Reader Case Study
Abby Schwendeman
Professor Victoria Eastman
EDUC-301: Corrective Reading
Fall 2011 Semester
Schwendeman 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Phase I:
Part A: Reader Background…………………………………………………..…..…… 3
Part B: Assessments …………………………………………………………..…….… 5
Part C: Assessment Database ……………………………………………..…………... 6
Phase II:
Administration of Assessments ………………………………………………..………...8
Interpretations of Assessments …………………………………………………………. 9
Plan of Action………………………………………………………………………….. 10
Intervention Lesson #1 ………………………………………………..……….. 11
Intervention Lesson #2 ………………………………………………...……….. 12
Intervention Lesson #3 ……………………………………………...………….. 13
Intervention Lesson #4 ………………………………….……………..…..…… 14
Intervention Lesson #5 ………………………………………………...……….. 15
Parent/Educator Letter (explains Plan of Action)……………………………….……… 16
Kidspiration Software Web/Graphic Organizer ……………………………….….…..…17
Phase III:
Evidence of Learning and Reflections on Conducting the Intervention
Intervention Lesson #1 ………………………………………………..………...18
Intervention Lesson #2 ……………………………………………..…………...21
Intervention Lesson #3 ……………………………………………..…………...24
Intervention Lesson #4 …………………………………………………………..26
Intervention Lesson #5 …………………………………………………………..30
Phase IV:
Impact on Student Learning………………………………………………………..…… 31
Personal Growth as a Reading Teacher……………………………………………..….. 38
References……………………………………………………………………………………… 40
Schwendeman 3
PHASE I:
Reader Background Information
The subject of this reader case study is a female student in second grade. She lives with
both parents and an older female sibling (aged 17). The student enjoys music class, reading and
recess, according to a information sheet collected by the teacher at the beginning of the school
year. She is not receiving any economic support from the school (i.e. free or reduced lunches)
and does not qualify for any special education services at this time. The student does, however,
participate in a LLI (Leveled Literacy Instruction) program (similar to reading recovery) four
times a week.
Her current instructional reading level is 1.7-2.5. According to the Fountas assessment,
she is reading “at level.” Fountas and Pinnel level is currently an “H.” The student did attend a
summer school program this past summer (before entering second grade) to receive additional
support in reading instruction. While she is on the lower end of her grade range, the subject
enjoys reading and does so in class and at home with great enthusiasm.
The subject appears to be accepted well socially by her peers and does not seem to
struggle to make friends. She is kind to others, outgoing and seeks acceptance not only from her
peers, but also from authority figures such as teachers and support staff. She is helpful in the
classroom and enjoys special attention from teachers. She has expressed a desire to be a teacher
in the future.
Her parents have given permission for the student to participate in the reader case study,
be evaluated/assessed and to receive appropriate interventions. However, the classroom teacher
noted, based on her interactions with the family, the subject does not get much support at home
and that her family does not particularly value education. The subject often misses school and
has an inconsistent attendance record. (The researcher sees this as a potential barrier to
Schwendeman 4
completing the reader case study.) While the subject generally completes homework
assignments, often they are not done correctly because of her lack of parental guidance and
involvement at home.
Schwendeman 5
Assessments
In talking to the student’s classroom teacher and reading interventionalist, the researcher
has decided to focus on the student’s comprehension of text—both fiction and non-fiction. To
test comprehension, the researcher proposes using Cloze Procedures and Fountas and Pinnel
running records (with corresponding comprehension questions) to record levels and progress
monitor throughout intervention lessons/meetings. For consistency’s sake, the researcher
anticipates on using Cloze Procedures for both the initial diagnostic assessment and the
summative assessment of the conclusion of this study. This will help to show the student’s true
progress. The running records should be used throughout the lessons/interventions to monitor
student comprehension of self-read passages, as well as working on fluency (which will aide in
the student’s overall comprehension).
Unfortunately, after completing the first initial screening, the researcher realized that the
subject did not have the necessary skills in place to focus on comprehension. It was discussed
with the classroom teacher, as well as the researcher’s supervising professor, and determined that
the subject needed to focus on phonemic awareness and vocabulary development before trying to
focus on comprehension of text. The student needs to be able to decode the text so that they may
be able to understand what it is saying. Please see the section entitled “Interpretations of
Assessments” for additional information on the changes made to the assessment portion of this
case study.
Schwendeman 6
Assessment Database
Name of
Assessment
Running Records
Rigby [READS]
Assessments
Grades
Appropriate
Elementary
(K-6)
Elementary
(K-6)
How to Use
When to Use
Assessment is
completed one-on-one
with student being
tested.
Baseline testing
should be done at the
beginning of school.
Anecdotal notes are
taken during
assessment: errors,
insertions, hesitations,
substitutions, etc.
Computer-based testing
to identify instructional
reading levels of
students
Student is given a list of
ten provided words to
spell.
The Monster Test
Elementary to
Intermediate
(K-8)
Teacher evaluates what
level of spelling student
is at based on the
spelling patterns present
in the student’s
answers.
Progress assessments
should be done every
4-6 weeks depending
on needs of students.
Information Provided
 If the selected text is too
easy or too difficult
 Helps identify Instructional
Reading Levels
 Student skill levels in:
o Fluency
o Comprehension
o Accuracy
Should be used when
identifying reading
levels and grouping
students in
homogeneous leveled
groups for reading
instruction
 Instructional Reading Levels
Can be used
periodically
throughout the year
to monitor spelling
levels and progress in
students.
 Developmental Spelling
Level
 Specific Reading Skill
Levels:
o Comprehension
o Phonics
o Vocabulary
 Information about how the
student uses phonics to
decode words
Reference Information
"Running Records Information on Running
Records and How to
Administer Them." Busy
Teacher's Cafe - A K-6 Site
for Busy Teachers like You!
Web. 02 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.busyteachersca
fe.com/literacy/running_reco
rds.html>.
"Rigby Reading Evaluation and
Diagnostic System
[READS] Intervention."
Rigby. Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt. Web. 2 Oct. 2011.
<http://rigby.hmhco.com/en/
reads_int.htm>.
Gentry, J. Richard. "You Can
Analyze Developmental
Spelling…” Louisiana.gov.
Web. 2 Oct. 2011.
<http://sda.doe.louisiana.gov
/ResourceFiles/Literacy%20
Assessments/Monster%20Te
st.pdf>.
Schwendeman 7
Part C: Assessment Database (continued)
Name of
Assessment
Cloze Procedures
Accelerated Reader
Quizzes
Grades
Appropriate
How to Use
Elementary to
Intermediate
(K-8)
Meet one on one with
student and provide
them with the cloze
procedure. Allow
student to complete
independently for truest
individual results.
Elementary to
Intermediate
(K-8)
AR Quizzes can be
used as part of a
reading curriculum or
part of a reading
incentive program.
Generally, it is a
school-wide program.
When to Use
Information Provided
 If the selected text is too
easy or too difficult
When checking a
student’s
comprehension level
for a certain text.
 Helps identify Instructional
Reading Levels
 Student skill levels in:
o Fluency
o Comprehension
o Accuracy
 Reading Comprehension
When checking a
student’s
comprehension level
for a certain text.
 If the selected text is too
easy or too difficult
 How many books students
read throughout the semester
Reference Information
"Instructional Strategies Online
- Cloze Procedure." Online
Learning Centre. Web. 10
Oct. 2011.
<http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/de/pd/i
nstr/strats/cloze/index.html>.
“Overview - Accelerated
Reader." Renaissance
Learning - Advanced
Technology for Data-Driven
Schools. Web. 10 Dec. 2011.
<http://www.renlearn.com/ar
/overview/>.
Schwendeman 8
PHASE II:
Administration of Screening Assessment
For an initial screening assessment, the researcher administered a Cloze Procedure to the
subject. The researcher chose a first grade leveled procedure that reflected the student’s reading
level, rather than choosing a second grade leveled procedure that would have reflected her grade
level. However, the subject struggled to read the sentences and seemed to focus so much on
decoding and phonics that she was unable to comprehend what she was reading and determine
which word was appropriate without assistance and a lot of verbal prompting.
To make the assessment have some substance and to prevent the subject from getting
discouraged or upset, the researcher assisted the subject in the completion of the task. To do so,
the researcher would read the sentence omitting the selected word and then the student would
choose from the word bank to complete the sentence. When the subject was still confused, the
researcher would then read the sentence with the word choices in it and the subject would “listen
for which sounded right.” While the test was not accurate in showing what the student can do
individually, it did help the researcher to understand what actually needed to be the focus of the
plan of action.
Schwendeman 9
Interpretations of Assessments
Because the subject was unable to comprehend the text and the task asked of her, due to
problems with decoding, the researcher has decided to change the focus of the interventions to
help the student build a vocabulary in two ways—segmenting phonemes to break a word into
easier pronounceable parts, as well as doing a word study activities with a list of second grade
sight words to start working on comprehension (as was previously desired). To help the
researcher gain information on the subject’s current level of vocabulary development, another
initial assessment will be given to the subject during the first intervention lesson.
As a new initial assessment, the researcher plans to use the Yopp-Singer Assessment
which requires students to segment words, breaking them into phonemes. For instance, the word
“she” would be broken down into two phonemes—“/sh/-/e/”. This helps students decode words
because it breaks it into easier pronounceable parts that can then be blended together to form the
word. The researcher also plans to use this as the midpoint progress monitoring test and
outcome-based assessment for consistency purposes. As additional progress monitoring, the
researcher plans to take anecdotal observational notes and collect samples of student work which
displays their skills and abilities while working on vocabulary development. Copies of the
assessments given to the student, including administration directions, are included in the section
entitled “Impact on Student Learning.” Student work can be viewed throughout the section
“Evidence of Learning and Reflections on Conducting the Intervention” with the observational
notes helping form the reflective paragraphs about each lesson.
Schwendeman 10
Plan of Action
Lesson Focus Area
#1: Segmenting Words
Activity/Assessment
Initial Screening (Yopp-Singer Assessment)
#2: Choosing the Right
Word
Working on Cloze Procedures with the vocabulary development
word list
#3: Using Familiar Words in
Sentences
Midpoint Assessment (Yopp-Singer Assessment)
#4: Word Shape: Tall,
Small, and Tails
Looking at word shapes to help the student visualize the word
structure
#5: Conclusion/Wrap Up
Outcome-based Assessment (Yopp-Singer Assessment)
** The following pages will go into further detail about plans for each intervention lesson, as
well as the materials that would be necessary for implementation and duplication of this study.
Schwendeman 11
Intervention Lesson #1: Segmenting Words
For the initial invention lesson, the researcher plans on administering the new initial
screening assessment to help determine the subject’s instructional needs in the focus area of
phonemic awareness. The researcher has planned to use the Yopp-Singer assessment which asks
students to segment words into individual phonemes. After scoring the student’s assessment and
discussing the results with the subject, the researcher will introduce the idea of a vocabulary
word study, using a grade-appropriate list of sight words found in a book that was provided by
the school’s resource room teacher. The student will become familiar with the words by
segmenting them (just as they did on their initial assessment) and reading them aloud to the
researcher. The researcher will denote any issues that the student may have with the
segmentation or fluid pronunciation of words. If time allows, the student will be allowed to read
a book of their choice, using the idea of segmenting phonemes to help decode unfamiliar words.
In addition to the observational notes, the researcher would like to incorporate a
worksheet (page 1) from the second grade sight word workbook (obtained from the resource
room teacher) to help monitor student progress.
Schwendeman 12
Intervention Lesson #2: Choosing the Right Word
For intervention two, the subject will delve deeper into their vocabulary development
while working with words from the aforementioned grade-appropriate sight word list. The
subject will check understanding of meanings of the words while completing Cloze Procedurelike activities. The first activity gives the student a sentence with a missing word and requires
the student to choose a word from a given list of three choices. The student should be familiar
with the meaning of these words, because they are common sight words and have been
introduced during the last session; however, should the student need clarification—the researcher
will take time to define the words again to assist the student in the activity.
The next activity is slightly more difficult, giving the subject a word bank at the top,
rather than a smaller and more concise list of choices for each sentence. Adding to the difficulty,
this activity also has a sentence that could have two possible answers, so the student will need to
complete the others first to see which word actually belongs there.
Both activities will
encourage critical thinking and the use of context clues to figure out which vocabulary word fits
in which sentence. It is the researcher’s hope that the student can work independently on the
papers, with minimal guidance, so that the student’s true abilities can be recorded. After the
activity, the researcher will discuss answers with the student and correct any mishaps verbally—
while leaving the student’s original work on the paper for documentation purposes.
Schwendeman 13
Intervention Lesson #3: Using Familiar Words in Sentences
In lesson three, the researcher will continue to work with the subject on their word study
vocabulary list. In addition to the observational notes, the researcher would like to incorporate a
worksheet (page 4) from the second grade sight word workbook to help monitor student
progress. This lesson’s worksheet/activity asks students to make the words their own by creating
their own sentences that use the words given to them. The activity asks students to create eight
sentences, incorporating two given words into each. Not only will the students have to think
about the definitions of the vocabulary words, but the subject will also need to think about the
relationship that those two words have to each other to successfully write the sentences as asked.
While the researcher realizes that the student will probably need help with this activity,
because it is the most difficult of all the tasks being asked of the student, the student will be
asked to do her best and create her own sentences before asking for help. This activity also has a
verbal component to it, because the student will be asked to verbalize their thinking while
working on the sentences. This will be a great opportunity for the researcher to model a think
aloud and provide guidance to the student, without necessarily just providing the student with the
answers.
Schwendeman 14
Intervention Lesson #4: Word Shape: Tall, Small, and Tails
This activity is unique in that it looks at the physical shape of the letters. While some
students may be familiar with this concept—the subject may not be, so it may be important to be
able to describe what the activity is asking with specific examples. Students should grasp what
the different shapes of the boxes mean (what type of letter—tall, small, or tail—goes in them)
and should be able to look for the patterns in the words. Two strategies could be used to
accomplish this task. The researcher could take the alphabet and draw boxes around each
individual letter to show which letters are “tall”, “small” or “tails”. Similarly, if the student is a
visual student—the student could be asked to generate ideas of which letters would fit in each
box until they have discovered which type of box each letter of the alphabet goes in.
In addition to the observational notes, the researcher would like to incorporate
worksheets (page 3) from the second grade sight word workbook to help monitor student
progress. For the worksheet itself, the student will again be working on the same vocabulary list
that they have used for the last three intervention sessions. The student will be asked to segment
the words—and then sort them into the premade boxes based on the shape of the letters. The
researcher will provide minimum guidance as necessary.
Schwendeman 15
Intervention Lesson #5: Conclusion/Wrap Up
For the final meeting with the subject, the researcher plans to administer the outcomebased assessment—the same Yopp-Singer assessment that was given as the initial screening.
The subject will also work on vocabulary skills while reading a grade-appropriate book. The
researcher has chosen The Paper Bag Princess by Robert Munsch for the student to read because
it is humorous and the reader has expressed an interest in “funny books.” It also is slightly above
the subject’s independent reading level so it will most likely have words that the subject is not
familiar with.
The student will not only be asked to summarize the book using the graphic organizer
(see page 16), but also will be asked to look for difficult words that they are unfamiliar with and
record them. The student will then be guided in using a student dictionary to find the definitions
of the words. It is known that the subject is familiar with alphabetizing, so the researcher does
not anticipate many difficulties in using an easy-format dictionary. The researcher will then
collect the graphic organizer for documentation purposes, along with the Yopp-Singer
assessment to be used as the outcome based assessment.
Schwendeman 16
Parent/Teacher Letter Explaining Plan of Action
Fall/Winter 2011
Dear Educator and Parents,
I feel much honored to be able to work with your child/student this
semester and hopefully will be able to help her improve her reading skills and
confidence. Initially, my target for this intervention was to improve her
comprehension—however, after further research and talking with the classroom
teacher and my cooperating professor, I have decided to focus on decoding
unknown words and vocabulary development. I feel that focusing on vocabulary
skills will help build your student’s reading skills (specifically decoding) and
therefore will also affect her comprehension in a positive manner.
My goal is to make your child/student feel special and give individualized
attention that cannot be given to each student in a class as large as this year’s. I
want the student to have fun and enjoy working on reading skills, to encourage a
love of reading and life-long learning. I myself am an avid reader and I hope to
share my love of reading with your child/student! Reading is a life skill that all
children need to gain, but can also be a favorite hobby and source of enjoyment for
many students.
I hope your child/student will share the lessons that we work on together
with you, but if she does not or you have additional comments or questions, please
do not hesitate to ask me. I am available by phone (574-253-3331) or preferably,
email (alschwendeman@spartans.manchester.edu). I look forward to sharing this
special time with your child/student and would like to share all that we do with you
as well!
Thank you again for allowing your child/student’s participation in this study,
Abby Schwendeman
Schwendeman 17
Kidspiration Software Web/Graphic Organizer
WORD: ________________
WORD: ________________
DEFINITION/MEANING:
DEFINITION/MEANING:
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
__________________________
______________________
__________________________
______________________
The Paper Bag
Princess
WORD: ________________
WORD: ________________
By: Robert Munsch
DEFINITION/MEANING:
DEFINITION/MEANING:
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
__________________________
______________________
__________________________
______________________
SUMMARY:
Schwendeman 18
PHASE III:
Reflection on “Intervention Lesson #1: Segmenting Words”
The researcher first had the student complete the Yopp-Singer assessment to check for
phonemic awareness, before engaging the student in the vocabulary activity. The student
answered without hesitation during the Yopp-Singer assessment and remarked twice that “this is
easy!” The reader had great confidence and seemed to enjoy the assessment, although she did
appear slightly bored near the end of it. (Twenty-two words are a lot for a second grader to
segment!) After the assessment, the student took a short break and got a drink of water.
After the student’s break, the student was given a list of sight words that are age
appropriate (albeit on the lower level). The researcher asked the student to read the words,
segmenting them if needed to help with pronunciation. The student did so with little problems
and seemed to be relatively familiar with these words. She noted: “I learned most of these
words in first grade!” The researcher then explained that we would be working with these words
for the next few days and would be doing a variety of activities with them. The subject
expressed excitement about activities and asked if we could play games.
The researcher used this to transition into the activity planned for the day. The first
section, asking students to fill in the missing letters to form a word from the box, is similar to a
game and was presented to the reader as such. The student began to fill in random letters—
which did make words, but were not words from the word bank—so there was some correction
needed. Overall, the subject did not struggle with this section.
The second section, asking the student to choose five words from the box and then create
their own sentences, seemed a little overwhelming to the subject. She tried to bargain with the
researcher, saying “What if I write TWO sentences?” The researcher was able to verbally
Schwendeman 19
encourage the subject and the subject did complete all five sentences. The researcher allowed
the students to use their invented spellings because it encouraged the student to use segmentation
of phonemes to sound out the words. While most words are not spelled write, when sounded out,
they are plausible. The following page displays the worksheet that the subject completed during
this lesson.
Schwendeman 20
Schwendeman 21
Reflection on “Intervention Lesson #2: Choosing the Right Word”
The student was very excited to see the researcher come into the classroom today and
was pleased when she was called to work with the researcher independently. Other students
seemed jealous, which pleased the subject to no end! The subject seemed in an exceptionally
good mood and was definitely ready to work. Again the subject and the researcher reviewed the
list of sight words before completing any other activities for the day.
The researcher introduced the idea of the activities by working on “our sentence skills”
since the reader seemed to struggle with sentence-building during the last session. The subject
giggled and seemed to appreciate the extra help. She also expressed enthusiasm when she saw
that she did not have to create her own sentences—only having to choose the correct word. She
had no problems with the first challenges that she was posed with, choosing the correct word
from a list of three potential words, and a short activity dealing with alphabetization (which
seemed to just be a placeholder on the worksheet).
The subject did however run into an issue with the second activity, in which there was a
word bank. One of the sentences (number nine) had two potential answers. She was confused as
to which one to put in the blank, because both were plausible answers. The researcher’s
suggestion was to skip over that one and answer all the other questions first and then see what
word was left to fill in the blank. The subject listened to this advice and was able to see that
“play” fit in the sentence, not “come”. Overall, the subject did well with both the activities that
she c completed today. It seems that these are common activities for the second grade classroom
that she is in. The next activity planned for session three, writing her own sentences again, will
definitely stretch her more than these activities.
Schwendeman 22
Schwendeman 23
Schwendeman 24
Refection on “Intervention Lesson #3: Using Familiar Words in Sentences”
As the researcher suspected, this lesson was MUCH more of a challenge for the subject.
The researcher took the subject’s hesitancy as an opportunity to model and did a think aloud for
the student. The researcher used one of the easier pairs of words-- “run” and “not” to show how
to go about thinking of how these words connected. During part of the think aloud, the
researcher said “I’m thinking about how I am not too fond of running. So my sentence could
be… maybe… I do not like to run.” This prompted the student to write down the sentence that
was generated in the think aloud; however, they did not omit the “maybe” that the researcher had
said while buying time during the think aloud. That mistake was discussed with the student, but
was left on the worksheet to show what the student did independently.
Again, the subject was allowed to use inventive spellings because the researcher wanted
her to feel confidence and not get discouraged. The researcher also wanted to see how well the
student could independently do the activity. The subject does not have a lot of support at her
home, so most often, her homework is completed with no help. The difference between this
activity and homework however, was that the researcher then discussed the spellings and
mistakes with the student after the activity was over, instead of simply counting them wrong, as
they would have been on homework.
Schwendeman 25
Schwendeman 26
Reflection on “Intervention Lesson #4: Word Shape: Tall, Small, and Tails”
This lesson probably went the best out of all the lessons thus far, which was surprising
because it can be difficult for students to understand at times. It should be noted that the student
does show strength in mathematical and logical concepts. The subject had also done activities
similar to this one, so she knew the basic directions for the activity. She also said “This is like a
puzzle! I like puzzles!” The subject required absolutely no guidance or assistance to complete
the worksheet.
Because the subject finished the planned lesson so quickly, the subject improvised
another activity to do with the subject. The subject used a whiteboard and drew boxes of all
shapes (tall, small, and tail) and asked the subject to find words that would fit in the box. The
researcher made sure not to make the patterns too difficult or complex so that the subject would
be able to generate a word that would fit into the boxes. Some of the words that the student
came up with, filling the box patterns, are as follows: cat, dog, mall, there and on. This activity
was significantly more difficult for the subject, because it required the student to generate
words—not just select from the word banks.
The researcher is beginning to see the pattern that generation of sentences and words is
difficult for the student. While the subject is creative, she tends to be more hesitant and ask for
more assistance when there are not choices. Open-ended activities should be used to help stretch
the student and take her out of her comfort zone.
Schwendeman 27
Schwendeman 28
Reflection on “Intervention Lesson #5: Conclusion/Wrap Up”
The student was ready for the Yopp-Singer outcome assessment today and was very
pleased to see that she had improved since the beginning of the case study. She also was excited
to see that I had brought back my tote bag of books and that we would have time for “free
reading” once the book for the graphic organizer was read. The subject did a great job reading
and filling the words as she read. After reading, the researcher assisted the subject in looking up
definitions in a student dictionary. The subject was good with alphabetizing—but seemed to get
a little lost after she found the first two letters in the word. For instance, she could find the
words that started with “al” but struggled to find “almost.”
After filling out the definitions, the subject was asked to reread the story and pause where
the four challenging words were, and read the definition, to clarify the meaning of the words that
were previously unknown. She read with much greater fluency the second time around. After
the second reading, the student was asked to summarize the story. She was overwhelmed by all
the writing, so she dictated to the researcher. (Her dictation is found on the green Post-It note on
the worksheet.)
Schwendeman 29
Schwendeman 30
PHASE IV:
Impact on Student Learning
Yopp-Singer Assessment
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Yopp-Singer Assessment
Initial Screening
Midpoint Progress
Monitoring
Outcome Based
Assessment
As evidenced by the chart above, the student was able to improve their score on the
Yopp-Singer Assessment by two points throughout the course of the case study. As explained
by the attached assessment information (see pages 31-36 of this document), scores 7-16 show
that the student exhibits emergent phonemic awareness, and scores 17-22 show that the student is
considered to possess phonemic awareness. The subject moved from emergent into the lower
end of the phonemic aware category, which shows that the reader case study had a positive
impact on the student’s literacy. The researcher feels that these positive results were directly
linked to the practicing of segmenting phonemes each day before completing the vocabulary
building activities. Also, having done the test twice previously during the case study, the reader
knew what to expect for the outcome based assessment and felt better prepared.
Schwendeman 31
The improved phonemic awareness was not the only positive impact that the reader case
study seemed to have on the subject. The student also seemed to gain confidence in her reading
skills—even though she was already fairly confident before the case study. The student’s
hesitancy to participate in sentence building activities and ask for help diminished as the study
went along. The subject also expressed excitement that she was chosen above her twenty-seven
peers for the study—which evidences a boost in self-esteem and self-image.
Another notable change in the subject was her work ethic and attention span. During the
first intervention lesson, the student complained about having to write five sentences—however,
by the end of the study, she was writing eight sentences (of greater difficulty) with little
complaints or hesitancy. The instruction was designed in such a way that it built up her attention
span because it started with easier, shorter lessons and grew to be more complex and require
more attention and time to complete successfully.
Overall, the student seemed to benefit from the interventions, not only gaining literacy
skills, but also gaining self-confidence and work ethic. While there were issues with the case
study, because of student absences, it seems that it was still an effective and worthwhile activity
for the subject to participate. One may wonder, however, how the results would have looked if
the case study had gone as planned and the student did not miss so much school. The researcher
offers her opinion that the student would have had higher results had her initial plans been
followed and the case study was done in a shorter time frame—rather than spread out over a
longer period as it turned out to be.
Schwendeman 32
Schwendeman 33
Schwendeman 34
Schwendeman 35
Schwendeman 36
Schwendeman 37
Schwendeman 38
Personal Growth as a Reading Teacher
The subject was not the only individual who reaped the benefits of completing this reader
case study. The researcher also benefitted because many skills were practiced and acquired
through this experience that will help strengthen their reading instruction in future classrooms.
One of the largest growths in the researcher was increased flexibility with lessons to adapt for the
learner’s needs. When lessons did not go as planned, the researcher was able to come up with
other creative and supplemental activities to help the student comprehend the concept—rather
than being at a loss of what to do next. This shows great growth in the researcher herself from
previous semesters. The researcher also had to be flexible with the lessons because the student
missed several appointments that we had made; therefore, the researcher had to rearrange her
personal and work schedule and was often given late notice as to when the interventions could be
completed (based on the subject’s attendance). As mentioned in the background information for
the reading, the researcher had feared this would happen.
Lesson design and planning was also another area of growth for the researcher. Lesson
plans were created to not only reflect what the individual student needed to work on to meet their
case study focus goals of vocabulary development and phonemic awareness, but also to build
upon one another. The researcher moved different activities around based on how the student
preformed on the previous activities. For instance, the student struggled with generating original
and creative sentences, so the researcher took an extra day to practice the skill and provided
scaffolding when necessary by having multiple activities of varying difficulty for the student to
complete. In implementing the lesson plans, the researcher was able to do so with less
dependency on written lesson plans. The researcher was barely glancing at them by the end of
Schwendeman 39
the interventions—which seems to indicate good lesson planning because the flow was so natural
that the researcher did not need reminders or clues as to what was to be completed next.
A goal that the researcher has developed in regards to future reading instruction is to be
able to be as effective of a reading teacher in a larger group as she was in this one-on-one
situation. One strategy that the researcher plans on using to accomplish this goal is to plan oneon-one conferences with students so that they are able to receive individualized attention (as the
subject did during this case study) and the teacher will be able to develop her curriculum to
better suit the individual needs of her students. It is this assessment-driven instruction that will
benefit her future instruction the most.
Schwendeman 40
References
Gentry, J. Richard. "You Can Analyze Developmental Spelling…” Louisiana.gov. Web. 2 Oct.
2011.<http://sda.doe.louisiana.gov/ResourceFiles/Literacy%20Assessments/Monster%20
Test.pdf>.
"Instructional Strategies Online - Cloze Procedure." Online Learning Centre. Web. 10 Oct. 2011.
<http://olc.spsd.sk.ca/de/pd/instr/strats/cloze/index.html>.
“Overview - Accelerated Reader." Renaissance Learning - Advanced Technology for DataDriven Schools. Web. 10 Dec. 2011. <http://www.renlearn.com/ar/overview/>.
"Rigby Reading Evaluation and Diagnostic System [READS] Intervention." Rigby. Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt. Web. 2 Oct. 2011. <http://rigby.hmhco.com/en/reads_int.htm>.
"Running Records - Information on Running Records and How to Administer Them." Busy
Teacher's Cafe - A K-6 Site for Busy Teachers like You! Web. 02 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.busyteacherscafe.com/literacy/running_records.html>.
Sight Words for Older Students. Scottsdale, AZ: Remedia Publications, 2000. Print.