Caitlyn Gleason
April 9th, 2014
EDUC 437
A. Background
P is an autistic 11 year old fifth grade student currently on an alternative curriculum. P comes from a supportive family and lives in a suburban household with a Mother, Father, and 8 year old younger brother. After an interview with P, he stated his favorite subject is science because he likes the experiments. P also enjoys recess because he likes to be outside. P also said his least favorite part of the day was RTI because “words are hard.” P’s general academic strength would be in the subject area of mathematics specifically addition and subtraction of double digit numbers. While P’s general academic weakness would be blending. P is currently working on blending CVC and CVE pattern words because that is his most current goal in his IEP enacted March 24th.Moreover, the CVE specifically frustrates and gives him a struggle. Aside from the general academic strengths and weaknesses, P demonstrates a strength in comprehension when answering basic comprehension questions formed in what and where questions. P demonstrates a weakness and struggles answering questions formed in why, when, or who questions. Services that P currently has outside of general education classroom are speech therapy, occupational therapy, the support of a morning and afternoon paraprofessional, RTI, and the support of the special educator. P is receiving speech therapy because he struggles with correct pronunciations of letters and repetition of phrases. As far as the literacy program that he is working on he has been following the LIPS curriculum for two years now. LIPS is a curriculum initially intended for whole group kindergarten instruction and can be used for intervention in older grade levels. P completes LIPS in 30 minute sessions, four times a week. Another literacy resources that P uses is Reading A to Z. Since P is on an alternative curriculum, his performance and success rate is average to above average because his educational goals are tailored to him. P progresses at a slow rate and his goals are intended to be completed spanning over a long interval of time. Overall, P is an interesting student who always demonstrates his best effort.
B. Diagnostic assessment
Prior to the first initial screening, I interviewed the teacher on the appropriate level of DIBLES to administer to P. The teacher recommended that I first do DIBLES nonsense word fluency Grade 2. P was only able to read through one full line and the first word of the second line within the allotted 1 minute timeframe. Out of the 17 correct letter sounds given, P was able to correctly identify 13 sounds. As for the whole words read, P received a score of 3 out of the 6 possible words that he read. During the screening, P tried turning some of the words into real words. For example, P turned the words dil to bid, wel to where, and hun to won. Viewing the DIBLES Next scoring guide, P is above the cut point for risk in mid kindergarten but considered at risk for late kindergarten. After interpreting these scores I decided to move to another screening that would be more appropriate.
Following this I moved to doing another DIBLES screening of First Sound Fluency. P received a score of correctly identifying 25 initial sounds. Viewing the DIBLES Next scoring guide, P is half way between the benchmark goal of 30 and the cut point for risk being 20 correctly identified sounds for mid kindergarten.
After his performance on Nonsense Word Fluency and First Sound Fluency, I decided to administer DIBLES Phoneme Segmentation Fluency. I had to administer this assessment two times because during the first administration, P became confused and expressed his distress with the directions and neglected to break up the sounds and just read each word. P’s overall score of correctly segmenting and identifying each phoneme was 24/65. After the administration of the first one, I reminded P to ‘tap out’ the phonemes when he is reading them for this exercise. Then I administered the second round of the PSF. P preformed much better on this one, receiving a score of 43/48 of correctly segmented phonemes. Viewing the DIBLES Next scoring guide and using the second PSF, P is above the benchmark goal of 40 for the beginning of first grade. Using all of the knowledge from this screening I found it easier to plan and choose the assessments that followed. Although the student is performing at a pre-primer and primer level, I thought it would be useful to include my findings and experience in this report. The following assessments that were administered include; Pre-primer level QRI, primer level QRI,Dolch Sight Words, and a Primary spelling inventory. Another screening measure that I used was word lists before administering the two QRIs. The results of the word lists and the rest of scores are located below.
Dolch Sight Words / Word List / Oral Accuracy / Comprehension / FluencyPre-Primer / 58 %
Frustration level / 100% / 5 miscues
Frustration level (4+ miscues) / 100%
Independent level / 17 CWPM
*Under the 10th percentile for 2nd graders.
Primer / 67%
Frustration level / 0%
*P was unable to correctly identify any of the words in this list and therefore the administration of this was discontinued after 4 incorrect responses. / N/A
*P was not assessed due to his low scores on the word list. / 83%
Instructional Level
* Adjustments were made to make this a listening comprehension assessment. / N/A
*Due to performance in previous section, fluency not assessed.
In the table depicted above are the student’s results from the QRI as well as the Dolch Sight Words assessment. For the pre-primer sight words, P correctly identified 25 out of the 43 administered words. For the primer sight words, P correctly identified 35 out of the 52 administered words. P’s performance on both indicates that he needs to increase his sight word knowledge. P demonstrated a high score on the pre-primer word list receiving 100%. While on the second test, P was unable to identify any of the words. As for the oral reading fluency, although not really accurate due to it being pre-primer, P received frustration level by having 5 miscues. After administering the pre-primer, I believed it would be important to see how P performed with the primer QRI. When I administered the word list, P was unable to identify any of the words which resulted in me discontinuing the word list assessment after the 4th incorrect response. I was curious on P’s comprehension level though and believed that reading him the primer QRI and asking the comprehension questions would be important to do. P listened as I orally read him the primer story and only answered one of the comprehension questions incorrectly. Having his one incorrect response, places him in the instructional level of listening comprehension for primer. P’s strength during these two assessments was in comprehension whether it was listening or reading. He was successful in reading the Pre-primer and was able to answer all questions correctly, while in primer he only had one incorrect explicit response. The special education teacher’s response during the interview about P’s literacy level also indicated his strength in comprehension. While P’s weakness during the assessments would be the rate at which he was processing the text and his ability to read the words. P had such a difficult time trying to read the primer word list and would not have been able to take any information away from reading it because he would be too difficult struggling to decode the text. The fluency for pre-primer is also another area that the QRI does not fully support, however, it is important to still practice interpreting. Moreover, P ranks under the 10th percentile for what 2nd grade which is the grade level for most of his curriculum. P’s fluency can also be focused on a more basic level by reviewing the Nonsense Word Fluency, First Sound Fluency, and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency. Below is the table that had P’s results from all of the three DIBLES assessments related to fluency.
Word recognition/ Fluency
DIBLES / Phonemes or words identified / Words correctly read/Words possibleNSF / 13/17(Sounds correct/Sounds possible) / 3/6
PSF / 23/65 (after first administration)
44/48 (after second administration) / N/A
FSF / 25 first sounds / N/A
P demonstrated a strength in the first sound fluency DIBLES. He performed well and was able to generate many responses within the given minute. One weakness that I noticed during the DIBLES administration was the amount of time P spent processing each individual word and his response time transitioning from word to word. For example in the Nonsense Word Fluency he would read the word duj and would spend time saying each sound, would repeat each sound two or three times and then finally say the word. Next he would look up for a few seconds than look back down at the paper and then began to read the following word. P has had DIBLES before but his special education teacher noted that sometimes it is still challenging for him to understand what he is working on. Administering the DIBLES series to P was interesting and definitely a great learning opportunity for my own professional development.
The claim that P was strong with first sound can also be supported with the Primary Spelling Inventory that I conducted about his spelling knowledge. P was placed in the middle letter name alphabetic stage, focusing on short vowels. In order for him to place in this stage he is comfortable with identifying and writing the final and initial consonant of each word. This means that he had to know how to segment the word administered and what graphemes relate to each phoneme of that word. Moreover, P was administered a total of ten words from the PSI. I chose to discontinue after I saw that he was able to correctly identify an acceptable amount of final and initial consonants. I also chose to discontinue administration due to the amount of incorrect short vowels he was producing and I saw that he was incorrectly writing the short vowels.
P was also administered an IDI to further assess his decoding ability.P’s performance on the IDI show that he still needs help with short vowels first, and then he can receive instruction on consonant blends and digraphs.The results of the IDI are recorded in the table below:
Section of IDI / Correctly identified/total possible / PercentageShort Vowels / 15/20 / 75%
Consonant Blends and Digraphs / 11/20 / 55%
Based off of these assessments and the results they produced, and interviewing the special educator, I feel that short vowels, blending, and digraphs are the areas where I need to place my concentration on instruction. This is a great area of need for P due to his spelling on the PSI, his decoding performance and fluency on the DIBLES series, his performance on the IDI, and his reading on the pre-primer and primer word list of the QRI.
c. Instructional goals and objectives
Instructional goal: P will be able to correctly decode words with short vowels and blends with 90% accuracy
Objective 1: Given a list of 10 CVC words, P will be able to correctly decode the list of words containing short vowels with 90% accuracy.
Objective 2: Given a list of 10 CCVC or CVCC words, P will be able to correctly decode the list of words containing blends with 90% accuracy.
Primary Spelling Inventory Results—Mid Lettername Alphabetic
Gleason I-week Lesson plan
Part A: Overview of assignment
After administering different assessments, such as a PSI, IDI, Dolch sight words (pre-primer and primer), QRI (pre-primer), DIBLES (NSF, PSF, FSF). P showed the greatest need of instruction in decoding. Specifically, P showed issues with decoding short vowels, blends, and digraphs. P showed confusion with short vowels a, e, and o. This claim is supported by his performance in IDI and PSI. Through the IDI and PSI P also showed difficulty with diagraphs th, sh, and ch. P also struggled with blends such as blends with the initial /l/ and /r/ sound. Using P’s performance on the various assessments, his goal and objectives are as follows:
Instructional goal: P will be able to correctly decode words with short vowels and blends with 90% accuracy.
Objectives:
Objective 1: Given a list of 10 CVC words, P will be able to correctly decode the list of words containing short vowels with 90% accuracy.
Objective 2: Given a list of 10 CCVC or CVCC words, P will be able to correctly decode the list of words containing blends and diagraphs with 90% accuracy.
When planning my instruction I consulted resources such as Words Their Way, observations of current RTI program designed for student, Teaching Word Recognition, and Doctor Charles MacArthur. During each lesson before the student begins the activity the teacher first models what the student should be doing and the thinking process behind the getting the answers during the activity. The teacher makes it a point to model how to stretch and blend the sounds together. Teaching Word Recognition recommends implementing this strategy because it can aid in students learning how to blends sounds through observation during modeling (O'Connor, 2007,p. 62). Another source that supports the practices in this lesson is Words Their Way. Word sorts were the selected activity for the first two lessons because it helps the student focus on the differences between a specific feature. For example, I chose short vowel a and e because P kept confusing the two during the PSI and IDI. Or for the second day I chose a and O because P also would confuse vowels a and o when reading CVC words (Bear, Invernizzi, Johnston, & Templeton, 2012,p. 69). Word sorts create the opportunity for students to be hands on and engaged, as well as comparing and contrasting different features which create the opportunity for longer processing and a higher retention rate. The daily warm up of Dolch words was a suggestion from Dr. Charles MacArthur to help P with increasing his repertoire of sight words. While the block activity utilized in days 3,4, and 5 is from part of P’s current instruction. The article, From Gibberish to Phonemic Awareness: Effective Decoding Instruction, also supports my instructional decision of sorting. The study conducted in this article discussed how weak phonemic awareness can increase at a higher rate when students receive more direct appropriate instruction in comparison to less individualized, larger group instruction. The article mentions conducting sorting activities according to sound as an effective practice, which is an activity incorporated into my instruction. My instructional decision of using decodable texts for a portion of each lesson is supported from evidence found in the Analyzing Beginning Reading Programs: The Relationship Between Decoding Instruction and Text. The article states that giving students decodable text creates the opportunity for them to transfer their knowledge of phonics during the word sort and apply it to their reading. Giving students decodable text can also increase their reading fluency through more exposure and practice.
The overview for the general structure of the lesson plan for the week is as follows: warm up with 6 Dolch sight words, decoding hands on activity, decoding reading activity, and exit ticket. The first two lessons will focus on short vowels while lesson three, four, and five will be blends and diagraphs. The first day a word sort will focus on differentiating between the short vowel a and e. While the second day the word sort will focus on differentiating between the short vowel a and o. The third day will focus on the wh/sh/and ch sounds during a block activity. The fourth day focuses on the initial /l/ and /r/ blends during the block activity. The fifth day of instruction focuses on further addressing common blends and diagraphs through the block activity and recap of the main ideas focused on during the week.
References
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Johnston, F., & Templeton, S. (2012). Organizing for word study. In Words their way (Fifth ed., pp. 69-76). Boston, MA: Pearson.
O'Connor, R. E. (2007). Beginning to Decode. In Teaching word recognition (pp. 62-65). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Smith, C. R. (July 01, 1998). From Gibberish to Phonemic Awareness: Effective Decoding Instruction.Teaching Exceptional Children,30,6, 20-25.
Stein, M., Johnson, B., & Gutlohn, L. (September 01, 1999). Analyzing Beginning Reading Programs: The Relationship between Decoding Instruction and Text.Remedial and Special Education,20,5, 275-87.
Gleason I-week Lesson plan
Lesson Plan- Day 1
overall time: 45 minutes
Overview of lesson:
-Warm up with sight words (10 minutes)
-Short vowel work (a and e) (30 minutes)
-Decodable text (15 minutes)
-Decoding activity (15 minutes)
-Exit ticket/probe (5 minutes)
Instructional goal: P will be able to correctly decode words with short vowels and blends with 90% accuracy.
Objectives:
Objective 1: Given a list of 10 CVC words, P will be able to correctly decode the list of words containing short vowels with 90% accuracy.
Materials:
warm up activity:
-Dolch sight words (3 known and 3 new)
Decoding activity materials:
- word sort chart (student) see attachment below
- words cut out (for student)
-copy of correct sort (for teacher)
Decoding text for short vowel e
-“Get the Pets” (from literacy program, Reading A to Z, see attachment below)