Comparative Case Study
RE 5210 - 375
Dr. Ward
October 19, 2010
Karen Gold and Candy Kee
This is comparative information between two students in the same grade for the purpose of analysis. All data included is used for the purpose of determinations for Appalachian State University class, “Educating Students with Reading Disabilities,” Fall 2010 semester. The two students will be identified as Student C and Student H.
Current Functioning
Student C is currently in the third grade. He has modified assignments in reading, spelling, written expression and math. He is allowed accommodations in the form of read aloud (math only) and extended time on tests. At this time he is served by the Exceptional Children’s (EC) program 13 times a week for 45 minutes each session. He attends EC 5 times each week for reading, 5 times for math and 3 times each week for written expression. These services are delivered in a small group setting with a certified EC teacher. He also receives regular instruction in reading and math and participates in a small group intervention for Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) provided by the classroom teacher.
Student His currently in the third grade in a different classroom. His grades thus far are as follows: reading B, spelling B, written expression P (progressing), and math B. He does not have any modifications of assignments. At this time Student H receives regular instruction in reading and an intervention in ORF with his classroom teacher. In addition he attends Title I classes that focus on ORF 2 days a week with a Title I teacher assistant trained in Read Naturally. He also receives Title I services with the same assistant 3 days each week for 30 minutes each session in Child Oriented Reading Experience (CORE). CORE was developed from the Reading Recovery model and includes word study, rereading known texts, writing and being read to and the introduction of a new book each session. Student H is currently on Tier 2 of the Response to Intervention (RtI) model.
Information related to home/family environment
Student C lives with his mother but shares some time with his father. He has an older stepsister and two younger full-blooded sisters. His older step-sister has had difficulty succeeding in school and has been diagnosed ADHD and with serious behavior issues including suicidal thoughts, self inflicted wounds and “hit lists”. The 7 year old sister is currently performing at grade level in first grade. The youngest sister is 4 years old and does not attend a pre-kindergarten program at this time. Last year most of the contact with home was with Dad. However, this year contact between home and school has been made with mom. They separated last August 2009 and are now divorced. Mom is attending the local community college. Her first husband, father of stepsister, was run over by a van while assumedly passed out in highway after consuming white liquor and taking drugs. Student C is on free and reduced lunch and has resided at the same address throughout his enrollment in school.
Student H lives with both parents. He has a younger sister that is 4 years old and attends a day care in the area. His mother is co-owner of a salon and his father self employed. His mom is also co-president of our school Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) is not receiving free/reduced lunch and his family recently moved to a new home in the country. Student H’s Dad is a football, basketball, and baseball coach for young boys and both he and his wife and son are very involved in the booster clubs for these sports. They are a very busy family as they are also very involved in church functions.
School History
According to testing administered for placement into EC, Student C was retained in kindergarten. He has received Tiers 1, 2, 3, and 4 level interventions. He was able to make progress in Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF) but continues to struggle with ORF and blending. Student C began his Tier 1 plan in first grade and made progress in NWF. Then the concentration began in ORF and continued into second grade. He was tested for EC placement in March of that year. On March 1, 2010 he was diagnosed with Attention Deficient and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and prescribed Concerta. On April 24, 2010 he is placed in EC with a diagnosis of Other Health Impaired (OHI). Other important information gathered from this inquiry is that he scored 82 on the Wechsler Intelligence IQ assessment administered, his working memory was scored at 65 and after the administration of the Goldman Fristoe 2 Articulation assessment his age equivalent was measured at 4 years and 1 month. Student C does not have attendance issues he has had very good attendance throughout his enrollment.
Student H began receiving interventions in the classroom in grade 1. He had difficulty identifying enough words to read first grade text fluently. He was considered for Title I services but his classroom teacher felt that he would be fine with just the classroom intervention that she was providing. In second grade he was placed on a Tier 1 plan because he was not reading fluently second grade texts. He received regular classroom instruction in reading and small group intervention with a classroom teacher but was unable to make adequate progress and was placed on Tier 2 in the RtI model. He continued to receive the classroom intervention but also began Title I services in ORF with the Read Naturally program. He continued to make progress toward his goal so his plan was continued for third grade. He has not had any attendance problem throughout his enrollment in school.
Information related to language development
A social developmental history was completed by Student C’smother. Family history includes hyperactivity, behavior problems and seizures. Mom stated that he experienced distress at birth possibly loosing oxygen. He has difficulty retaining information from day to day. He attended preschool. He passed the standard hearing and vision screening. C had difficulty learning due to speech (articulation) and had difficulty learning to read in kindergarten. She feels that he learns differently than others and that speech delays are impacting his academic areas. However, he relates well to other children. He was admitted into EC with speech/language deficits on May 2, 2006. Observations included omitting syllables, changes vowel sounds, says ti ti for TV and ni-ni for knife. He refused to complete the language/picture tasks, used gestures and some words ineffectively and displayed weak communication skills. His auditory comprehension was estimated at 2 years and 4 months, and expressive scale was 1 year and 8 months. At the time of this assessment he was 5 years old.
Student H does not have on record a social developmental history. He did pass the vision and hearing screenings performed in second grade. In conversations with his mother it was established that this student did not attend preschool. He does not have any known speech/language difficulties. He has not been retained.
Standardized/Nonstandardized Test Results
Type of Test/Assessment / Student C / Student HEnd of Grade / N/A No pretest in 3rd grade / N/A No pretest in 3rd grade
Universal Screenings:
Blends (Benchmark - 13 )
Sight Words ( BM - )
ORF (BM - )
Daze (Comp) (BM - ) / 2009
N/A
5
4
N/A / 2010
2
12
14
13 / 2009
N/A
17
27
N/A / 2010
6
45
32
7
STAR / Grade Equivalent 0.8 / Grade Equivalent 2.2
Sight Word Probes A-D / 33,21,23,20,23,24,19,19 / 33,35,40,37,33,39,39,41
Schlagal Spelling
IRI
Flash/Untimed
Student C was given the following additional assessments:
OWLS administered by Speech Pathologists
Standard score of 100 on Listening Comprehension
81 on Oral Expression
Oral Composite standard score of 89 with 16 errors
Standard score of 63 on the Goldman Test of Articulation
Wechsler Intelligence Scale:
Full Scale – low average (82)
Scored extremely low (65) in working memory
General Ability Index – low average (89)
Verbal Comprehension – low average (83)
Perceptual Reasoning – average (96)
Processing speed – average (97)
In the subtests areas that were below average were – vocabulary, picture concepts, digit span, letter-number sequence, and coding
Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP)
Phonological Awareness Standard Score 85 (mean =100, SD = 15), percentile 16
Phonological Memory Standard Score 70 (mean=100, SD = 15), percentile 2
Rapid Naming Standard Score 82 (mean=100, SD = 15), percentile12
Berry – Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration
VMI – Standard Score 85 – percentile 16th
Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement – Third Edition
Broad Clusters Mean = 100, SD = 15Percentile
Broad Reading702
Broad Math8110
Broad Written Language766
Clusters/SubtestsMean = 100, SD = 15Percentile
Basic Reading Skills8110
Letter-Word Identification8211
Word Attack8313
(Reading Fluency)580.3
Reading Comprehension702
Passage Comprehension776
Reading Vocabulary776
Math Calculation Skills8010
Calculations8313
Math Fluency809
Math Reasoning723
Applied Problems8516
Quantitative Concepts590.3
Written Expression8415
Written Fluency8515
Writing Samples8719
Spelling766
After examining the data available, observing the students for two years and listening to Students C and H read, the following conclusions have been made. Student C has gotten off track of the usual reading continuum. He is able to use visual cues and knows the alphabet. He can identify some word families but has not yet reached controlled word recognition because he doesn’t completely understand phoneme segmentation. Therefore, he is stuck in the compensatory area. One obvious clue for this is that he consistently calls words incorrectly that begin with the same letter. Student H is believed to have gone through visual cue and phonetic cue and was off track for a while as a compensatory reader. He is believed to be back on track at controlled word recognition. The process is beginning to become less laborious and more accurate and he still needs practice, practice, and more practice.