Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
2
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
Name: Wes Johnson
Age: 8
Date: September 18, 2013
School District: Upper Bucks
Grade: 2nd
Instructor: Heather Stoeckmann
Background Information
Wes is eight year old and is in second grade at Upper Bucks Elementary School in the
Upper Bucks School District. Wes was adopted and has one sister and two brothers in his
adopted family. Wes enjoys playing with his friends when he is not in school. He enjoys
watching Scooby Doo and Garfield. He also plays video games and computer games when he
was at home. Wes mentioned that sometimes he likes to read comic books. Wes thinks he might
want to go in the Army to defend our country. Wes’ best friend is Carter because they play
together sometimes. Wes says he does not enjoy writing because he forgets the words he wants
to write and he struggles with spelling. Wes was retained in kindergarten and struggled
throughout kindergarten and first grade with reading and writing. Wes received intervention in
reading during first grade. Wes still struggles in reading and writing in second grade. The school
does its best to provide support for their students but lacks in many areas due to finances and
resources. Wes receives reading support twice a week from a Bucks County special education
teacher. This is a free service provided through the district
Assessment
Various informal assessments determined Wes’ literacy development in different areas.
The instructor used the following assessments; Phonemic Awareness and Text, Yopp-Singer Test
of Phoneme Segmentation, Interest Survey, Miscue Analysis, Informal Reading Inventory,
Ganske’s Spelling Inventory, Fluency, Concepts of Print, Letter/Sound Recognition,
Comprehension, and Writing Survey.
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
3
Attitudes toward Reading and Writing
The instructor completed an Elementary Reading Attitude Survey with the student to
determine the student’s attitude toward reading and writing. Wes feels the happiest when he read
a book at school in his free time or when he gets a book for a present. He does not enjoy reading
in his free time or at home. He also does not like doing worksheets, answering questions, reading
aloud in class, or taking a reading test. From the survey, Wes indicated that he is interested in
some reading, if it involves a new book or different genre.
Phonemic Awareness
The instructor used the Yopp-Singer Test of Phoneme Segmentation to evaluate Wes’
ability to segment phonemes within a given word. He had trouble separating some consonant
diagraphs and had some trouble articulating the long vowel sounds. He scored a 17/22 on the test
which classifies him as phonemically aware. To gather more data, the instructor administered the
Houghton Mifflin Emerging Literacy Survey. Wes scored 8/8 on beginning sounds and phoneme
segmentation. He scored 6/8 on blending onsets and rimes and phoneme blending. He scored a
7/8 with the rhyming words. Wes had some difficulty with segmenting onsets and rimes, he
scored a 4/8. Table 1 indicates the phonemic awareness data collected from the assessment.
Table 1
Phonemic Awareness Assessment Data
Beginning
Blending Onsets
Phoneme
Sounds
and Rimes
Blending
Rhyme
Phoneme
Segmenting
Segmentation
onsets and
rimes
8/8
6/8
6/8
7/8
8/8
4/8
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
4
Concepts of Print
In order to determine a child’s ability to handle a book and identify parts of a book, the
instructor administered the Wright Group’s Concepts of Print checklist (1996). In the concepts of
print checklist, Wes scored + (good) on the book and reading concepts. The instructor observed
that he did not track the text as he read, except for when he was starting to lose his place or
became confused. This was not a strategy he utilized as the instructor observed he omitted text at
different times. After reading, the student was able to identify the letters, words and most of the
punctuation marks. The instructor observed that even though the student can identify punctuation
marks, he does not attend to them within his reading.
Letter Sound Recognition
The instructor administered a Journey’s Letter/Sound Recognition test to determine the
student’s ability to recognize the letter names and their individual sounds. The student
recognized and named all uppercase and lowercase letters except the letter i. Wes was also able
to give the instructor the sounds for all the consonants but was unable to give a hard and soft g or
c. He did provide the long and short vowel sounds.
Sentence Dictation
The Marie Clay Sentence Dictation Test was administered to determine what the student
knows about directionality and letter/sound relationships. The student scored proficient with a
31/37 on these sentences. Even though this was not a part of the scoring, the instructor observed
the student wrote his d backwards and substituted my for am.
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
5
Fluency
The instructor used a Rasinski Fluency Rubric and the average number of words correct
per minute to judge the student’s ability to read with expression, good phrasing, smoothness and
reading at a conversational pace. The student read a Pre Primer passage at his independent level
from the Informal Reading Inventory. Wes read 61 words correctly in a minute. Using the
Fluency rubric, Wes’ score was a 10/16. Table 2 indicates the fluency data gathered from the
assessment.
Table 2
Fluency Assessment Data
Expression and Volume
Phrasing
Smoothness
Pace
Reads in a quiet voice. The reading sounds
natural in part of the text, but the reader does
not always sound like they are talking to a
friend.
Reads in two or three word phrases, not
adhering to punctuation, stress and intonation.
Reads with occasional breaks in rhythm. The
reader has difficulty with specific words and/or
sentence structures.
Reads fast and slow throughout reading.
Spelling
The instructor administered the Words Their Way Spelling Inventory to examine the
specific spelling skills that are mastered and are still developmental for the student. The
instructor chose to give Wes 15/25 words because she felt that he was frustrate out beyond the 15
words. Wes scored 1 out of 15 words correctly. According to the analysis he was able to identify
initial consonants, ending consonants, blends, and short vowels. He had trouble with digraphs
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
6
(2/6), long vowels (0/5), other vowels, and inflected endings. Some examples are of his errors
are flut for float, plas for place, brite for bright, caes for carries, and wen for when.
To gather additional information, the instructor administered the Ganske’s
Developmental Spelling Analysis. This test was a dictated list of 25 words from Form A to the
student to determine the child’s stage of development. This letter name feature list had many
CVC pattern words, sight words, simple diagraphs and blends. Wes did well identifying initial
consonants and ending consonants. He struggled with some of the digraphs, and consonant
blends and sight words as indicated in Table 3.
Table 3
Developmental Spelling Analysis Data
bump
that
went
bup
they
wet
Word Recognition in Isolation
Word recognition in isolation assessment will determine an individual’s sight word
vocabulary and decoding strategies. The instructor administered the Burns and Roe Informal
Reading Inventory word lists in order to determine what level reading passage to administer.
Wes read the PrePrimer list to the Level 2 list. Wes had one error and Self Correction (SC) on
the PrePrimer list. He had one SC on the Primer and the Level 1 list. Wes read Level 2 with five
errors and two SC, which placed him at frustration. Some of his errors included away for always,
heard for head, mad for made, towel for town and tune for turn as seen in Table 4.
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
7
Table 4
Informal Reading Inventory Data
Independent
Instruction
Frustration
N/A
PrePrimer, Primer, Level 1
Level 2
Word Recognition in Context
In order to determine Wes’ word recognition in a given context, he read a 100 word
passage from a leveled book. (1st- 3rd grade) Wes struggled with proper names and was easily
confused with common sight words. He also omitted words that he was unsure of. He
substituted words that were not in context with the story. Most of the miscues in the passage
were graphophonemic and semantic. Some examples would be saying the word from instead of
the word for. Wes had 17 miscues for a reading passage of 100 words. These miscues put him at
a frustration level for this book.
The instructor also administered the Burns and Roe Informal Reading Inventory to
determine what reading level the student was independent, instruction, and frustration. Wes had
two miscues in the oral PrePrimer passage. Due to his errors in the Comprehension piece, Wes’
frustration is at Primer Level. He had 13 miscues in the oral passage as seen in Table 5.
Table 5
Informal Reading Inventory Oral Comprehension
Oral
Independent
Instruction
Frustration
PrePrimer (Form A)
PrePrimer (Form A)
Primer (Form A)
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
8
Comprehension
The instructor administered Comprehension questions from Burns and Roe IRI to
determine the student’s ability to understand text and demonstrate thoughtful responses to text.
Wes read two passages silently and was asked to answer various comprehension questions. The
questions were broken into the main idea, sequence, cause and effect, detail, and inference. In the
PrePrimer passage, Wes was unable to identify the main idea. He also did not complete the
inference questions that pertained to the passage. He had two errors in the silent reading passage.
Wes had six comprehension errors in the Primer passage. In this story he was unable to identify
the main idea, two sequence questions, one detail question, and two inference questions. The
instructor wanted to note that this passage may have been a difficult topic for Wes and may have
affected his score.
The instructor read one passage to Wes from Burns and Roe IRI to complete a listening
assessment. After the instructor read the passage, Wes was able to answer 6/8 comprehension
questions. He had some trouble with details and inference questions. Table 5 highlights Wes’
reading levels for the silent and listening comprehension passages.
Table 5
Informal Reading Inventory Data Silent and Listening Data
Silent
Listening
Independent
Instruction
Frustration
PrePrimer (Form B)
PrePrimer(Form B)
Primer (Form B)
Primer (Form C)
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
9
Writing
The instructor collected two writing samples from Wes. One sample was written during
The Daily 5 literacy block. There were several writing prompts that Wes could choose from and
he chose to write about “what it would be like if he could fly”. The instructor observed Wes
using parts of the writing process as demonstrated in class. The instructor also observed Wes’
struggle to use strategies such as word lists or the word wall, revising or editing. An example of
his writing can be seen in Table 6.
Table 6
Writing Samples
I could fly
I would fly up (p written backwards) and dan. I would for. I would fly to the city. I would fly to
hey dese. Could my bother fly.
A second sample was collected from a shared writing mini lesson. In this writing lesson
the instructor used mentor text to guide instruction. After reading a play, the students were asked
to make connections with the text and write about a play they had seen. A sample of Wes’
writing can be seen in the following table.
I seen the Anae In play. It had los uf ploepl. dad had fune costums. dad bad at the end
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
10
Student’s Strengths and Needs
Strengths

Recognition of sight words

Spelling and reading CVC word patterns

Phonemic awareness- beginning sounds, phoneme segmentation, rhyme

Concepts of print

Letter/Sound Recognition
Needs

Phonemic awareness- Blending Onsets and rimes, Segmenting Onsets and rimes

Fluency- expression, adhering to punctuation, smoothness, pace

Comprehension- main idea, details (names), sequence, inference

Decoding strategies- omits words, graphophonemic, semantic
Instructional Recommendations
Phonemic Awareness The instructor can use guided wordplay to help students learn to
blend onsets and rimes. The teacher can work with students as they introduce blending through
guided practice. The students should learn to isolate the initial sounds in words first before
blending the phonemes together. Small-group settings can also benefit instructors as they teach
shared reading lesson that focus on phonemes in a given word. Tongue twisters are a great way
to introduce phonemic awareness and help students hear sounds. Elkonin boxes are another great
tool to use in isolating sounds and helping students see how we can blend onsets and rimes.
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
-
11
PA CC.1.1.K.C- Demonstrate understanding of spoken words, syllables, and sounds
(phonemes).
Fluency The instructor should provide ample opportunities to read and reread a variety of
books and other text materials along with decoding strategies and supportive feedback. The
instructor should model good oral reading, provide good verbal support in small group
discussions, offer plenty of practice opportunities, and encourage fluency through phrasing.
Students can get involved in shared reading lessons to build proper fluency and smoothness.
Small mini lesson can be built into the shared reading about punctuation, decoding strategies,
and expression.
-
PA CC.1.1.2.E- Read with accuracy and fluency to support comprehension.
Comprehension The instructor can build mini lessons that help focus on comprehension
strategies. It is important for students to build background knowledge about a topic and this can
be done through discussion and mapping, such as a KWL chart. Other ways to focus on
knowledge about text is through Question-Answer Relationships. This can be a great way to
stimulate meaningful conversation and generate questions that promote higher-order thinking.
-PA CC.1.2.1.A- Identify the main idea and retell key details of text.
Decoding Strategies There are several strategies that can be used to develop decoding
skills and strategies. The instructor can incorporate word hunts into any given lesson, where the
student looks for particular sounds and patterns (such as /er/, /ar/, /or/). This helps the student
focus on graphophonic features in the text and not just in isolation. A word wall is also important
for students to use throughout the day and teachers can incorporate the word wall in daily
activities, writing assignments, and games.
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
-
12
PA CC.1.1.D- Know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding
words.
Home Recommendations
The instructor has some recommendations that can be used at home to reinforce concepts
and principles taught in the classroom. Flashcards would help provide a visual representation for
isolating sounds and blending onsets. For developing comprehension strategies and noticing
various parts of the text, parents can ask questions during and after reading with their child. This
will help the child become familiar with literacy terms and look for the main idea, characters,
settings, problem/solution, and vocabulary. To help work on fluency, parents can model good
oral reading and could record their own reading for the student to listen to.
Reflection on Process
Through this experience I have gain great insight into the assessment pieces that play a
key role in discovering the needs of a support student. I am thankful for valuable resources and
information provided in this class. I now have more tools to use in my own classroom for
assessment in many different areas of literacy. These assessment tools have impacted my
teaching in several ways. I now know where to focus my core instruction, especially for support
students. Since comprehension was an area of weakness for my literacy partner, I have spent
more time pulling comprehension components out of our everyday reading. I know this is an area
of weakness for many students and I want to help each of my students be confident in their
abilities to comprehend the text. I am feeling much more comfortable with the assessment
language than when I first started this course, but I would like to be able to use these assessments
more to become more comfortable and fluent with the material. My school does not have many
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
of these assessments, and I think many of them are valuable tools to determining areas of
strength and weakness. I feel like it would be a good way to guide meaningful instruction and I
would like to incorporate several of these literacy assessments in my classroom on a regular
basis.
13
Literacy Partnership Diagnostic Profile
14
Resource Page
Burns, P. and Roe, B. (2006). Informal reading inventory. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Publishers.
Biggam, S. and Itterly, K. (2009). Literacy profiles: A framework to guide assessment,
instructional strategies and intervention K-4. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin Co.
Owaki G. and Goodman, Y. (2002). Kidwatching: Documenting children’s literacy development.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishers.