Case Study | 1
Case Study:
Peter
Pamela Marie Santerre
University of New England
EDU 741 Literacy Assessment
Professor Lacasse
October 21, 2011
Case Study | 2
Name: Peter Orlowski
Grade: 8
School: Woodstock Middle School
Date of Report:
Dates of Testing:
Date of Birth:
Age at Testing:
Examiner:
October 21, 2011
October 12-13, 2011
February 2, 1998
13 years, 8 months
Pamela M. Santerre
Background Information
Peter is thirteen-year-old boy in eighth grade who was recommended for testing and SRBI
tier two intervention because classroom observations, standardized test scores, and benchmark
testing indicated that Peter is struggling with literacy and is several grade levels behind his peers.
Peter lives with his mother and stepfather. He attended school in Thompson, CT from grades
kindergarten through sixth grade. In October 2010, Peter’s family moved to Alabama. His school
was destroyed by a tornado in the spring of 2011, and, as a result, we do not have his records or test
scores from seventh grade.
Notably, Peter has a fluency disorder. Peter’s mother reported that he began to stutter at
four-years-old, and Peter has had speech and language therapy since kindergarten. Mrs. Orlowski
indicated that Peter’s stutter is exacerbated by anxiety and low self-confidence.
Peter was tested with the Connor’s Rating Scale in November 2008; the test indicated
globally clinically significant levels for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Inattentive Type.
Connecticut Mastery Test results were available for third through sixth grade. In third
grade, Peter was tested at “Proficient” on both the Reading and Writing Tests. In fourth and fifth
grade, Peter scored at the Below Basic level on the Reading Test and at the Basic level on the
Writing Test. In sixth grade, Peter scored at the Below Basic level on both the Reading and Writing
tests. Standardized test scores were not available for seventh grade, due to his move to Alabama
early in seventh grade.
Case Study | 3
It is worth noting that Peter’s name was legally changed in July 2009. Grades prior to that
time (sixth grade) were mostly in the “B” to “C” range. Beginning in sixth grade, he did have some
“D”s. Peter’s cumulative file sent from Thompson includes many conduct and bus discipline reports
from 2009. There were no behavioral reports from other years.
Since Peter is new to the district, I chose to test him with a variety of tests that would
measure his oral reading fluency, silent reading fluency, writing ability, and comprehension skills.
Since testing indicated significant levels of ADHD—inattentive type—I chose a selection of tests
that would have both constant and direct examiner interaction as well as more independent tasks to
determine how much Peter’s ADHD was impacting his testing.
The assessments took place during Peter’s SRBI Tier 2 intervention time. During the testing
sessions, Peter was friendly and willing to complete the tasks. He enjoyed telling stories about his
family, particularly about his younger brother. Peter did need directions restated and explained
several times. He appeared to take the testing seriously, and often asked for reassurance about his
answers. During the tests that are done more independently, Peter did get distracted, but responded
well to gentle redirection.
Tests Administered
STAR Reading
Grade Equivalent
Percentile
6.2
28
Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (Form A)
Raw Score
Percentile Rank
Standard Score
Reading Age
Grade Equivalent
81
21
88
10.0
4.7
Below-Average
Case Study | 4
Gray Silent Reading Test (Form A)
Raw Score
Percentile Rank
Silent Reading Quotient
Reading Age
Grade Equivalent
33
27
91
11.0
5.2
Average
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test
Subtest
Basic Skills Cluster
Word Identification
Word Attack
Standard Score
96
98
94
Percentile Rank
39
Average
44
Average
34
Average
Reading Comprehension Cluster
Word Comprehension
Passage Comprehension
98
98
98
46
44
44
Average
Average
Average
Total Reading
97
43
Average
Developmental Reading Assessment
Reading Engagement
4/8
Oral Reading Fluency
11/16
Comprehension
14/24
Instructional
Independent
Instructional
Test of Written Language (Form A)
Raw Score
Vocabulary
10
Spelling
12
Punctuation
10
Logical Sentences
9
Sentence Combining
9
Contextual Conventions
15
Story Composition
11
Percentile Rank
16
16
25
16
37
50
75
Descriptive Rating
Below-Average
Below-Average
Average
Below-Average
Average
Average
Average
Case Study | 5
Observations During Testing
Intervention Screening
STAR Reading
The STAR Reading Assessment is an online, multiple-choice skills-based test that
instantaneously provides data for screening and instructional planning based on standards
benchmarking, progress monitoring, and skills mastery. After completing the practice test, students
are given questions, one at a time, based on the student’s estimated ability level. If the student
answers correctly, STAR bumps up the difficulty level of the next question. If the student answers
incorrectly, STAR lowers the level of the next question. This allows the software to calculate
exactly what the student’s ability level is. Students are only given a specific amount of time to
answer each question, though the teacher may extend the time limit for specific students with the
understanding that doing so may skew the norms, reliability, and validity of the test. STAR Reading
tests measure 36 distinct reading skills across five separate strands: Word Knowledge and Skills,
Comprehension Strategies and Constructing Meaning, Analyzing Literary Text, Understanding
Author’s Craft, and Analyzing Argument and Evaluating Text.
All students at Woodstock Middle School are assessed according to the STAR in the fall,
winter, and spring. The STAR Reading indicated Peter’s grade equivalent score is 6.2. His test
performance is therefore comparable to that of an average sixth grader after the second month of the
school year. Peter also achieved a national percentile rank of 28. This means that Peter scored
greater than 28% of students nationally in the same grade, though his score is below average when
compared to the scores of other eighth graders at Woodstock. Since this test is taken on and scored
by the computer, a miscue analysis is not possible.
Case Study | 6
These scores indicate that Peter has chosen appropriate reading materials when he reads
independently for pleasure. Peter is likely beginning to appreciate more advanced forms of
literature. However, he may often be tempted to stay within the easier reading range of popular
novels. Peter currently reads independently from content area materials to gain information. He is
beginning to use specialized vocabularies, such as scientific or mathematical terms. Peter is
continuing to improve his study skills. For the fastest reading growth, Peter should be challenged to
read more difficult books and to sample a wide range of literature.
Reading Fluency
Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency.
The Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF) measures the speed with which
students can recognize the individual words in a series of printed passages that become
progressively more difficult in their content, vocabulary, and grammar. The passages are printed in
uppercase with punctuation or spaces between words, as show in this example:
AYELLOWBIRDWITHBLUEWINGSSATONMOTHERSPRETTYHAT
Students are given 3 minutes to draw lines between as many words as possible, as follows:
A│YELLOW│BIRD│WITH│BLUE│WINGS│SAT│ON│MOTHERS│PRETTY│HAT
The TOSCRF measures a wide variety of essential interrelated silent reading skills, including the
ability to recognize printed words and know their meaning; use one’s mastery of grammar to
facilitate understanding of the meaning of written sentences and passages; incorporate grammar
knowledge to quickly grasp the meaning of words, sentences, paragraphs, and all contextual
Case Study | 7
material; reading and understand contextual materials at a pace fast enough to make silent reading
practical and enjoyable.
Peter’s reading age equivalent of 10.0 means his performance is consistent with that of
students in the TOSCRF normative sample who were age 10 years 0 months. Peter’s grade
equivalent of 4.7 indicates that his performance is similar to that of students in the normative
sample who were in the 7th month of 4th grade. The TOSCRF assigns a descriptive rating of “Below
Average” to students who have standard scores between 80 to 89.” Students who have a standard
score of 90-110 are assigned a descriptive rating of “Average.” Peter’s standard score of 88
translates of a “Below Average” descriptive rating, as advised by the TOSCRF manual. He will
likely show deficiencies in all kinds of reading skills, including decoding, word identification, and
comprehension skills. He is likely to be a poor content reader. Because he is a poor reader, he is
likely to have problems in written language skills, such as composition and spelling. Though the
TOSCRF indicates that Peter is reading at a level below age expectancy, it does not indicate which
reading skills are impaired or why the reading is below average. The TOSCRF recommended that
Peter should receive additionally testing with a well-built reading battery to test a broad spectrum of
reading skills.
Comprehension
Gray Silent Reading Tests
The Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT) is a norm-referenced, reliable, and valid test of silent
reading comprehension that is appropriate for individuals aged 7 years through 25 years 11 months.
Case Study | 8
The GSRT has two parallel forms, Forms A and B, each containing 13 separate paragraphs (stories)
followed by 5 multiple-choice comprehension questions.
Peter’s reading age equivalent of 11.0 means his performance is consistent with that of
students in the GSRT normative sample who were age 11 years 0 months. Peter’s grade equivalent
of 5.2 indicates that his performance is similar to that of students in the normative sample who were
in the 2nd month of 5th grade. The GSRT assigns a descriptive rating of “Below Average” to students
who have standard scores between 80 to 89.” Students who have a standard score of 90-110 are
assigned a descriptive rating of “Average.” Peter’s Silent Reading Quotient (SRQ) score of 91
translates to an “Average” descriptive rating, as advised by the GSRT manual, though he is at the
low end of the range.
Since Peter’s SRQ is below his grade level and physical age, the GSRT recommends that
Peter be tested be with a more comprehensive battery of reading tests. I chose to test Peter with two
separate batteries—the Developmental Reading Assessment and Woodcock Reading Mastery
Test—because prior testing indicates that Peter is at risk of ADHD, inattentive type. Since one test
(Developmental Reading Assessment) required Peter to complete tasks independently while the
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test has constant examiner-student interaction, I wondered if the
results would be impacted by the ADHD. If it was proven that Peter’s ADHD impacts his
comprehension, a case could be made to place him on a 504 plan.
While testing, Peter did demonstrate that he does have reading strategies. He often read the
questions out loud to himself, though he did look to me for affirmation that he was correct.
Answering the questions for his “ceiling” story, he often said that the comprehension questions
didn’t make sense, indicating that his difficulties may lie in understanding the comprehension
questions, not the actual material.
Case Study | 9
Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades 4-8, Second Edition
The Developmental Reading Assessment, Grades 4-8, Second Edition, known as the DRA2,
4-8, assesses student reading achievement in Reading Engagement, Oral Reading Fluency, and
Comprehension. The DRA2, 4-8 is administered in four main steps: student reading survey, one-onone student reading conference, Independent Study Work, and an analysis of student performance.
It provides information to identify students’ independent reading levels and the next steps to take to
help students improve their reading skills.
Prior to testing, Peter filled out a student reading survey. On the survey, Peter indicated that
he enjoyed reading adventure and animal books because he enjoys both those things. He chooses his
independent reading material based on the title and blurb on the back of the book. Peter indicated
that while he likes reading, he is a slow reader, but wants to get faster as a reader so that he could
read the longer books, like the Percy Jackson series, that his peers are reading.
For the oral reading fluency and reading comprehension test, Peter chose to read The
Amazing Octopus, a nonfiction text which was within his independent reading level, as identified by
the STAR, TOSCRF, and GSRT. Throughout the oral reading fluency subtest, Peter’s fluency
disorder was noticeable, particularly at the beginning of words beginning with hard consonant
sounds (backbone, coldblooded, etc). However, Peter read with expression and generally
appropriate phrasing, heeding most punctuation. While reading, Peter had several miscues, but selfcorrected all except for two. Both miscues were insertions that did not changed the meaning of the
text. For example, the text said “These suckers help an octopus to pick up and eat food;” Peter read,
“help an octopus to pick up and eat their food.” Though this was an insertion, it fit into the
semantics and syntax of the sentence. It is apparent that Peter monitors his comprehension as he
reads orally. At one point, Peter had a miscue, read ahead to the previous sentence, and then went
Case Study | 10
back and self-corrected. This did not count as an error against him. Peter’s total score for the Oral
Reading Fluency fell within the Independent range on the continuum. While he read with a 99%
accuracy rate, after self-corrections, he only read 80 words per minute, which can be partially
attributed to his fluency disorder.
On the comprehension test, Peter’s questions and predictions represent an instructional
response. He asks two specific and reasonable questions: “How do octopuses change color?” and
“Can they really spray ink?” He has three predictions that are related to the text, though his
predictions are very basic: “How they live,” “How they eat,” and “How the [sic] hide.”
Peter’s summary demonstrates an Instructional response in his understanding of the story.
He uses his own language to compose a summary that includes some ideas and supporting facts
from most sections of the text. This indicates that Peter would benefit from instruction to help him
grasp the overall intent of the book and add more supporting information from each section of the
text to his summary.
Peter’s response to the Literal Comprehension yielded an Independent score. Peter gives
three specific facts that come from the text: “They are coldblooded,” “They can change color,” and
“They can spray ink.” However, his response to the Interpretation question reflects an Instructional
score. It is evident that he used some information from the text to identify what would happen if
there were no octopus predators in the ocean. His response, however, is only a partial answer and is
not adequately explained: “The shrimp will live.” While taking this portion of the test, Peter
struggled to understand what the question was asking. He was not sure if the question was asking
about octopuses as predators or predators of octopuses.
Peter’s Reflection response represents an Instructional score. In response to the prompt
“what do you think is the most important thing about octopuses,” Peter responded, “The [sic] keep
Case Study | 11
having more kid octopus.” Though Peter’s response does reflect the text, it focuses on less
significant pieces of the text.
Peter’s response to Metacognitive Awareness represents an Independent response. Peter
articulates that he used his background knowledge of octopuses while he read. In addition, he
pictured what was happening.
On Peter’s referral for testing, teachers indicated that Peter was often resistant to written
tasks. His short answers with lack of supporting detail on the DRA2, 4-8 could be indicators of this
resistance, not just comprehension difficulties. I decided to assess Peter’s writing abilities using the
Test of Written Language.
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised
The Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT-R) is an individually administered normreferenced diagnostic battery of tests, which provides various measures of reading achievement. In
the Word Identification test, students are required to read words in a list format aloud. They have
five seconds to identify each word before they are prompted to move on to the next word. In the
Word Attack test, students are required to read words that are not real. Nonsense words allow the
evaluator to determine how the child recognizes words without using compensatory strategies (i.e.,
looking at pictures, guessing based upon context, or reading words by sight). Students have five
seconds to respond before they are prompted for a response, and then moved on to the next word.
The Word Comprehension subtest has three sections: antonyms, synonyms, and analogies. Students
have fifteen seconds before they are prompted for a response, and then moved on to the next item.
In the Passage Comprehension subtest students are required to read passages to themselves, then fill
in the blanks to demonstrate their understanding.
Case Study | 12
On the Word Identification subtest, Peter received a standard score of 98, which put him into
the 44th national percentile, which is translates to an “Average” rating as defined by the WRMT-R
manual. The Word Identification subtest measures an individual's ability to recognize words at
sight. An analysis of Peter’s miscues shows that when Peter is reading an unfamiliar word, he looks
at the beginning and end, and supplants it with another familiar word.
Examples are included below.
Word
Peter’s Reading
garage
garbage
transient
transit
Peter also demonstrated that he had an awareness of decoding strategies because when faced
with a word he did not know, he attempted to sound the word out. Examples are included below.
Word
Peter’s Reading
grandiose
grah-di-os
xerograph
ex-ero-graph-y
jujitsu
ju-di-shoo
On the Word Attack subtest, Peter received a standard score of 94, which put him into the
34th national percentile, which is translates to an “Average” rating as defined by the WRMT-R
manual. The Word Attack subtest measures the ability to use phonic and structural analysis skills
to identify nonsense words. An analysis of miscues reveals that Peter was familiar with words
that were phonetically regular, with very few exceptions. However, he has difficulty with words
that have silent letters, such a “k” as in “knife” or “h” as in “phone.” Examples are included
below:
Case Study | 13
Word
Peter’s Reading
Phet
pah-het
whumb
hw-u-mp
mieb
meh-b
On the Word Comprehension subtest, Peter received a standard score of 98, which put
him into the 44th national percentile, which is translates to an “average” rating as defined by the
WRMT-R manual. The Word Comprehension subtest measures knowledge of word meanings
through formats utilizing antonyms, synonyms, and analogies. An analysis of the miscues shows
that, in some cases, Peter is somewhat familiar with the meanings the cue words and uses some
logic to answer, but he is probably lacking in semantics to come up with the correct word.
Examples are included below:
Peter’s Reading
Word
Baby
- Antonym-
grandmother
Finale-
-Antonym-
first
Funnies
-Synonym-
laugh
Buy
-Synonym-
receive
Street: automobile::canal:___
-Analogy-
water
Other miscues in this test seemed to happen because Peter misread the cue word. For example,
one cue for the analogy subtest was “machine is to patent as book is to ______.” Peter read the
word “patent,” as “parent,” and answered the analogy with “kids.” Miscues of this type again
show how Peter looks at the beginning and ends of the word and guesses a familiar word.
On the Passage Comprehension subtest, Peter received a standard score of 98, which put
him into the 44th national percentile, which is translates to an “average” rating as defined by the
WRMT-R manual. The Passage Comprehension subtest is a modified CLOZE procedure and
measures the student's ability to read and understand a short passage and then supply a key word
Case Study | 14
missing from the passage. An analysis of miscues demonstrates that Peter understands the main
idea of a passage and syntax, but struggles with semantics and context clues.
Example: Although there are now more people who speak English than people who
speak French, the French language was once the most widely spoken language in the
world, and it had a strong influence on the English language. This influence began in
1066 when England was conquered by the Normans—people who lived in
_______________________.
Correct answer:
France, Normandy
Peter’s answer:
England
In the above example, Peter demonstrates an understanding about the main idea of the passage
and recognizes that the word in the blank is a country or place. However, Peter misses that the
story is talking about a time when the French influence on the English language began. He also
doesn’t recognize that it is logically impossible for England to be conquered by people who lived
in England.
The Total Reading Cluster is a combination of all the subtests administered and provides
one measure of reading achievement. Peter received a standard score of 97, which put him into
the 43rd national percentile, which is translates to an “average” rating as defined by the WRMTR manual. The tests did indicate areas, such as identifying graphophonic and semantic cues.
Additionally, the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, in which the examiner has constant and
direct interactions with the student, reflects a set of higher reading comprehension scores than
the DRA2,4-8, TOSCRF, and GSRT, which are tests Peter has to do independently. This
discrepancy suggests that Peter’s reading comprehension is being impacted by his ADHD.
Without continual adult supervision, Peter’s attention wanders and he rushes through tasks
without proper attention to meaning.
Case Study | 15
Written Expression
Test of Written Language- Fourth Edition
The Test of Written Language (TOWL-4) is a norm-referenced, comprehensive diagnostic
test of written expression. The TOWL-4 has seven subtests that represent the conventional,
linguistic, and conceptual aspects of writing: vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, logical sentences,
sentence combining, contextual conventions, and story composition.
On the Vocabulary subtest, Peter scored in the 16th percentile, which has a below average
rating according to the TOWL-4 manual. In this section, the student writes a sentence that
incorporates a stimulus word. For example, for “ran,” a student writes, “I ran up the hill.” The
students are not allowed to change the ending of words. Thus, “ran” cannot become “run.” After
three errors, the test is ended. By these rules, the test was scored on questions 1 to 14 after Peter was
unable to write sentences for “humble” and “though.” For the cue “confusion,” Peter wrote “She
had a confusion of the test.” In my opinion, this sentence demonstrates that Peter understood the
meaning of the word “confusion,” but wasn’t sure how to use it in a sentence.
On the Spelling subtest, Peter scored in the 16th percentile, which yielded a below average
rating according to the TOWL-4 manual. In this section, the student writes sentences from dictation,
making proper use of spelling rules. An analysis of the miscues demonstrates that Peter utilizes the
rules of phonics to while spelling. Examples are listed below:
Word
Peter’s Response
Sure
shour
Political
politicle
In the Punctuation subtest, the student writes sentences from dictation, making proper use of
punctuation and capitalization rules. Peter scored in the 25th percentile, which yielded an average
Case Study | 16
rating according the TOWL-4 manual. Throughout the test, Peter properly utilized end punctuation.
He consistently capitalized the first letter of every sentence, though he had often forgot to capitalize
proper nouns, like “March” and “Dallas, Texas.” Most of Peter’s punctuation miscues involved
commas. He did not seem to be aware of that a comma is needed to separate the city and state, as in
“River City, Ohio,” Peter also did not use commas to set off introductory clauses, as in the sentence
“For example, you must comply with the rules.” Finally, Peter did not utilize commas to set
appositives, such as “Mrs. Hill, the new teacher, was very political.”
On the Logical Sentences subtest, Peter scored in the 16th percentile, which yielded a
“below-average” rating according the TOWL-4 manual. In this test, the student edits an illogical
sentence so that it makes better sense. For example, “John blinked his nose” is changed to “John
blinked his eye.” The purpose of this subtest is to measure the cognitive and syntactic components
of writing. A analysis of his miscues reveals that Peter has difficulty with pronoun-antecedent
agreement. For example, the cue sentence was “The glasses were so dirty they could hardly see.”
Peter did not identify an error in this sentence since he rationalized that someone could not see
through dirty glasses. However, he did not recognize that “they” is erroneously referring to
“glasses,” and which violates logic because inanimate glasses do not have eyes.
In the Sentence Combining subtest, the student integrates the meaning of several short
sentences into one grammatically correct written sentence. For example, “John drives fast” is
combined with “John has a red car” making “John drives his red car fast.” The purpose of this test is
to write a sentence that is grammatically correct according to the rules that govern “informal
standard English.” This is the level of English used most often by educated persons in their
correspondence and other functional situations. A general scoring rule is that the proper use of
informal standard English will never result in an awkward or confusing sentence. Peter scored in the
Case Study | 17
37th percentile on this test, which has a descriptive of “average.” Two of Peter’s miscues involved
sentences being combined into awkward sentences. For example, Peter combined the cue sentences
“Kathy has a hat. It is blue. She wears it at night,” into “Kathy has a blue night hat.” While it holds
true to the rules governing the sequencing of adjectives, the sentence is awkward. His third miscue
demonstrated that Peter had trouble with the rules governing the sequence of adjectives. For
example, Peter combined cue sentences “The bush is green. The bush has berries” into “ The bush
has green berries,” which changes the information presented in the cue sentences.
Peter’s scores on these four subtests—the Contrived Writing composite—are in the “below
average” to “low average” range. Peter has the knowledge of how to apply the conventions of
writing, but he does not always apply those conventions.
In addition to contrived writing, the student writes a story in response to a stimulus picture.
Students are given five minutes to brainstorm ideas and fifteen minutes to write. In the Contextual
Conventions subtest, the student’s story is graded and points are earned for satisfying specific
arbitrary requirements relative to orthnographic (punctuation, spelling) and grammatic conventions
(sentence construction, noun-verb agreement, etc). On this test, Peter scored in the 50th percentile
which yields a descriptive rating of “average.” As shown in the contrived writing tests, Peter knew
to capitalize the beginning of a sentence and proper nouns, though he did have some errors. He
writes in complete sentences and uses compound sentences and coordinating conjunctions
appropriately. Peter did have several misspelled words and his story did not include the contextual
conventions often found in more advanced pieces of writing, such as dialogue, exclamation points,
and parentheses.
In the Story Composition subtest, the student’s story is evaluated relative to the quality of its
composition (vocabulary, plot, character development, etc). Peter scored in the 75th percentile on
Case Study | 18
this test, which yields an “average” rating, as defined by the TOWL-4 manual. While Peter
demonstrated the basic concepts of a creative writing—story beginning, characters with emotion,
plot—Peter still needs to work on writing towards a clever, inventive end for his story, since he
abruptly ended in the middle of the plot, even though he still had time left to write.
When given the freedom to write a creative composition, Peter can write a fairly wellconstructed pieced. His skills as reflected in the spontaneous writing composite are in the average
range. It is noteworthy however that Peter needed to be encouraged to continue writing until the end
of his fifteen minutes. This is indicative of his resistance to written tasks that may be impacting his
independent reading scores, like the DRA2, 4-8.
Summary and Recommendations
Peter is an eighth grade student having difficulty with reading. On tests, such as the
TOSCRF, TOWL-4, and GSRT, Peter scored in the low average range. On tests, such as the
WRMT-R, where the examiner has constant and direct contact with the student, Peter scored in
the average range. This suggests that Peter does not concentrate well or put forth a strong effort
when there are no prompts or interactions with an adult. Since previous testing yielded clinically
significant indicators for ADHD, the difference between scores suggests that Peter has difficulty
maintaining focus during independent work.
Though Peter’s fluency disorder does impact his oral reading, Peter reads with good
expression and enthusiasm, and his reading is generally well phrased, mostly in clause and
sentence units. He is aware of punctuation marks and is able decode most words. On the oral
reading component of the DRA2, 4-8, there were occasional breaks in smoothness caused by
Case Study | 19
difficulty with specific words, but Peter does monitor his comprehension and self-corrects when
needed.
On the independent reading component of the DRA2, 4-8, Peter demonstrated that he was
capable of literal comprehension, which indicates that he has no trouble decoding the words. He
also demonstrated a metacognitive awareness of strategies he used during reading. The DRA2,
4-8 indicates, however, that Peter has difficulty with Questioning/Predictions, Summarizing,
Interpretation, Reflection.
On the TOWL-4, Peter demonstrated that he has knowledge of the conventions of writing,
but he does not consistently apply those conventions. When given the freedom to write a
creative composition, Peter can write a fairly well constructed piece, though he needed to be
encouraged to write more than he did originally, which demonstrates a resistance to written
tasks. His skills as reflected in the composition are in the average range
I recommend the following goals for Peter:
1. Increase rate and accuracy of oral reading. Peter’s oral reading will improve by asking him
to consistently read new text—fiction and nonfiction—aloud. Additionally, Peter will
continue to work with the speech and language pathologist on stuttering modification and
fluency-shaping therapies.
Peter’s oral reading could also benefit through buddy reading. During buddy reading, the
reader picks a book that would be interesting to younger children and practices the book
until he or she feels comfortable. The student then reads the book to a younger child or an
entire class. During testing, Peter often talked about his younger brother and how he would
like to some day become a kindergarten teacher. Peter has also volunteered to work as a
mentor to the fifth grade. Since Peter’s independent reading level has been tested at
Case Study | 20
approximately fifth grade, this allows Peter to practice appropriate material while
maintaining his self-esteem.
Since Peter enjoys participating in class and seeks positive attention from his peers,
reader’s theater is another strategy to improve his oral reading. As part of a whole class
activity, Peter should be given a substantial role and allowed ample time to practice before
the class performance.
2. Improve reading comprehension: inferences. Peter would benefit from direct instruction that
explains, provides strategies for, and shares examples of inferences.
The KIS Strategy (Key Words, Infer, Support) is a mnemonic strategy that helps
students remember the three steps in making and supporting inferences. Students underline
key words and facts from the text, make inferences using those key words, and list the
background knowledge used to support their answers.
Another strategy is for the student to use sticky notes to keep track of thoughts and
questions during reading. The student can then refer to these sticky notes during class
discussions or writing assignments. Since Peter does demonstrated ADHD behavior, these
two strategies would help him slow down and focus on what he is reading.
In addition, Peter should be given opportunities to respond to and construct inference
questions orally and in writing. The teacher should model and provide opportunities to
support inferences with examples from the text. The skill of making inferences can be
practiced with a variety of texts, including Aesop’s Fables, wordless picture books, cartoons,
and textbooks.
Since the ability to make inferences is a skill that transcends reading and writing, it can
be encouraged through practical application. Both parents and teachers can model and
Case Study | 21
encourage metacognition by wondering out loud. For example, a teacher might ask, “Where
are the ants hiding?” When the student responds, inquire, “What helped you figure that
out?” Peter’s inference skills could benefit from games like twenty questions, where he tries
to guess the identity of a mystery person or thing by asking questions.
3. Improve summarizing abilities
On both the DRA2, 4-8 and TOWL-4, Peter struggled with summarizing. Peter would
benefit from direct instruction about the characteristics of good summaries. As part of this
instruction, the teacher should model and support how to distinguish between more important
and less important ideas and facts and how to use examples from the text while summarizing.
Peter would benefit from practice summarizing fiction and nonfiction passages of increasing
length and complexity.
4. Improve ability to answer written questions and follow written directions
During testing and in class, I have noticed Peter struggling with answering written questions
and following written directions and not struggle when those same questions or directions are
read aloud. Since prior testing showed clinically significant indicators for ADHD, Peter may
struggle with following a task to completion, and would benefit from direct instruction,
modeling, and support of strategies that help him to follow directions. A good strategy to use is
CUCC: Circle, Underline, Check Off, Count, CheckOff/Complete. Using this strategy, students
Circle the directions words. Then, they Underline all important information after each direction
word. Then they Count the actual number of directions words; last, they Check Off each item as
they Complete it.