Over the duration of the case study,

Casey’s Informal Phonics Inventory score increased by 12%. For the post assessment, Casey’s

areas of strength included recognizing all consonant sounds, consonant digraphs, beginning

consonant blends, short vowels in CVC words, long-vowel digraphs, diphthongs, and

r-controlled vowels and -al. Her areas of need are still the rule of silent e: recognizing that a

silent -e added to the end of a short CVC word changes the way the word is pronounced. Based

on the results of her post-test data, Casey still needs direct and explicit intervention with the rule

of silent e. Overall, this post-test did show that Casey made growth in the area of phonics

throughout the duration of this case study.

Casey completed a post-test for DIBELS word fluency. A DIBELS second grade passage

was used for this post-assessment and was titled “Open House at My School”. For the first cold

read, Casey read 47 words correct per minute with two miscues. Her two miscues were the words

tight and ​my. During her second reading, she scored 63 words correct per minute with three

miscues. Her miscues the second time were ​graders, their, and ​was. For the third and final
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
11

reading, Casey read 74 words correct per minute with only one miscue on the word ​graders. For

this fluency reading, she did perform at a lower WCPM than she did on her pre-assessment.

However, her pretest and posttest scores are relatively in the same general range. Casey is still

below the second grade fluency benchmark of 89 WCPM as suggested by Therrien, Gormley, &

Kubina (2006). Based on this assessment, Casey could still benefit from fluency instruction and

intervention.

For the Word Identification Fluency assessment, Casey was given one minute to read as

many sight words as she could from the list. These words were chosen at random “from a list of

the 500 most frequent sight words” (The IRIS Center, 2005). Casey read 43 words correctly in a

minute, putting her just above the first grade benchmark of 40 words correct a minute. Although

she passed the first grade benchmark, I noticed during the assessment that there were still

frequent sight words on the list that Casey did not automatically recognize. Moving forward,

guided and independent practice with sight words may be beneficial to Casey.

VIII. Reflections on Your Differentiated Literacy Lesson Plans

For the first lesson plan, Casey engaged in a repeated reading and comprehension lesson.

The passage that was selected was a DIBELS second grade passage. Her goal was to read the

passage with 95% accuracy and answer comprehension questions that went along with the text.

The passage contained 219 words, so to read with 95% accuracy, Casey had to make less than 10

errors. Before we started, I tried to activate Casey’s prior background knowledge about twins,

seeing as how that was the subject of the passage. I asked her to tell me what she knew about

twins, to which she replied, “Nothing”. After some coaxing and follow up questions, she was

able to tell me that twins “is when a mom gets pregnant with two babies”. I timed her for a
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
12

pre-assessment cold read of the passage for one minute. She scored 64 words correct per minute

with one error. After multiple readings, she was timed again for a minute for a post-assessment

and scored 83 words correct per minute with no errors. The first time Casey read through the

entire passage untimed, she made seven reading miscues, scoring 97% accuracy rate. The words

that she made errors on were ​That, don’t, and, doesn’t, a, twin, toys, exactly. Although she hit

her fluency accuracy goal the first time through, she struggled answering some of the

comprehension questions. For the first round, she answered the comprehension questions orally.

When asked who are the main characters, she responded with “Mom and Dad”. When prompted

again, she responded with “Twins, one twin”. She struggled to verbalize the remaining

comprehension questions (see Appendix A for a list of the comprehension questions). Because

she was unable to answer them after prompting, she read the passage a second time.

Before she read a second time, I went over the errors with her that she made the first

time. For some of the words that she missed that she knows but either deleted or substituted, I

asked for the word in isolation, pointing and asking “What word is this?” When she supplied the

answer, I said, “Good, you said _______ the first time”. For the words that she was unable to

recognize automatically, I directly and explicitly showed her how to sound it out, blend the

sounds together, and say the word. She needed direct instruction on the words ​don’t, doesn’t, and

exactly. During the second reading, Casey read with 96% accuracy and made eight reading

miscues. The miscues she made were ​don’t, when, doesn’t, our, who, it, is, really. For the second

round of comprehension questions, I asked the ones that she was unable to answer the first time

around. Because she struggled to answer orally the first time, I thought that the use of a graphic

organizer would be beneficial for her comprehension. This was a critical choice during the lesson
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
13

because I wanted Casey to be able to use a tool and strategy to help her be successful. Casey

used a Venn Diagram organizer to answer the question of how the twins are different and

similar. Because she was able to have extended think time (up to a few minutes) to complete the

question and referred back to the text multiple times (only once with prompting), she was able to

successfully answer the question. Because she had the graphic organizer completed, she was then

able to answer the question how people tell the twins apart because she listed the answer as an

answer to the previous question as well.

Because Casey made more errors in the second reading than the first one, I had her read

the passage a third time. Before she read a third time, I went over her miscues again and asked

for the word in isolation and directly and explicitly taught the ones that she did not immediately

recognize. The third time she read the passage, she read with 98% accuracy and made four

miscues. The words that she missed the third time were ​were, when, who, exactly. Because she

answered all of the comprehension questions correctly during the second reading, there was no

reason to go over them again. I went over her miscues again and then completed a one minute

timed post-assessment reading to determine words correct per minute.

Based on Casey’s accuracy rates and her comprehension responses, this repeated reading

and comprehension question generation strategy was successful. Because Casey does not usually

get any opportunities to read out loud as part of her current homeschool curriculum, she reads

slowly and haltingly word by word. I have seen increases in her fluency since I have started

working with her. With her DIBELS fluency pre-assessment, she scored 54 words correct per

minute on a cold-read of a passage. With her cold-read pre-assessment of this lesson text, she

increased her words correct per minute by ten words. Based on her results, I believe that this type
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
14

of lesson would be beneficial to her in the future with different types of text. Direct and explicit

instruction in the unfamiliar words in the passage were one way that I helped Casey be

successful with this learning activity. Another way Casey was supported in this lesson was with

the use of a graphic organizer to help aide her comprehension. Casey received both positive,

specific feedback and corrective feedback throughout the entire lesson. Over the past few

months, Casey and I have developed a great relationship where she does not hesitate to ask

questions when she needs clarification or does not understand something. She asked twice after

direct instruction after reading the first and second time what two specific words were again

while she was practicing them in her head.

Moving forward, I would teach this lesson to Casey again. However, I would do a few

aspects of the lesson differently. First, I would choose a passage that had more unfamiliar words

or a passage that would be more at an instructional level for Casey. Because she is not currently

in a well-known curriculum that measures student levels and does not complete any diagnostic

assessments or universal screeners, determining her true reading level is still a work in progress.

Because Casey was able to achieve her goal for accuracy on the first read through, she needs a

more challenging passage in order for the repeated reading strategy to be more effective. I would

also change the accuracy percentage to a higher percentage. 95% was a base percentage, but I

believe reading with a 98% accuracy rate would be more beneficial to the student because the

student would potentially need to reread the passage and interact with the text more to achieve

that higher accuracy goal.

The second lesson plan focused on Casey’s ability to identify similar rime patterns (or

word families) in words without having to sound out the word. This lesson was spread out over
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
15

the course of two lesson periods and had a day where we did not meet in between. Casey was

assessed on and worked with words in the -at, -eat, -ice, -ock, and -ump word families. Her target

goal was to be able to identify words with similar rime patterns automatically without having to

sound out the word. The word list that Casey was assessed on for the pre-assessment and

post-assessment was comprised of five words from each rime pattern for a total of 25 words. On

the pre-assessment, she sounded out eight words, making two miscues on the words ​jock and

stock, thus earning a proficiency score of 68%. The words that she sounded out were ​splice, jock,

plump, slice, twice, thump, stock, and ​vat. After she read through the words, I asked her what she

noticed about them. She responded that some of the words rhymed with one another. Her answer

segued perfectly into reading Dr. Seuss’ book ​The Cat in the Hat. Casey’s purpose for reading

was to listen to and try to remember all the words that rhymed in the story. I read the story out

loud to her.

After reading the story, I had Casey find the letter tiles that spelled the rime -at. After she

identified them, I told her what word families are and their purposes. I gave her direct instruction

on what she needed to do: create a word using the rime -at with the letter tiles and then copy the

word down on the index card. She immediately understood what she needed to do and went to

work. For the rime -at, she was able to come up with the words ​sat, that, fat, and ​bat on her own.

With prompting, she also realized the word ​spat fit into that word family. We then proceeded to

the rime -eat. Casey came up all the words on her own for this rime pattern: ​meat, beat, seat,

peat, cheat. For the -ice rime pattern, Casey came up with the words ​nice, mice, spice on her own

and created the words ​rice and ​price with prompting. For the -ock pattern, Casey came up with

all the words on her own: ​flock, rock, knock (she came up with the word on her own but needed
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
16

assistance with the spelling)​, sock, stock. Finally, for the -ump pattern, Casey came up with

slump, stump, pump, bump, and ​lump by herself.

For the post-assessment, Casey was given the same word list with the same expectations:

to be able to read through the list with 100% accuracy without sounding any of the words out.

She was able to read all of the words correctly with 100% accuracy and did not need to sound

out any of the words as she read the word list. After she read the list for her post-assessment, she

said, “I think some of the words on this list ended up on my cards.” Based on this data, she met

her goal and provided evidence that this strategy was a helpful one for Casey. There were several

aspects of this lesson that helped Casey be successful in this skill. The use of direct and explicit

instruction as to how word families are created and why they are in the same category helped

Casey learn this skill well enough to do it independently. This lesson also utilized multiple

modalities in order to get the concept and skill across, which was beneficial to Casey. Casey saw

the words in context, was able to manipulate the rime patterns and onsets with the letter tiles, and

then write down the words she came up with using different colors on index cards. By having

different activities that all involved the same skills, she was actively engaged in the activity and

was able to practice the skill to mastery.

However, it is important to note that just because Casey was able to read the words with

similar rime patterns in list form does not prove that she is able to read words with similar rime

patterns in context. It would be interesting to see how she performs reading words of similar

rime patterns in context to see if this is a strategy that works for her. That being said, studying

different word families and continuing to add words that Casey comes across to her word family
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
17

lists would give her extra practice with identifying words without having to rely on phonetic

decoding skills to determine the word.

Moving forward, this would be a lesson that I would teach again using different rime

patterns. If I were to teach this lesson again, I would change the approach. I would most like only

introduce one rime pattern at a time from this point on and do so when working with that rime

pattern specifically in the context of the text she is reading. By teaching the lesson this way,

Casey is able to see the rime patterns used in context and identify them in reading passages,

which is where she is going to encounter those words, not necessarily on a list. This lesson is

adaptable to any content and any text passage that she is reading, which makes this lesson widely

accessible regardless of the curriculum she is currently using, providing that there is someone

that can work with her to ensure correctness and accuracy.

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
18

IX. Recommendations to Teachers and Parents/Caregivers

Aloha Mr. and Mrs. Santiago,

As you know, I have been working with your student, Casey, for the past few months on

several literacy skills and wanted to give you an update on her progress. Casey has been such a

great student to work with! She is always polite, respectful, and tries her best on all learning

activities. She also is not afraid to ask clarifying questions and be an active participant in her

learning.

One of the literacy skill areas that she has been working on is phonics. Casey has shown

great gains in this area progressing from 79% proficiency at the start of our time together to 91%

proficiency just last week. Her strengths include recognizing all letter sounds, beginning blends,

and decoding short words with various vowel patterns. One area that Casey can continue to grow

in is knowing and identifying word sounds that change when a silent -e is added to the end of the

word.

Another literacy skill that Casey has been working on is oral reading fluency. Casey is

progressing in this area and is able to read on average 66 words correct per minute with one to

three errors. We will continue to work on oral reading fluency with second grade level passages

until she hits the benchmark of 89 words correct per minute with less than two errors.

Moving forward, Casey and I will be working on identifying how words change when a

silent -e is added to the end and increasing oral reading fluency. I look forward to seeing her

continue to make gains in all areas of literacy. As always, please feel free to contact me if you

have any questions or concerns!

Thanks, Katie Hearl

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
19

Aloha teachers,

I just wanted to give you an update on Casey’s literacy progress. Over the past few

months, I have been working with in a one-on-one setting. Below is her progress in some of the

areas we have been focusing on and some suggestions to help further her knowledge and

understanding in phonics and oral reading.

One of the literacy skill areas that she has been working on is phonics. Casey has shown

great gains in this area progressing from 79% proficiency at the start of our time together to 91%

proficiency just last week. Her strengths include recognizing all letter sounds, beginning blends,

and decoding short words with various vowel patterns. One area that Casey can continue to grow

in is knowing and identifying word sounds that change when a silent -e is added to the end of the

word.

Another literacy skill that Casey has been working on is oral reading fluency. Casey is

progressing in this area and is able to read on average 66 words correct per minute with one to

three errors. We will continue to work on oral reading fluency with second grade level passages

until she hits the benchmark of 89 words correct per minute with less than two errors.

Some teaching strategies and skills that would be beneficial to Casey include direct and

explicit instruction in phonics skills, repeated reading, and close reading. Offering Casey

multiple opportunities to read a text and interact with it will help increase her oral reading

fluency and her comprehension. Casey can continue to work on sight words (especially those

that irregular like ​enough) in order to increase her fluency rate. Please let me know if you have

any questions or need any lesson plan ideas!

Thanks, Katie Hearl

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
20

X. Appendices of work & Bibliography

References

Beers, K. (2003). ​When kids can’t read what teachers can do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Goodman, Y. (1996). Revaluing readers while readers revalue themselves: Retrospective miscue

Analysis. ​The Reading Teacher, 49 (8).

Green, A. (2009). The Politics of Literacy: Countering the Rhetoric of Accountability in the

Spellings Report and Beyond.

McKenna, M. & Stahl, K. (2015). ​Assessment for reading instruction (3rd ed.). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

National Literacy Act of 1991. 5 Dec. 2006. 5 June 2009.

<http://www.nifl.gov/public-law.html>.

Samuels, J.J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. ​The Reading Teacher, 32. 403-408.

Seuss, D. (1957). ​The cat in the hat. New York, NY: Random House.

The IRIS Center. (2005). ​Classroom assessment (part 2): ​Evaluating reading progress.

Retrieved

from ​https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rpm/

Therrian, W., Gormley, S., & Kubina, R. (2006). Boosting fluency and comprehension to

improve reading achievement. ​TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(3). 22-26.

Appendix A: Assessment Data

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
21

Assessment and Date Reason for Results Interpretation of

Assessment results

Informal Phonics To determine Casey’s 9/26: 79% 9/26: Casey’s

Inventory strengths and needs in strengths are
9/26/17, 11/22/17 regards of phonic 11/22: 91% identifying short
skills vowels in CVC words
and decoding words
that used diphthongs.
She needs work in all
other phonic areas.

11/22: Casey’s only

areas of need is the
rule of silent e. Every
other area is now a
strength.

DIBELS Fluency To determine Casey’s Cold read: 54 Casey has good

Passage 1 fluency and accuracy WCPM, 2 errors accuracy rates but
9/30/17 rate. 2nd read: 72 WCPM, could benefit from
0 errors fluency practice to
3rd read: 81 WCPM, increase her fluency
0 errors rate.

DIBELS Fluency To determine Casey’s Cold read: 47 WCPM Casey could benefit
Passage 3 fluency and accuracy 2 errors from further guided
11/28/17 rate. 2nd read: 63 WCPM and independent
3 errors fluency practice to
3rd read: 74 WCPM increase fluency and
1 error accuracy rate.

Word Identification To determine how 43 words correct per Casey’s score puts
Fluency many sight words minute her right above the
11/21/17 Casey can recognize first grade benchmark
automatically in one for word
minute identification fluency.
Because she
struggled to
automatically identify
all words on the list,
she may benefit from
additional sight word
practice and
instruction.
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
22

Appendix B: Reading Questionnaire Data

Student answers are bolded.

How old are you?​ 10

How do you feel about reading?​ Odd it’s kinda hard

What is your favorite thing about reading?​ No favorite thing. Used to be a different program

ABC program. Had fun activities

What is something you’re proud of?​ Reading my books

What is something that’s challenging?​ Some words I don’t know

What types of things do you like to read?​ Moana book

Do you like books with pictures or no?​ sometimes I can read no pictures, but sometimes I can

read with pictures

What do you like to do in your free time? ​Play with the dog, play, ride bikes

What is your favorite thing to do at school? ​Math

Why is reading important? ​So we can get jobs. I don’t like jobs

Appendix C: Lesson Plans

Lesson 1: Phonics Rime Patterns

Objective: ​Student will be able to decode words with similar rime patterns without sounding
out each letter and group words according to similar rime patterns.

CCSS:
RF.2.3: Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

Rationale: ​Beyond first grade, studies show that direct and explicit phonics instruction is not
extremely beneficial to students. Instead, “rime patterns help readers identify chunks of words
quickly” (Beers, 2003, p. 233). Casey does not identify rime when she is reading an unfamiliar
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
23

word; she sounds out each letter in unknown words, even if she is able to read a word with a
similar rime pattern. Direct and explicit instruction on how to decode words with similar word
patterns will help alleviate sounding out unfamiliar words letter by letter.

Materials: ​Index cards, colored markers, letter tiles, Dr. Seuss’ “Cat In The Hat”

Procedures:
-Introduce the lesson and learning activity for the day by informing the student that sometimes
words share similar word patterns and can be grouped up by “word families”.
-Before reading “Cat In The Hat”, set a purpose for reading by saying, “While we read this
story, we’re going to be looking for all of the words that share similar word sounds”.
-Read “Cat In The Hat” with student, either teacher reading, student reading, or taking turns
reading.
-After reading, have student select an “a” and “t” letter tile. Have student recall all of the
words in the story that had “at” in them. Have the student find the letters to make those words,
manipulating the onset to make multiple words.
-Next, have student write an index card for each one of the “at” words that she manipulated
with letter tiles. Work with the student to think of other words that have “at” in them and add
an index card for each.
-Repeat tile manipulation and make index cards for word families: -eat, -ice, -ock, -ump
-Display new word family cards on the wall for student to reference when doing literacy
learning activities.
-Informally assess student’s ability to decode words using the rime patterns by having her read
through a word list of words that have similar rime patterns.

Assessment: ​The student will have mastered this skill when she is able to read through the
word list with 80% accuracy and without having to decode letter sounds individually.

Lesson 2: Fluency and Rereading/Question Generation

Objectives: ​Student will be able answer questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how
to demonstrate understanding of key details in a text. Student will be able to fluently read with
an accuracy rate of 95% or above to support comprehension.

CCSS:
RL.2.1- Ask and answer such questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how to
demonstrate understanding of key details in a text.
RF.2.3- KNow and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

Rationale:​ Because Casey struggles with reading fluently and automatically, repeated reading
can “help students develop their automaticity- as well as their prosody; this, in turn, helps
ensure learners become fluent readers” (Gabrell & Mandel-Morrow, 2015). According to
Samuels (1979) as referenced by Beers (2003), “One of the best ways to improve fluency is
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
24

through the repeated rereading of texts” (p. 217). The Reread-Adapt and Answer-Comprehend
method is best used with “students with instructional reading levels between first and third
grade” (Therrien, Gormley, & Kubina, 2006, pg.22). According to Casey’s DIBELS fluency
score, her instructional text level is around a second grade level. In the Reread-Adapt and
Answer-Comprehend method, the performance goal for a second grade level passage is
reading 89 words correct per minute (wcpm), which she falls short of with 54 wcpm during a
cold reading of the passage.

Materials: ​Whiteboard, Expo pens, DIBELS story passage “Twins”

Procedures:
-On the whiteboard, teacher writes the list of words that student will need to preview and
decode prior to reading the story passage.
-Have student read story title. Ask student to predict what she thinks the story will be about
before reading it.
-Have student read as far as she can for one minute. Count errors and miscues to determine
wcpm score.
-Next, have student read through the entire passage independently the first time. While student
is reading, teacher is keeping a running record of student miscues.
-Once student finishes reading the passage for the first time, go over miscues and correct errors
with student through direct and explicit instruction.
-Move into question generation by asking student to answer the following questions:
● Who are the main characters? Who are the other characters in the story?
● Where/when does the story take place?
● What are some of the similarities between the twins? What are the differences?
● Why is it nice to be a twin sometimes?
● How do people tell them apart?
-Have student reread the passage aiming for 95% accuracy. Review miscues and correct errors
with student through direct and explicit instruction. If the student reads through the whole
passage with 95% accuracy, have her read for one minute to determine wcpm.
-Review any questions that students was not able to answer the first time through.
-If student did not achieve 95% accuracy, repeat reading up to two more times (for a total of 4
readings).

Assessment: ​The student will have mastered this skill when she is able to read the passage at
95% accuracy. After multiple readings, student’s word correct per minute score should have
increased.

Appendix D: Student Work Samples

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
25

Fig. 1Casey working on her Venn Diagram to aide comprehension during her second read
through.

Fig. 2: Casey’s Venn Diagram

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY
26

Fig. 3: Casey using letter tiles to find the onset and rime of word families and writing down her
chosen words.