Tyler Johnson

Report for Educational Assessment

Student: Tyler Johnson ID#: 100038204Parent: Linda and Paul Johnson Birth Date: 8/14/2006Address: 57382 Hawthorn Drive Test Dates: 11/4/2015

Washington Township, 48094Phone: 248-565-7349 Age: 9-2Primary Language: English Grade: 4.3Referral Source: Mrs. Kutskill Examiner: Allison Tayloe

REASON FOR REFERRALTyler Johnson, a 9-year old, 2-month old male, was referred to for educational assessment by his fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Kutskill, on September 15, 2015. Tyler was new to Duncan Elementary in second grade, and there were immediate concerns regarding his reading and writing abilities. He came into third grade at Duncan Elementary with a Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) reading level of 8 and exited at a 12. A score of 8 and 12 both correlate with an 80-450 lexile reading level and are associated with a first grade reading level. Starting in third grade Tyler began working with Mrs. Zeek in reading; the focus was basic phonological awareness strategies, vowel sounds and decoding. Tyler’s scores increased drastically at this time. However, Tyler is still not reading at fourth grade level. Mrs. Kutskill and Mrs. Zeek are concerned that Tyler is performing below his same-aged-peers in both reading and writing, and may benefit from supplemental services both within and outside the general education classroom. According to Tyler’s CA-60 he was flagged in October of 2013 for special education services at Cromie Elementary school. This process was interrupted when Tyler moved to Duncan Elementary. Therefore, at this time an evaluation is needed to determine his current academic skill levels and to identify what supports he may benefit from as he continues to progress and participate in the general education curriculum.

SIGNIFICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION The information found in the following sections was obtained through a review of Tyler’s CA-60 file, an informal interview with Tyler, an interview with Mr. Johnson (Tyler’s father), informal conversations with his general education teacher and an interview with the K-3 special education teacher.

Home and FamilyIn the interview with Mr. Johnson, he revealed that Tyler has three siblings, a younger sister in preschool, a younger sister in first grade, and an older brother in seventh grade. Mr. Johnson also stated that he is married, but his wife, Linda Johnson, was in an out of the picture when Tyler was in second and third grade. Mr. Johnson works full time and expressed his difficulty raising four children throughout this time period. He also stated his concerns of the impact of this instability on Tyler. Tyler was often frustrated and upset during this time, but has shown major improvements since his mom moved back in permanently. Mr. Johnson also emphasized how dedicated he is to get Tyler on track, and how he (or his wife) works with Tyler every evening on his homework and extra reading/writing activities.

1

Tyler Johnson

When asking Tyler about his relationship with his parents in the informal interview with Tyler, he expressed how he loves both of his parents and is happy they both live with him. When asking about his siblings, he expressed how his younger sisters are sometimes annoying, but he takes care of them when he needs to. He did mention his frustration about how his younger sister (in first grade) is almost as good of a reader as he is. Nonetheless, Tyler seems happy with his current home-life. Tyler also talked about his current and past involvement in sports and after school activities; he has played baseball, soccer and football on organized teams, and currently runs after school on Tuesdays and Thursdays with the Duncan Elementary Running Club.

Medical and Developmental HistoryTyler does not have any medical deficiencies. He is healthy, and has not been tested for Learning Disabilities. Tyler’s weight and height appear to be the same as most of his same-age peers and shows no signs of a developmental disability.

When reviewing Tyler’s CA-60, basic background paperwork filled out by his parents (from when he transferred schools) stated that there were no known medical or developmental problems.

Educational History According to Tyler Johnson’s CA-60, he attended Cromie Elementary from kindergarten to second grade (September 2011 – June 2014). Tyler transferred to Duncan Elementary in third grade (September 2014).

Tyler’s report cards from kindergarten, first and second grade show that Tyler received all B’s and D’s (Beginning and Developing) scores in Language Arts, Reading and mostly B’s and D’s in Math and Science with some S’s (secure). Throughout the course of the school year, a couple B’s changed to D’s in all subjects; however, there was little improvement in all subject areas. From the fall to winter of 2012-2013 there was a decline in most Tyler’s reading scores from D’s back to B’s. Nonetheless, throughout kindergarten to fourth grade, Tyler received all 1’s (Excellent) and 2’s (Good) across all categories for behavior skills. Additionally, past teachers stated: “Tyler works well with others and in group settings”, “Tyler adheres to all instruction”, and “Tyler is a hard worker and is on-task”. Tyler’s records also show no concerns of obscene numbers of absences or tardiness; he is on time and has not missed school for extended periods of time.

Tyler does not have an IEP. However, according to Tyler’s CA-60, a Red Flag Form was filled out in October 2013 (when Tyler was in second grade). The form stated that there were concerns in reading, which included: decoding, word recognition, fluency and comprehension; and writing, which included: brainstorming, organization, grammar, punctuation, and attention to details; and language, which included: written/verbal Expression. The form also contains a statement about concerns from Tyler’s father, who expressed that “Dad is very concerned about his reading/writing and progression. Tyler is supported at home and in school, but he is still not up to grade level in reading and writing.” Tyler’s records also show that accommodations were provided to him in second grade at Cromie Elementary. He never had an IEP, but under Title One, Tyler received more focus on one-on-one guided reading and practice work with sight words 3-4 times a week. On November 1st, 2013, Tyler was at a DRA level of 4 (this is when his

2

Tyler Johnson

services began). On January 23rd, 2014, two and a half months later, Tyler was at a DRA level of 8. On January 23rd, 2014, two and a half months later, Tyler was at a DRA level of 8. He was also at the instructional level for reading fluency with 94% accuracy and scored a 22 on his retell. The next year (September 2014), Tyler transferred schools to Duncan Elementary and his services were altered.

Although Tyler does not have an IEP, he received pullout services from Lori Zeek (the K-3 Special Education teacher) daily, starting in October 2014 (third grade), to work on reading, retelling and comprehension. Tyler has shown improvement since working with Lori Zeek, and went from a DRA level of 8 to a DRA level of 12 upon entering the fourth grade.

Current Academic Information

According to Ms. Tayloe, Tyler’s student teacher, Tyler showed clear signs of frustration when he was presented with the DIEBELs oral reading passages: Georgia O’Keefe and The Land at the Top of the World. Ms. Tayloe first noticed outward signs of frustration from Tyler as he began reading the initial passage (Land at the Top of the World). Tyler took deep breaths and tapped his foot while reading the passage. Additionally, Tyler was unable to read the passage fluently, but he did not stop attempting to read throughout the minute timeframe. He scored a 32 wcpm (words correct per minute) on the Land on Top of the World Passage and a 21 wcpm on the Georgia O’Keefe passage, creating an average of 27 wcpm. The Fourth Grade Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for Risk state that a score above 90 indicates at or above benchmark (likely to need core support), 70-89 indicates below benchmark (likely to need strategic support) and 0-69 indicates well below benchmark (likely to need intensive support). Therefore, a score of 27 is suggests that Tyler is well below benchmark and is likely to need intensive support. When administered a Benchmark Passage Running Record, “Fossils” from Reading A-Z (Level J, Word Count 95) the special education teacher, Ms. Shanahan (who administered the test), stopped Tyler on the 28th word because the test was too difficult. Ms. Shanahan then administered another passage, “How to Penguin Dance” from Reading A-Z (Level G, Word Count 84). Tyler read 44 words correctly, and when administered the comprehension questions Tyler scored a 3/3 (Ms. Shanahan read asked the comprehension questions to Tyler then marked his response). Ms. Shanahan also made the qualitative observations that Tyler has poor fluency and poor decoding (vowel teams, multi-syllabic words and word endings). This test was administered on September 21st, 2015 and Tyler (beginning on October 5th, 2015) works with Ms. Shanahan for specialized reading instruction while Mrs. Kutskill teaches whole group to her class.

In science, Ms. Tayloe, Mrs. Kutskill’s student teacher, administered a class-wide vocabulary test on September 17, 2015. Independently, Tyler was the last student to finish and scored a 4/10 on the quiz. Tyler was then administering the test a second time. This time Ms. Tayloe read the test aloud to Tyler and he scored a 10/10. Tyler now has permission for a teacher or an aid to administer his science tests. He has not had any science tests since September 17, 2015.

All of the students in the fourth grade were administered a Fourth Grade Beginning of the Year Assessment on September 15th, 2015 and were then placed into a classroom based on their scores. The fourth grade team then divided the students into four sections: low, moderately low,

3

Tyler Johnson

average and high. Tyler was placed in the moderately low math class. Tyler has excelled in his math class. He has scored 100% on the two quizzes that have been administered thus far. It is important to note that there is a paraprofessional, Mrs. Kelly, who aids in Tyler’s math class. During the test, Tyler is allowed to ask Mrs. Holly (Tyler’s math teacher) or Mrs. Kelly to read the instructions or questions found on the test. Tyler utilizes this accommodation.

NWEA testing also occurs at Duncan Elementary three times a year (Fall, Winter, Spring) for grades K-6. Tyler completed the Mathematics NWEA test on September 28th, 2015, the Reading NWEA test on September 29th and the Language Usage NWEA test on September 30th. In mathematics, Tyler obtained a RIT score of 175 in the fall of 2014, a 189 in the winter of 2015, a 194 in the spring of 2015 and a 216 in the fall of 2015. Tyler was below the grade level mean RIT every test period until this past fall when he scored a 216 in comparison to a norm grade level mean RIT of 202. In reading, Tyler obtained a RIT score of 181 in the fall of 2014, a 151 (steep decline*) in the winter of 2015, a 165 in the spring of 2015 and a 177 in the fall of 2015. Tyler showed a steep decline in his score from the fall of 2014 to the winter of 2015. According to the interview with Mr. Johnson, Tyler’s mom left his family for a period of time in the late fall of 2014. Tyler was also below the grade level mean RIT every test period. However, he has been closing the gap since the winter of 2015. Additionally, Tyler’s general education teacher and special education teachers, Mrs. Kutskill and Mrs. Zeek, made the decision to excuse Tyler from the Language Usage NWEA test that occurred on September 30th due to concerns that Tyler may become extremely frustrated. In the fall of 2014 Tyler scored a 156 (in comparison to the norm grade level mean RIT of 189) and a 158 in the winter of 2015 (in comparison to the norm grade level mean RIT of 197).

Mrs. Kutskill filed a Student Needs Assessment Committee Form from Utica Community Schools on September 15th, 2015 to complete the first step in the SNAC process. This referral is still being processed to date.

CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS

Tyler was very compliant and respectful when administered the Graded Word List and Graded Passage assessments from the Basic Reading Inventory. These tests were administered in his general education classroom while the rest of the class was participating in Daily 5 independently. Tyler sat at a back table with Ms. Tayloe, where they worked quietly. During the Primer and Grade 1 assessments (for the word lists and passages), Tyler was confident and showed no signs of frustration. He took his time and studied the words carefully. However, during the Grade 2 (for word lists and passges) and Grade 3 (for word list), Tyler began to show signs of frustration. He made the comment, “these words are getting really hard” as he began skipping words on the Grade 3 Word List. During the Graded Passage, Tyler did not show signs of frustration. He stumbled over words in the passages, but continued to read without stopping. When asked the comprehension questions at the end of each passage, Tyler took roughly 30 seconds to respond to each question.

Tyler was administered the Direct Writing Assessment in his own desk in the classroom. He was administered this test with his entire class and was very compliant. He sat silently and wrote. His peers did not distract him and the observer noted that Tyler mouthed many of the words when he

4

Tyler Johnson

wrote. At the end of the assessment, Tyler met with Ms. Tayloe to read what he wrote. He read fluently although what he read did not match all of his written words.

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS

General Classroom Observations: Tyler Johnson is an outgoing, friendly child that does not have trouble making friends or socializing with his peers. He seems to be well liked and shows affection for his teachers. Tyler began the school year sitting next to his friend, Carl (who is a behavioral concern). At this time, Tyler and Carl were often talking during instruction time and were told to “stay on task”. Ms. Tayloe switched their seats in the first week of school and Tyler has been much more attentive since. Tyler sits towards the front of the room next to a girl, faces the front of the room and is rarely reminded to stay-on task. He is prepared for each subject with the appropriate folder/binder, book and writing utensils.

Observation on September 17th, 2015: Tyler was observed during science instruction for thirty minutes. The class began by reading an article as a whole group. The article was projected on the front whiteboard in large print. Students volunteered to read aloud while Mrs. Kutskill highlighted important facts. Tyler did not volunteer to read aloud; however, he was attentive to the article in front of him as his classmates read. Tyler also highlighted what Mrs. Kutskill highlighted and did not talk to his peers during this time; he was focused on the assignment. Next, Mrs. Kutskill projected definitions on the whiteboard for students to use in the vocabulary boxes (students wrote the definitions on lines and draw a picture that relates in the box above). Tyler struggled to keep up and frequently asked Mrs. Kutskill to slow down. Mrs. Kutskill slowed down, but suggested that Tyler copy off the girl sitting next to him so that they can keep moving. After each definition Mrs. Kutskill also stopped to ask for a student to state the definition in their own words and tell the class what they are going to draw in their picture box. Tyler volunteered to reword the definition: Environment. The formal definition was: the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal or plant lives. Tyler restated the definition as: “the things that are around us, like the outdoors”. The teacher restated the environment can be anywhere and includes all the living and nonliving things around us. Tyler continued to explain that he is going to draw a picture of a bear leaving in the woods and that the woods are the environment. Tyler showed a clear understanding of this concept and spoke confidently when he answered the questions. By the end of the lesson, Tyler completed all assignments correctly.

Observation on September 21st, 2015: Tyler was observed during language arts instruction with Mrs. Kutskill for twenty minutes. In todays’ lesson Mrs. Kutskill passed out a short paragraph on a half sheet of paper to each student. As Mrs. Kutskill read the paragraph aloud, Tyler was looking around the class, not following along. The paragraph talked about a person walking into a pet store and finding the perfect dog. Then, Mrs. Kutskill called on a random student to define the term “sensory detail” (the students were taught what sensory details were the previous day). After the girl described the term, Mrs. Kutskill asked for volunteers to provide examples of sensory details that could be added to the paragraph. Tyler seemed attentive during this time and had the appropriate materials on his desk. Tyler also raised his hand and was the fifth student to provide a sensory detail. He stated, “the dog was soft and fluffy and smelled like a puppy”. The students were then instructed to cut the paragraph at a certain point, glue the top and bottom piece to a lined sheet of paper (leaving a gap in the center), and then fill in the lined portion of

5

Tyler Johnson

paper with sensory details. Tyler’s writing piece was two-sentence long, and the majority of his words were spelled incorrectly (a common trend was that he did not follow the long vowel rules and commonly omitted the end sounds of words). His words/letters were all very spaced out, and his letters were not on the lines (some were above, on or below the lines). Moreover, when Ms. Tayloe asked Tyler to read his sentences out loud they were logical and contained correct sensory details. He told me that his sentences said, “The dog was soft and fluffy when I pet her fur. She smelled like a puppy that just had a bath.”

Observation on September 23rd, 2015: Tyler was observed during math class with Mrs. Holly for forty minutes. Students were asked to get out last night’s homework and a checking pen upon entering class. The homework assignment consisted of three angles on the front where students had to write the angle name three different ways, eight questions where the students had to identify the type of angle as acute, obtuse or right, three questions that asked if two lines were parallel, perpendicular or intersecting, and a written portion in which students had to state whether or not an angle can be right and have perpendicular lines. Tyler sat down as instructed (he sat towards the back of the room, facing the whiteboard). As a class the students corrected their own homework assignments with checking pens. Tyler was silent during this time and seemed very focused while checking his homework. His eyes were either on his paper or on the board, and he scored a 15/20 on his homework. He got 2 points off the written portion and identified three angles incorrectly. Tyler’s spelling was also incorrect throughout his homework and he did not write in complete sentences. Next, Mrs. Holly started the guided notes page for the day. Tyler had out his appropriate materials and took notes silently as Mrs. Holly taught. His spelling was correct because Mrs. Holly projected the notes on the board, but Tyler’s letters are very spaced out and not aligned with the blank spaces.

ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES AND ANALYSIS

Basic Reading InventoryThe following assessment tools from the Basic Reading Inventory (BRI) 11th Edition informal reading inventory were administered to assess Tyler’s word recognition without context, word recognition in context, oral reading fluency, and passage comprehension. The BRI is projected to measure a student’s emergent reading skills or reading skills, and to aid in classifying the student’s reading level as independent, instructional or frustration performance level.

BRI Graded Word List: For the Graded Word List subtest of the BRI, students read aloud each word on a series of grade level word lists ranging from the pre-primer level to the twelfth grade. Each Graded Word List contains 20 words in isolation that are used to assess student’s immediate word recognition skills. Additionally, students are given two opportunities to read the words in isolation. The first time through the words is classified as sight word recognition, the student’s immediate recognition of the word by sight. The second time the word list is classified as word analysis because it provides the student with more time to decode the words in isolation. Performance levels are categorized as independent with 95-100% accuracy (19-20 words identified correctly), instructional with 80-90% accuracy (16-18 words identified correctly), instructional/frustration with 70-75% accuracy (14-15 words identified correctly), and frustration with less than 70% accuracy (0-13 words identified correctly).

6

Tyler Johnson

On October 7, 2015, Tyler was administered the List A (Primer) Form A of the Graded Word List. This word list is four grade levels below Tyler’s current grade level, and was administered in order to establish an independent level. Tyler read 19 of the words correctly and thus performed at the independent level for primer words; he recognized 11 words by sight and 8 more by analysis. The only word that Tyler was not able to identify (by sight or analysis) was the word around. Tyler incorrectly identified the word around as “about” during both attempts. Tyler was then administered three subsequent word lists in order to establish other performance levels for isolated word reading. Tyler performed at an independent level on the List A 7141 (Grade 1) word list; he identified 18 words correctly - 11 via sight and 7 via analysis. Tyler incorrectly identified the word aunt as “act”, the word man as “men”, gave as “give”, way as “was” – Tyler correctly identified these words on his second attempt. Tyler was unable to recognize the words pocket and coat in either attempt. List A8224 (Grade 2) Graded Word List was administered next. Tyler reached an instructional/frustration level on this word list with a total number of 15 words correct; 7 were recognized by sight and 8 were identified via analysis. He stated he did not know the words fight, thought, chase and such, and skipped these words during his second attempt as well. Tyler also identified the words poor (as “poo), city (as “kite”), soft (as “saw”), quiet (as “quick”), sister (as city), and seed (as “see”) incorrectly the first time through. The second time through, Tyler identified these words correctly. Tyler was then administered the List A3183 (Grade 3) Graded Word List and reached a frustration level. Tyler identified 8 words correctly; no words were identified correctly on his first attempt. Tyler identified trail as “trial”, Stream as “steam”, lift as “little”, cabin as “came” and bless as “because” during his first attempt, but he sounded the words out correctly during his second attempt. One common trend in all of the words listed was that Tyler identified all of the initial consonants correctly, but failed to identify the final consonant blend correctly. Once Tyler reached the 12th word on the word list (after skipping 3 words in a row) he gave up and asked to stop the test. Tyler recognized the minority of words via sight throughout the entire testing period. The majority of the words Tyler missed ended in a consonant/consonant blend (including the words: so(ft), li(ft), quie(t), see(d), cabi(n), contained a vowel digraph /ou/, /ea/ (including the words: journey, treasure, stream, though), short vowel /i/, /o/ sounds (including the words: city, soft, sister, aunt). In some cases Tyler simply made up an entirely new ending. Tyler always identified the first consonant correctly. Once Tyler completed all four Graded Word Passages, his results were compiled into a table in order to identify his current reading level (see Table 1 for the Graded Word Lists scores)

Table 1: Graded Word List ScoresList Form

List Title Grade Level of List

Sight Raw Score

Analysis Raw Score

Total Raw Score

Performance Level

A List A Primer 11 8 19 IndependentA List

A7141Grade 1 11 7 18 Independent

A List A8224

Grade 2 7 8 15 Instructional/Frustration

A List A3183

Grade 3 0 8 8 Frustration

7

Tyler Johnson

BRI Graded Passages: The Graded Passages subtest of the BRI required Tyler to read aloud grade level passages in order to determine his word reading skills in context and comprehension through questions and retelling. Tyler was asked to read the title of the passage silently and predict what he thinks the passage is about. As Tyler read aloud the passages, miscues including substitutions, insertions, omissions, reversals, repetitions and self-corrections were recorded. The BRI gives the examiner the option to differentiate significant miscues (miscues that change the meaning of the passage) from insignificant miscues. The word recognition in context scoring guide is determined by the total miscues and significant miscues. For Tyler, the total miscues of the passage were used to determine his word recognition in context reading levels for the grade level passages. His performance level was categorized as independent with 95-100% accuracy, instructional with 80-90% accuracy, instructional/frustration with 70-75% accuracy, and frustration with less than 70% accuracy. After Tyler read aloud each passage, he was asked to retell the passage without the opportunity to reread the passage. The retelling rubrics are based on particular retelling skills. To score at the independent level, students must recall main points or key ideas, remember important facts, retain the general sequence of events, and relate most of the content in an organized manner. To reach the instructional performance level, students must recall most of the main points or key ideas, remember some important facts, retain the general sequence of events, and relate an overall sense of the content. The students recalling bits of information in a haphazard manner with little apparent organization characterize the frustration performance level. After retelling, students are asked ten comprehension questions (for passages above the pre-primer level. The comprehension scoring guide assigns a performance level based on the total comprehension questions missed. For Graded Passages primer and above, the comprehension scoring guide assigns the independent level for 0-1 questions missed, independent/instructional level for 1 ½ - 2 questions missed, instructional level for 2 ½ questions missed, instructional/frustration level for 3-4 ½ questions missed, and frustration for 5 or more questions missed. Tyler was administered Graded Passages and scored based on the criteria.

The first Graded Passage administered to Tyler was at the Primer level. Tyler presented a total of 3 miscues (2 substitution and 1 omission), 2 of which were significant; this placed Tyler at the independent/instructional level for Word Recognition. Tyler substituted opening for “open” and show for “snow”. The substitution for the word “snow” and the omission of the word “sleds” in the sentence: “Dad went out to get your sleds” were both significant miscues because they changed the meaning of the sentence. Tyler also read 97 correct words in 1 minute and 44 seconds, which translated to 57 wcpm (words correct per minute). When presented ten comprehension questions, he scored an 8/10. He missed the first two questions: “What is the story about?” And “On what day of the week does the story take place?” Tyler’s responses were both similar to the correct answer, but they were incorrect nonetheless; this placed Tyler at an independent/instructional level for comprehension of this passage.

Next, Tyler was administered the A7141 (Grade 1) Graded Passage. Tyler read 92 correct words in 2 minutes and 17 seconds, which translated to 40 wcpm. Tyler also performed at an Independent/instructional level with a total of 9 miscues, 2 of which were significant. Tyler’s total miscues were mainly composed of all substitutions and one insertion. Tyler substituted Spot for “Spotty”, went for “wanted” (significant), proo for “poor”, that for “what”, went for “was”, was for “way”, show for “how” and leader for “learned” (significant). Tyler’s one omission was the word “went” in the twelfth sentence. In six of the eight total miscues, the initial sound in the

8

Tyler Johnson

substitution was consistent with the first sound in the target word. Although the initial sound was consistent, the rest of the word did not have commonalities with the target word; the entire word was replaced with a common sight word in most cases. When asked ten comprehension questions, Tyler answered 8/10 questions correctly, placing him at an independent/instructional performance level. Tyler answered the questions: “What did Spotty do when the water went over his head?” and “Why do you think Spotty wanted to play with the frog?” The first comprehension question also correlates with the significant miscue: leader for “learned” in the passage because it changed the meaning of that sentence.

Because Tyler scored at an independent/instructional level for reading comprehension, Tyler was then presented with the A 8224 (Grade 2) Graded Passage. In this assessment, Tyler read 85 correct words in 2 minutes and 40 seconds, which translated to 32wcpm. He read this passage with a total of 15 miscues, 5 of which were significant and changed the meaning of the sentence. This placed Tyler at a frustration performance level. Just as in the prior assessments, the majority of Tyler’s miscues were substitutions (12), two were insertions and one was an omission. Tyler’s significant miscues (meaning change) were: man for “many”, kids for “kinds, holded for “wondered”, first for “last” and lears for “leaves”. In addition, Tyler substituted: of for “for”, the for “he”, mapple for “maple”, move for “movement”, Billy for “Bill”, look for “looked”, and animals for “any”. Tyler inserted the word looked in the sentence “He found leaves from some maple and (looked) oak trees” and inserted at and omitted the word “he” in the sentence “He looked (at) around for other animals.” Also, similar to the previous assessment, Tyler said the same initial consonant sound as the target word for the majority of his miscues. In some cases he said the correct final consonant, but the majority of his miscues were due to incorrect final consonant/consonant blends. Tyler scored an 8/10 for his comprehension of this passage. When asked the question: “Why did Bill go walking in the woods?” Tyler answered: “To look for kids” (the correct answer is to look for leaves). Tyler also received ½ credit for the questions: “What else did Bill see besides a mouse?” (Correct answer: a bird nest; animal tracks –Tyler did not recall the animal tracks) and “What kinds of leaves did Bill find in the woods?” (Correct answer: maple and oak leaves – Tyler only recalled oak leaves). This placed Tyler at an independent/instructional level for comprehension.

Although Tyler performed at the Frustration level for the A 8224 (Grade 2) Word Recognition in Context, he still performed at the independent/instructional performance level for the comprehension component. Therefore, Tyler was then presented with the A 3183 (Grade 3) Graded Passage; he is to be tested until he reaches the frustration level for reading comprehension. In the Word Recognition in Context portion of this assessment Tyler reached a frustration level with 19 total miscues: 16 were substitution miscues, 2 were insertion miscues, one was an omission miscues, and 6 of the 19 total miscues were significant. Tyler also showed the same trend in error; he correctly identified the first consonant sound, but failed to produce the correct final consonant/consonant blend. Likewise, Tyler omitted some –es and –ed endings and short words, including the word it. In the comprehension portion, Tyler missed 4 of 10 questions, resulting in an instructional/frustration performance level. He received ½ credit for the questions: “What was found the next day?” (correct answer: bear tracks, Tyler’s answer: a bear) and “Why do you think the bear walked away?” (correct answer: any logical response; remove the honey, Tyler’s answer: it was scared). Tyler received no credit for the questions: “Where were the bees making the honey?” (correct answer: in the attic of the cabin, Tyler’s answer: the tree – this

9

Tyler Johnson

correlates with Tyler’s significant miscue when he changed the word attic to “attack”) and the question: “What might you do to keep the bear away?” (correct answer: any logical response, Tyler’s answer: run away). It appeared as if Tyler was trying to make sense of the content that he was able to read from the passage; however, he was not able to construct logical responses based on the information presented in the passage. See Tables 2 and 3 below for Tyler’s scores on the graded passages:

Table 2: Word Recognition in ContextGraded Passage Level

Substitution Miscues

Insertion Miscues

Omission Miscues

Total Miscues

Significant Miscues

Performance Level

Primer A 1 0 1 2 2 Independent/Instructional

Grade 1A 7141

8 0 1 9 2 Independent/Instructional

Grade 2A 8224

12 2 1 15 5 Frustration

Grade 3A 3183

16 2 1 19 6 Frustration

Table 3: Graded Passage Comprehension QuestionsGraded Passage

LevelRaw Score Accuracy Performance Level

Primer A 8/10 80% Independent/Instructional

Grade 1A 7141

8/10 80% Independent/Instructional

Grade 2A 8224

8/10 80% Independent/Instructional

Grade 3A

6/10 60% Instructional/Frustration

Direct Writing Assessment: A direct writing assessment (DWA) was administered to Tyler on October 10, 2015. The DWA is an assessment designed to evaluate a students’ overall writing skills with a writing prompt to elicit a writing sample. Tyler was asked to respond to the prompt “Write a story using the elements of folktales that we have been learning about in class thus far” to elicit a fiction narrative. This assessment was not timed and administered to the entire class during language arts instruction.

Tyler’s writing was assessed using a six-trait writing rubric, a story grammar elements rubric, and the Narrative Writing Rubric designated for students in grades 3-6 at Duncan Elementary (based off of McGraw-Hill rubric). While Tyler is currently in the 4th grade, use of the Narrative Writing Rubric (provided by Duncan Elementary) grade-appropriate rubric for assessing his written expression yielded a score of 1 in the Ideas category, 1 in the Organization category, and zeros in both the Style and Conventions categories, yielding a holistic score of 1.

10

Tyler Johnson

Tyler’s writing was also evaluated using a six-trait rubric typically used for students in grades K-2. This rubric includes the following six traits:

Ideas: the main theme or purpose of the pieceOrganization: the internal structure of the storyVoice: the personal voice of the writerWord Choice: the use of colorful and precise words to communicateSentence Fluency: the way words and phrases flow throughout the writingConventions: the mechanical correctness of the story including punctuation, grammar, and spelling

These traits scored on a five-point scale, including (1) Experimenting, (2) Emerging, (3) Developing, (4) Capable, and (5) Experienced.

In Tyler’s response to the writing prompt, he produced 71 Total Words Written (TWW), 37 of which were spelled correctly. Because a fair amount of the words were spelled incorrectly, Ms. Tayloe had Tyler read his writing piece aloud. As Tyler read his passage, Ms. Tayloe wrote the word that Tyler said above the incorrectly spelled word. This was helpful when scoring Tyler’s writing prompt with multiple rubrics. Also, although Tyler spelled many words incorrectly, he did use proper punctuation in most cases; all eight of his sentences ended in a period and six of his sentences began with a capital letter. Tyler’s scores on the six-traits rubric are presented in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Six Traits and ScoresTrait ScoreIdeas Developing – 3Organization Developing – 3Voice Experimenting - 1Word Choice Emerging – 2Sentence Fluency Developing – 3Conventions Experimenting – 1

Ideas: Tyler’s writing appeared to have a main idea, and attempted to develop a plot even though the plot was overly broad and simplistic. The genre of this text was a Folktale Narrative; it appeared as if the element of a folktale that Tyler was trying to incorporate was “learning a lesson”. Tyler introduced a bully at the beginning of the story, and after being bullied by someone else, the first bully stopped his unfair treatment. The last line of Tyler’s sample states: “and then thay (they) wor (were) all frend (friends)”. This shows a series of events that end to a single solution; however, the story lacked detail.

Organization: The writing sample lacked a clear structure. The letters were overly spaced out in words, and most of the letters were not placed properly on the lined paper. Moreover, there was one random line of the paper that was skipped in the center of the passage that was not relevant to the storyline. However, the story does have some sort of storyline with a beginning, middle and end. The words then and and were overused.

11

Tyler Johnson

Word Choice: Tyler’s word choice was generally poor. Many words were overused, and the vocabulary was limited. Tyler attempted to use some descriptive words, such as sad and scared, but overall it was hard to create a mental picture of the story.

Sentence Fluency: Mechanically, Tyler did use transition words to help with sentence flow in his writing sample that include the words and then and first. However, the sentences were short and words were used repetitiously.

Voice: Tyler’s writing sample was lifeless. He did not give any indication of a sense of audience; the sentences in the sample were very simple and lacked personality.

Conventions: Tyler’s writing sample contained many errors in standard writing conventions, which made the text difficult to read. However, the majority of the incorrectly spelled words could be read aloud and determined. For example, Tyler spelled the words: bole for “bully”, prsin for “person”, sum for “some”, strtid for “started”. Tyler had all of the initial consonants correct, as well as emphasized consonants. Prior to translating Tyler’s writing piece (by him reading it to me orally), it was difficult to read and had to be reread often.

Tyler’s writing was also assessed with the story grammar elements rubric that uses the following ten categories to analyze the writing sample:

Main CharacterLocaleTimeInitiating EventGoalsAttempt Direct Consequence Reactions (can be expressed anywhere in the story)TitleDialogue

A score of 0, 1, or 2 is given to the writing sample under each category. A score of 0 represents a lack of the given element in the writing sample. A score of 1 represents the element is present in the writing sample, but is not developed. A score of 2 represents that the trait is well developed and demonstrated in the writing sample. Tyler’s scores for the ten story grammar elements are represented in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Story Grammar ElementsMain Character 1 – A main character is established but very

few descriptive details are givenLocale 0 – No locale or place is mentionedTime 0 – The time when the story took place is not

providedInitiating Events 1 – The precipitating event is clearly evident; it

can be a natural occurrence, and internal response, or an external event

12

Tyler Johnson

Goals 0 – A goal is not establishedAttempt 1 – The attempt of the main character to solve

the problem is presented and would be expected to lead to a resolution

Direct Consequence 1 – The direct consequence of the main character’s actions are presented

Reactions 1 – Some feelings of the main character are presented, but they are cursory

Title 1 – A title is given, but it is vagueDialogue 0- No dialogue is present in the story

Tyler scored only 0’s and 1’s according to the story grammar rubric; he did not develop any of the elements in his writing piece. Overall, his writing was very simple, included no dialogue, did not develop a character or storyline, and did not present a clear goal. Tyler’s sample included phrases like “He was scared” and “He was sad”, which shows some main character development and reaction, but it is not well developed. Additionally, the phrase, “another bully started to bully the bully and the first bully started to stop and then the second bully started to stop” shows direct consequences of the new bully’s actions. Nonetheless, Tyler did not wrap up this sequence and connect it to an underlying goal or lesson; it is simply implied.

Lastly, Tyler’s writing sample was also compared to the Narrative Writing Rubric designated for students in grades 3-6 at Duncan Elementary (based off of McGraw-Hill rubric). This rubric contains four main categories: Ideas, Organization, Style and Connections, that contain he sub-categories listed below.

IdeasThe Topic of My Narrative is Clear, Unified, and FocusedAll Plot Details are on Topic and Support the StoryRelevant Details and ExamplesEffectively Establishes Setting, Develops Narrator, Characters, and Maintains Point of ViewThe Topic of My Story is Stated and Evident

OrganizationEngaging/Interesting Hook or Lead in Opening ParagraphDetails in Logical SequencePaceTransitionsConclusion

StyleExpressive Word ChoiceLiterary techniques DemonstratedVaried Sentence StructureTone is Appropriate for Purpose and AudienceAuthor Makes Connection, Causes Emotional Reaction in Reader

ConventionsSpellingPunctuation

13

Tyler Johnson

CapitalizationGrammar and UsagePresentation

The writing sample is given a 1 or 0 for each subcategory, which creates a total of 5 points for each category. The four total scores (from each category) are then averaged, producing a holistic score for the writing piece. Scores with a decimal of .5 or greater are rounded up to the nearest whole number.

Mrs. Kutskill used this rubric to score Tyler’s writing sample. Tyler’s writing sample received a 1/5 under the Ideas Category (he attained a point for sub category “The Topic of My Narrative is Clear, Unified and Focused”) because his story stuck to one idea (bullying) and did not wander. Tyler also received a 1/5 under the Organization Category (he attained a point for the sub category “Details in Logical Sense”) because his story made sense sequentially – the causes had a logical effect. The writing sample received 0/5 under the Style and Conventions categories. These scores combined created a holistic score of 1.

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II)Tyler was administered the Letter and Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding and Decoding Fluency subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II) test on November 4th, 2015. These subtests were chosen for Tyler because in the BRI Tyler showed strength in identifying the initial consonant of a word correctly, but struggled to identify the final consonant blends, long vowel sounds and vowel digraphs. Tyler struggled to pronounce the entire words correctly when he did not recognize the word on sight. Furthermore, the Letter and Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding and Decoding Fluency subtests of the KTEA-II were chosen to identify more specific strengths and weaknesses that Tyler possesses when it comes to decoding known and unknown words. The KTEA-II is a norm-referenced test designed to assess the reading, written language, math, and oral language skills of a student and compare the student’s academic achievement in these areas to the performance of same-grade or same-age peers. Typically, two subtests in reading, math, written language, or oral language are administered to a student to obtain a composite score for the designated skill area. In Tyler’s case, three subtests were conducted in the order: Letter and Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding then the Decoding fluency subtest because the instructions state that the Nonsense Word Decoding subtest must be conducted before the Decoding Fluency subtest can be conducted. There are also six reading-related subtests available to assess specific reading-related skills. The KTEA-II uses Stand Scores (SS) that are based on a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Tyler’s achievement scores were derived using age-based norms, meaning that his performance was compared to his same-age peers.

Letter and Word Recognition: This subtest evaluates a student’s skills in recognizing letters and real words. It is presented in an easel format with the stimuli facing the student, and the directions facing the examiner. Tyler was asked to pronounce letters and words of gradually increasing difficulty. To receive credit for correctly reading a word, the student must pronounce the word as a connected, relatively smooth whole.

14

Tyler Johnson

Tyler’s raw score on this subtest was 38, which corresponds to a SS of 80. Tyler’s obtained standard score of 80 falls at the 9th percentile. This means that Tyler scored as well or better than 9% of his same-age peers in the normative sample on this subtest. A 95% confidence band was used to estimate Tyler’s true score on the Letter and Word Recognition subtest to be within the SS range of 74-86. This implies that there is a 95% chance that his true score, the score he would obtain if there were no measurement of error, falls within the range of 74-86. His score is considered below average.

Tyler’s pronunciations of words on this subtest were given in a combination of multi-letter segments and whole-word styles. This means that when pronouncing the given word, he either pronounced the word in segments larger than one letter, or he simply stated the whole word. Specifically, for words pronounced incorrectly, Tyler said the first letter sound of the word on all occasions. After pronouncing the first letter sound, he then guessed at the remainder of the word. For example, Tyler pronounced the word high as “height” (he dropped the final –gh digraph and added –ight), eleven as “ever” (he only pronounced in initial consonant –e correctly and added the -ver ending), several as “seven” (he dropped the final –n consonant sound) and shoes as “show” (he pronounced the initial –sh consonant blend correctly and added the –ow diphthong incorrectly). On three occasions Tyler pronounced the short vowels u as its long vowel sound (in the words truth, conductor and united). Another common trend with Tyler’s mispronunciations was that Tyler struggled with three-syllable words. For the majority of words Tyler pronounced correctly, Tyler recognized the word on sight and pronounced the whole word fluently.

Nonsense Word Decoding: This subtest measures a student’s phonemic and structural analysis skills and is presented in a similar format as the Letter and Word Recognition subtest. Tyler was asked to decode nonsense words (i.e., words that adhere to the conventions of English orthography but that are not real words) increasing difficulty. To receive credit for correctly reading a stimulus, the student must pronounce each phoneme segment in the nonsense word or the whole nonsense word.

Tyler’s raw score on this subtest was 7, which corresponds to a SS of 85. Tyler’s obtained standard score of 85 falls in the 16th percentile. This means that Tyler scored as well or better than 16% of his same-age peers in the normative sample subtest. A 95% confidence interval was used to estimate Tyler’s true score on the Nonsense Word Decoding subtest to be within the SS range 78-92. This implies that there is a 95% chance that his true score falls within the range of 78-92. His score is considered average.

Tyler’s pronunciations of the nonsense words on this subtest were given in a combination of letter-by-letter (6), multi-letter segments (7), and whole word (3) styles. The majority of the nonsense words were pronounced letter-by-letter or multi-letter segments in which Tyler correctly identified the initial consonant (and in two cases consonant blend) in all nonsense words. Tyler pronounced seven nonsense words correctly and nine nonsense words incorrectly. In two cases Tyler pronounced the vowel sound a (in the words fask and mawl) as the long vowel sound. In one case, Tyler pronounced the long vowel sound a as the short vowel sound a in the word fayter. In addition, Tyler stated a completely different vowel than the vowel in the nonsense words: plux, chept, trowful and snope.

15

Tyler Johnson

Decoding Fluency: The subtest evaluates a student’s skills in oral reading fluency of nonsense words. The student is presented with a list of nonsense words, increasing in difficulty (it consists of 51 words total). The examiner sets a time for one minute and begins when the student starts reading. The examiner makes a slash though any misread or skipped words and records the word number of last item reached minus errors/skips in order to reach the raw score. A student receives extra points if the subtotal is equal to 45 or above and the passage is completed within one minute.

Tyler’s raw score on this subtest was 7, which corresponds to a SS of 81. Tyler’s obtained SS of 81 falls in the 10th percentile. This means that Tyler scored as well or better than 10% of his same-age peers in the normative sample subtest. A 95% confidence interval was used to estimate Tyler’s true score on the Decoding Fluency subtest to be within the SS range 73-89. This implies that there is a 95% chance that his true score falls within the range of 73-89. His score is considered below average.

This subtest differed from the other subtests because it was based on a one-minute time interval. In this test Tyler read seven nonsense words correctly and nine nonsense words incorrectly in one minute. Tyler’s pronunciations of the nonsense words on this subtest were given in a combination of multi-letter segments (10) and whole word (7) styles. For the CVCe nonsense words: streeve, brome and clobe, Tyler pronounced the first CVC chunk correctly, then added an initial –e sound to the word. Tyler also said the initial sound of all words but one correctly. The results of the KTEA-II subtests are provided below in Table 6:

Table 6: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II)Subtest Raw Score Standard Score Percentile Rank 95% Confidence

IntervalLetter and Word

Recognition38 80 9 74-86

Nonsense Word Decoding

7 86 16 78-92

Decoding Fluency

7 81 10 73-89

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)DIBELS is a curriculum-based measurement (CBM) system designed to be short (one minute) fluency measures used to regularly monitor the development of a student’s progression in early literacy and early reading skills. DIEBELS are comprised of seven measures to function as indicators of phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, accuracy and fluency with connected text, reading comprehension, and vocabulary. Normally, all students are universally screened with probes in the fall (beginning), winter (middle), and spring (end) of each school year and compared with benchmark performance standards. Progress monitoring probes are then administered throughout the school year on a regular basis to assess struggling students’ (those who do not meet benchmark standards) response to instruction and to make adjustments to instruction.

16

Tyler Johnson

Tyler was administered four random first grade level DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (DORF) Words Correct progress-monitoring probes on 10-28-15, 11-2-15, 11-5-15 and 11-10-15. Tyler was administered below grade level probes because his instructional reading level was determined to be at the Grade 1 level on the Graded Word Lists on the BRI. The DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency task requires students to read a passage aloud for one minute. Student performance is based on the number of words correctly read within the given minute. Words omitted, substituted, and hesitations of more than three seconds are scored as errors. Words self-corrected within three seconds are scored as accurate. The number of correct words per minute is the oral reading fluency (ORF) score. DIBELS ORF includes both benchmark passages to be used as screening assessments across the school year, as well as 20 alternate forms for monitoring progress. Tyler obtained scores of 27, 46, 47 and 50 wcpm on the four probe administrations.

DIBELS ORF national norms for first grade were used to compare Tyler’s scores to the performance of first grade students in the spring. Three norm-referenced performance levels describe a student’s performance: well below benchmark, below benchmark and at or above benchmark. The given benchmark goals and cut points for risk for the spring of first grade (provided by DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and Composite Score) state that well below benchmark contains the range 0-31 wcpm, below benchmark contains the range 32-46 wcpm, and at or above benchmark is 47+ wcpm. Tyler scored well below benchmark (27) for his first DIEBLES ORF titled The Land at the Top of the World¸ below benchmark for his second (46) DIBELS ORF titled Maid of the Mist, and at or above benchmark for his second to last (47) administered DIBELS ORF titled She Reached for the Stars and his last administered (50) DIBELS ORF titled The Water Cycle. As a fourth grader, Tyler’s obtained scores that just exceeded the at or above benchmark cut point for his last two assessments compared to the first grade benchmarks. This suggests that Tyler’s oral reading fluency is enough to advance him out of progress monitoring at the first grade level. However, compared to the fourth grade benchmark goals and cut points for risk. The fall fourth grade performance levels are: well below benchmark (0-69 wcpm), below benchmark (70-89 wcpm) and at or above benchmark (90+ wcpm). Tyler is considered well below benchmark (0-69 wcpm) for all four probes and is likely to need intensive support.

After comparing Tyler’s scores to the provided benchmark, they were then compared to the national norms for the Beginning of the Year (BOY) percentiles for fourth graders via the DIBLES Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct. Tyler’s score of 27 wcpm correlated to the 3rd percentile, 46 wcpm correlated to the 9th percentile, 47 wcpm correlated to the 10th percentile and 50 wcpm correlated to the 12th percentile. This means that he scored as well or better than 3-12% of fourth graders in the normative sample when using fall data. Because Tyler’s scores were well below average for a fourth grader, his scores were then compared to first grade where a score of 27 wcpm correlated to the 51st percentile, 46 wcpm correlated to the 72nd percentile, 47 wcpm correlated to the 73rd percentile and 50 wcpm correlated to the 75th percentile. This means that Tyler scored as well or better than 51-75% of first graders in the normative sample when using fall data. Tyler’s scores were much more comparable to the first grade norms rather than fourth grade norms.

17

Tyler Johnson

A same-grade peer, who receives the same general education and similar special education instruction for literacy (Tyler gets pulled out twice a day for one 30-minute session in the morning for reading assistance and one 20-minute literacy session in the afternoon; compared to Johnny who gets pulled out once a day for a 20-minute literacy session in the afternoon), was administered the same four consecutive DIBELS ORF probes on the exact same dates to determine if Tyler’s progress in oral reading fluency was similar to his peers in his class. This same-grade peer obtained scores: 59, 62, 65 and 73. Tyler’s same-grade peer’s scores to the provided benchmark, they were then compared to the national norms for the Beginning of the Year (BOY) percentiles for fourth graders via the DIBLES Next Percentile Ranks for DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Words Correct. The same-grade peer’s score of 59 wcpm correlated to the 17th percentile, 62 wcpm correlated to the 20th percentile, 65 wcpm correlated to the 23rd percentile and 73 wcpm correlated to the 30th percentile. This means that he scored as well or better than 17-30% of fourth graders in the normative sample when using fall data. Additionally, Both Tyler and his peer displayed an overall positive trend in ORF during the two-week period of progress monitoring reported here. However, all of Tyler’s same-age peer’s obtained scores that were considered at or above benchmark according to spring first grade standards. When compared to the end of year goals and cut points for risk for second grade, Tyler’s peer’s scores still fell well below (0-64 wcpm) and below (65-86 wcpm) benchmark for the second grade spring benchmark targets. Both students increased their overall wcpm throughout the progress monitoring and appear to respond equally well to instruction provided. Tyler’s results on the DIBELS ORF, compared with the first grade spring benchmark target and second grade spring benchmark targets and his same-grade peer, are provided below in Figure 1:

1st Gra

de Sprin

g Ben

chm

ark

Probe 0

P04

Probe 0

P08

Probe 0

P10

Probe 0

P14

2nd Gra

de Sprin

g Ben

chm

ark

0

20

40

60

80

100

Figure 1: DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Administration

Benchmark ScoreTylerSame-Grade Peer

DIBELS Progress Monitoring

Wor

ds

Corr

ect

Per

Min

ute

(W

CPM

)

18

Tyler Johnson

Dynamic Assessment-Nonsense Word Decoding:

Tyler was administered a dynamic assessment focused on nonsense word decoding on November 18, 2015 to test his potential to learn decoding strategies to read pseudo-words when given a series of graduated prompts that increase in support. A dynamic assessment uses a test-teach-test approach to determine a student’s capability for learning and applying what is learned to an assessment task. The nonsense word decoding assessment contained a list of twenty pseudo-words with the consonant/vowel/consonant/e (CVCe) pattern that was administered at pretest and posttest. This skill area and pattern were chosen based on the results from the Nonsense Word Decoding and Letter Word Recognition subtests on the KTEA-II and the Graded Word List portion of the BRI. Error analysis from these measures suggested that Tyler struggles with segmenting words beyond their initial sound and identifying the proceeding long vowel sounds.

For the pre-test, Tyler was given the list of twenty-pseudo words. He was seated at a table in an isolated testing center and was asked to pronounce these words without assistance starting with number one. Tyler was not given any time constraints and was able to self-correct himself. Tyler was also not told the correct pronunciation of the nonsense word if it was pronounced incorrectly.

In the teaching phase of the dynamic assessment, Tyler was given decoding strategies in a series of four graduated prompts. A different list of twenty nonsense words containing the same CVCe patterns was used during the teaching phase for stimuli. First he was asked to pronounce each of the nonsense words without prompting or assistance to create a baseline. Then, Tyler was given instruction using the first prompting strategy and asked to apply the strategy to all of the words on this training list, which he did not correctly identify during the baseline. If the prompt yielded a correct response, that nonsense word was excluded from further training using subsequent prompts. This process was used for the remainder of the prompts. The series of three prompts used in the teaching portion of the dynamic assessment were as follows:

Prompt 1 – Instruct the student to point to each letter of the nonsense words on the teaching list and say its sound. Then, the student should try to say the word altogether, with each sound pronounced smoothly. If the student pronounces the sound incorrectly, simply state the correct sound without further instruction. Prompt 2 – Tell the student the CVCe rule (when a vowel is surrounded by two consonants and ends in an –e, the vowel has a long sound). Show the student a notecard that contains each vowel that is found in CVCe words and have the student say the long vowel sound aloud. Introduce the grid as shown below:

The student will be given notecards containing all letters of the alphabet. The teacher will first model making and pronouncing CVCe words by placing a consonant (for example: F) over the first C on the grid, a vowel (for example: A) over the V on the grid and another consonant (for example: M) over the second C to make the word: fame. The teacher will point to each letter and say its sound and say the word altogether. The student will repeat the teacher. The teacher will repeat this process three more times with common CVCe words (came, lone, hope, fake, kite,

19

C V C e

Tyler Johnson

tune, late, fume, here). Note that the student was exposed to each long vowel sound in the guided practice. Prompt 3 – The student will create five unique (real) words of their own on the grid using every vowel at least one time. The student will then create three nonsense CVCe words using the alphabet cards. The student will also repeat the same process as above: read each letter sound individually then the word as a whole. Tell the student when they read a sound or word incorrectly.

After the teaching portion of the dynamic assessment, Tyler was administered the same list of twenty nonsense words used for the pre-test as the posttest. Tyler was asked to pronounce the pseudo-words without assistance.

The scores for the pre-test and posttest were calculated by taking the number of correctly pronounced pseudo-words and dividing by the total number of words administered. The scores for each graduated prompt as well as the cumulative total words pronounced after each prompt.

Tyler’s results on the pre-test, teaching phase, and post-test are provided below in Tables 7 and 8 and Figure 2. In Figure 2, the teaching phase results are shown as the cumulative total words pronounced after each prompt.

Table 7: Pre-test and Post-test Nonsense Word Decoding Dynamic AssessmentTest Score Percentage

Pre-test 9/20 45%Post-test 18/20 90%

Table 8: Graduated Prompting During Teaching PhasePrompt Given Baseline 1 2 3

Words Pronounced

Correctly after Prompt

12/20 6/20 2/20 0/20

Successive Total 12/20 18/20 20/20 20/20

20

Tyler Johnson

Pre-test Baseline w/o Prompts

Instruction P1 Instruction P2 Instruction P3 Post-Test0

5

10

15

20

25

Figure 2: Dynamic Assessment Results

Dynamic Assessment Phases

Tot

al N

onse

nse

Wor

ds

Pro

noo

un

ced

Based on the data provided in the tables and figure above, it appears that Tyler demonstrated significant improvement in performance from the pre-test to post-test; he increased his score from 45% to 90% accuracy on nonsense word decoding without examiner assistance. Tyler made similar (real) words during Prompt 3 that could have transferred knowledge to a nonsense word with a similar structure found in the post-test. For example, Tyler made the word tape during Prompt 3. During the pre-test, Tyler pronounced the word fape as fap (with a short a sound); on the post-test he pronounced the nonsense word correctly. The only difference between the words tape and fape is the initial consonant sound. Furthermore, the data indicates that Tyler showed improvement during the instructional phase of the dynamic assessment. Specifically, he showed the most improvement with instructional Prompt 1; he went from 12 correctly identified nonsense words to 18 correctly identified nonsense words. This prompt was simple and straightforward; it broke down CVCe words into individual phonemes so Tyler could see/hear the sounds associated with each letter. Tyler correctly pronounced all nonsense words on the teaching list after Prompt 2. Due to Tyler’s greatest success after breaking the word into individual phonemes before blending them together, he may benefit from using this strategy in any future interventions targeting decoding of regular or nonsense words.

SUMMARYTyler Johnson appears to be functioning below average in basic reading skills and written expression when compared to his fourth grade peers. His primary area of concern is word identification and decoding. Based on results from the BRI, his instructional/frustration level for word recognition was estimated to be at the Grade 2 (he was at the independent level for Grade 1) whereas his instructional level for passage reading was estimated to be at the Grade 1 level. His standard scores of 80, 86 and 81 on the Letter and Word Recognition, Nonsense Word Decoding and Decoding Fluency subtests of the KTEA-II, put Tyler in the 9-16th percentile,

21

Tyler Johnson

which suggests a serious delay in basic reading skills compared to his same-grade peers. However, Tyler does appear to be making progress in his fluency (wcpm) based on findings from DIBELS ORF CBM progress monitoring. Likewise, the dynamic assessment results suggest that Tyler is responsive to a brief period of instruction in decoding skills related to long vowel sounds in CVCe words. His performance on the informal and formal assessment instruments administered for this evaluation appears to be consistent with his previously demonstrated skills. Tyler is currently receiving daily support in the resources room for 30 minutes of individualized reading instruction and support two days a week for 20 minutes of writing support with Ms. Shanahan. Additionally, Mrs. Kutskill, Ms. Tayloe and Ms. Shanahan attended a SNAC meeting on October 28th, 2015 to discuss further special education services. As a result, Tyler will meet with the school psychologist in January to create and IEP if deemed necessary.

RECCOMMENDATIONS, RELATED SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATIONS

1. Based on all of the available data, Tyler would continue to benefit from receiving reading support daily for 30 minutes in the resource room. Tyler may spend the remaining time in the general education classroom for reading and writing development.

2. Tyler may benefit from working with the occupational therapist on his writing to improve letter formation and word spacing.

3. Tyler may benefit from a decoding intervention that highlights strategies that transfer from sound isolation to whole-word pronunciation.

4. Tyler may benefit from an at-home program that focuses on reading Grade 1 level passages daily to improve fluency (wcpm) and sight word recognition.

5. Tyler may benefit from an at-home program that uses increasing grade level sight word flashcards to improve reading fluency.

6. It is recommended that Tyler continue to have grade level assignments and texts read aloud in order to access grade level content in the general education classroom.

7. Tyler may benefit from the continuation of progress monitoring probes in the area of oral reading fluency (DIBELS ORF) in order to track progress.

8. Tyler may benefit from dynamic assessments (pre-test, test, post-test) that focus on a certain letter/word patterns (CVC, CVCe, CVV, CVVC, VCC)

General Education Classroom Accommodations During Daily Five, Tyler should perform guided reading one-on-one with Ms. Tayloe, the student teacher. Accommodations include that math and science tests be read aloud to Tyler. Another accommodation is that Tyler will receive a copy of a printed agenda (which is typically projected in cursive on the whiteboard), as well as an extra a copy of printed notes after whole group note taking.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Common Core StandardsPhonics and Word Recognition CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.4.3Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words.

22

Tyler Johnson

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.4.3.AUse combined knowledge of all letter-sound correspondences, syllabication patterns, and morphology (e.g., roots and affixes) to read accurately unfamiliar multisyllabic words in context and out of context.

Annual GoalBy 12/5/2015 Tyler will orally read a fourth grade passage with 95% word recognition accuracy and use decoding strategies to read unknown words in second grade passages on his first attempt with 80% accuracy.

ObjectivesWith cues (e.g., pictures, word pattern (e.g. CVC) written on a notecard) and prompts (e.g., to identify the vowel or consonant sound), Tyler will orally state the sounds associated with the letters and then blend all the sounds together to read unknown words in a Grade 1 level passage with 80% accuracy.

Evaluation procedure: leveled passages Evaluation schedule: weekly

Without cues and prompts, Tyler will orally state the sounds associated with letters and then blend all the sounds together to read unknown words in a Grade 1 level passage with 80% accuracy.

Evaluation procedure: leveled passages Evaluation schedule: weekly

With cues (e.g., pictures, word pattern (e.g., CVC written on a notecard) and prompts (e.g., to identify the vowel or consonant sound), Tyler will orally state sounds associated with letters and then blend all the sounds together to read unknown words in a Grade 2 level passage with 80% accuracy.

Evaluation procedure: leveled passages Evaluation schedule: weekly

Without cues and prompts, Tyler will orally state the sounds associated with letters then blend all the sounds together to read unknown words in a Grade 2 level passage with 95% accuracy in word recognition.

Evaluation procedure: leveled passages Evaluation schedule: weekly

When given a Grade 3 level passage, Tyler will orally read the passage with 80% accuracy in word recognition on his second attempt with instructor modeling.

Evaluation procedure: leveled passages Evaluation schedule: weekly

When given a Grade 3 level passage, Tyler will orally read the passage with 95% accuracy in word recognition on his first attempt without instructor modeling.

Evaluation procedure: leveled passages Evaluation schedule: weekly

When given a Grade 4 level passage, Tyler will orally read the passage with 80% accuracy in word recognition on his second attempt with instructor modeling.

Evaluation procedure: leveled passages Evaluation schedule: weekly

23

Tyler Johnson

When given a Grade 4 level passage, Tyler will orally read the passage with 95% accuracy in word recognition on his first attempt without instructor modeling.

Evaluation procedure: leveled passages Evaluation schedule: weekly

________________________________Signature of Examiner Date

Allison Tayloe______________12/9/13Name of Examiner Date

Special Education Intern____________Title

24