Nick, A Case Study
Dr. Donna Rury Smith
Independent Consultant
TEDA 2011
Let Me Introduce You to Nick
• 10:10 year-old, 4th grader
• Referred in March by the SAT because of failing math
grades and concerns of math teacher, Mr. Sosa
• Had been identified on benchmark as “at-risk” in the
fall for math-related difficulties (both calculation and
problem solving CBM scores in bottom 20%)
• According to his teacher, he consistently performs
below grade level
• Math performance is inconsistent with other content
areas where he makes B’s and C’s
Family History
• Only child, lives with both parents
• English is only language spoken in the home
• Mother reports that developmental milestones were
met as expected and he is in good health
• He has asthma and uses inhaler (no more than 5 x
month usually)
• Mother reports that math was difficult for her,
graduated 2 year college
• Father is a college graduate, reports no learning
difficulties, and is a banker
Additional Parent Information
• Parents describe Nick as easy-going, has friends
• He plays soccer in city league and is in Boy Scouts
• They are concerned about his frustration and the
excessive amount of time being spent on homework
• Early math skills/concepts were difficult for Nick to
master
Academic History
• Kindergarten and 1st grade in another state
• Started on this campus in grade 2
• Never retained, but summer school for math after
2nd and 3rd grades
• Mr. Sosa indicates that he began 4th grade already
behind in math
Tier 1
• After first 6 weeks, Mr. Sosa began small group
instruction for 10 min per day.
• Primary focus was on getting help with homework
for the day.
• Performance was “erratic”.
• Late November, was referred to SAT because of
“minimal progress”.
• SAT recommended after-school tutoring 2 x week for
30 min each session
Tier 2
• In December began after-school tutoring with
another math teacher, Mrs. Martinez.
• Focus was on helping him complete homework with
more supervision.
• Added weekly progress monitoring.
• PM data revealed very slow progress against target.
• Also very slow progress in comparison to others in
tutoring group.
• Mid-year benchmark showed exceptionally slow
progress and a widening achievement gap.
Tier 2 Modified
• Tutoring was increased to 3 x week, 30 min sessions
with Mrs. Martinez.
• She administered Key-Math 3 Diagnostic Assmt to
identify his specific skill deficits.
• Results showed several deficits from previous grades
across a broad range of concepts and applications.
• She used test results to direct intervention which
now focused on remediating missing skills.
• Progress monitoring shows progress is steady but still
slow. Achievement gap is not being closed in such a
way that he will be on grade level at end of year.
Intervention Time Line
mid Oct.
Failing 1st 6
wks
AW
benchmark
in bottom
20%
Nov.
Tier 1
Teacherled small
group
Dec.
Failed 2nd
6 wks
Referred
to SAT
Tier 2
Tutoring
2 x week
PM
shows
very slow
progress
Jan.
Feb.
Still failing
Gave Key
Math
diagnostic
Referral
made for
testing
Tier 2
changed to
remediatio
n with math
specialist
15 min daily
IAP
developed
PM shows
steady but
slow
progress
IEP is
developed
and Tier 3
begins
Increased
Tutoring to
3 x week
AW
benchmark
still bottom
20%
PM shows
slow
progress
Mar.
Assessment
identifies
SLD
Apr.
What Does Nick Have to Say
• He says he “can’t do math”.
• He believes he is so far behind he can never catch up.
• He doesn’t want to go to summer school because he
doesn’t think it will help.
• He enjoys the math video games he has been playing
in tutoring.
• He is very distressed about the amount of time spent
on homework each night.
• He reports he likes science class.
Classroom Observation
• During math class
• Review lesson on adding fractions with unlike
denominators
• Mr. Sosa demonstrated process and discussed how to
apply the skill to solve real-world problems.
• Nick sat at front of the room, appeared to be engaged,
did not ask or answer any questions.
• Students assigned 5 word problems to complete in 10
min. Nick spent all time working at his desk.
• When asked the answer to Q 1, Nick mumbled
something, then said “I don’t know.”
• His paper revealed that he had tried to draw out each
fraction using pie charts, but could not perform any
calculation.
Observations During Testing
• Was attentive and on-task
• Responded well to encouragement although initial
response was to give up easily
• Was not impulsive, but was limited by the number of
alternative solutions or strategies
• Relied on verbal rehearsal to recall new information
• Was unable to explain his reasoning or strategy when
asked
Key Math 3 Data
Composite
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Basic Concepts
79
8
Operations
78
7
Applications
83
13
Total Composite
79
8
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Numeration
7
16
Algebra
7
16
Geometry
7
16
Measurement
5
5
Data Analysis & Probability
6
9
Basic Concept Subtests
Key Math 3 Data
Operations Subtests
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Mental Computation &
Estimation
7
16
Addition & Subtraction
6
9
Multiplication & Division
5
5
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Foundations of Problem
Solving
7
16
Applied Problem Solving
6
9
Applications Subtests
Assessment Plan
• WIAT III: Math Problem Solving, Numerical
Operations, Math Fluency
• WISC-IV
• WISC-IV Integrated: Visual Span, Spatial Span
• NEPSY II: Memory for Designs, Design Copying,
Picture Puzzles, Geometric Puzzles
• PAL II: Part-Whole Relationships, Finding the Bug,
Quantitative Working Memory, Spatial Working
Memory, Rapid Automatic Switching
WISC-IV Results
Index
Standard Score
Range 90% CI
Percentile Rank
Verbal
Comprehension
99
93-105
47
Perceptual
Reasoning
86
81-94
18
Working Memory
86
81-94
18
Processing Speed
85
79-94
16
Full Scale
87
83-92
19
Subtests
Scaled Score
Percentile
Similarities
9
37
Vocabulary
11
63
Comprehension
10
50
Block Design
8
25
Picture Concepts
7
16
Matrix Reasoning
8
25
Digit Span
7
16
Letter-Number Sequencing
8
25
Coding
7
16
Symbol Search
8
25
Cancellation
7
16
WISC-IV Integrated Results
WM Registration Subtests
Scaled Score
Percentile
Digit Span Forward
8
25
Visual Digit Span
7
16
Spatial Span Forward
6
9
Scaled Score
Percentile
Digit Span Backward
7
16
Spatial Span Backward
6
9
WM Manipulation
Subtests
There are no discrepancies between registration or manipulation subtests. There is no
discrepancy between registration and manipulation subtests.
NEPSY II Results
Subtests
Scaled Score
Percentile
Memory for Designs
Immediate Content
7
16
Memory for Designs
Immediate Spatial
8
25
Memory for Designs
Immediate
7
16
Scaled Score
Percentile
Memory for Designs
Delayed Content
5
5
Memory for Designs
Delayed Spatial
3
1
Memory for Designs
Delayed
6
9
Subtests
NEPSY II Results
Subtests
Scaled Score
Percentile
Design Copying
7
16
Picture Puzzles
9
37
Geometric Puzzles
8
25
PAL II Results
Part-Whole Subtest
Scaled Score
Percentile
Part-Whole Relationships
Composite
7
16
Part-Whole Concepts
7
16
Part-Whole Fractions and
Mixed Numbers
10
50
Part-Whole Time
6
9
Scaled Score
Percentile
Finding the Bug
6
9
Multi-Step Problem
Solving
7
16
Quantitative WM
6
9
Spatial WM Oral
7
16
Spatial WM Drawing
6
9
Other Subtests
PAL II Results
RAN Subtest
Scaled Score
Percentile
Single Digits Total Time
8
25
Double Digits Total Time
8
25
Scaled Score
Percentile
5
5
RAS Words & Digits
Subtest
Words & Digits Total Time
WIAT III Math Results
Subtests
Standard Score
Percentile
Math Problem Solving
76
5
Numerical Operations
79
8
Math Fluency-Addition
72
3
Math Fluency-Subtraction
70
2
Math Fluency-Multiplication
68
2
Referral Questions to Answer
1. Why has Nick not responded to intervention?
2. Is he a student with a disability that requires
additional support or instruction not
available through general education?
3. How does he learn? What do we know about
his unique learning needs?
4. What needs to change in his instructional
program to produce better outcomes?
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses
• Identified cognitive strengths include:
–
–
–
–
Verbal fluid reasoning
Lexical and semantic knowledge
Oral expression
Others?
• Identified cognitive weaknesses include:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Nonverbal concept formation and fluid reasoning
Visual-spatial organization and imaging
Abstract, categorical or sequential reasoning
Working memory
Slow processing speed (especially with verbal info)
Others?
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses
• Identified processing deficits specific to math
include:
– Rapid automatic switching
– Quantitative and spatial working memory
– Executive functions of sustained and switching
attention, multi-tasking, and self-monitoring
• Identified math-specific skill deficits
–
–
–
–
Lack of automaticity for number fact retrieval
Understanding of part-whole relationships
Knowledge of algorithms for complex problem solving
Use of adaptive strategies to solve math problems
What would you recommend?
Thanks for Your Participation
Dr. Donna Rury Smith
Based in Fort Worth
Txdocsmith@gmail.com