Pfeiffer_x51_CaseStudyRevised

1
Running head: Pfeiffer_X51_CaseStudy
Reading/Language Instruction Case Study (ELL)
By Evan Pfeiffer
Case Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the ESL Dual
Endorsement Program and Masters of Education in Secondary History Education
William and Mary School of Education
Language Development and Reading Instruction for Exceptional Students, X51
Submitted on December 10, 2015

2
Table of Contents
Summarized Table of Performance - - - - 3
Objectives- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -4
Findings and Lesson Plans- - - - - - - - - - -5
Concept of Print- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6
Phonological and Phoneme Awareness- - 6
Phonics - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8
Vocabulary- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12
Fluency - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -17
Comprehension - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -20
Final Reflections - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 24
References - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -25
*Note: Rob is a pseudonym so as to protect the privacy of the student.

3
Summarized Table of Performance
Strengths Weaknesses Area Assessed
Concept of Print – 12/13 Concept of Print
Cool Tools Informal Reading Assessment-Kindergarten Inventory Phonological and Phoneme
Awareness
Rhyme Identification 3/3
Rhyme Production 1/3
Syllable Blending 3/3
Syllable Segmentation 3/3
Phoneme Isolation 3/3
Cool Tools Informal Reading Phonics Assessment Phonics
Capital Letter Names 26/26
Lowercase Letter names 19/21
Consonant Sounds 16/21
Consonant Digraphs 1/5
Vowel Sounds 2/5
Short Vowel Sounds 2/5
Short Vowel Sounds with
Consonant Digraphs 0/5 *stopped
administering after next two sections
were 0/5
QRI-5 Pre-Primer I Wordlist Word Recognition
Frustration level 10/17, 58%
Dolch Sight Word Pre-Primer Wordlist Word Recognition
Frustration level, 18/40, 48%
Abecedarian Reading Assessment (K) Vocabulary
Production 4/10
Antonyms 4/10
Synonyms 5/10
Core Oral Reading Fluency Assignment (ORF) Fluency

4
Median WCPM – 9, below the 50th % of 23 WCPM for Winter of 1st
Grade. *Rob is in kindergarten in the fall, so accurate comparison to norms
cannot be made
QRI-5 Listening Comprehension Subtest *Listening, not reading,
because Rob scored in the frustration range on the Pre-Primer I QRI-5
Wordlist
Retell and Listening Comprehension
Concept Questions, 7/12, Familiar
Accuracy, Fluency/Rate, WCPM= N/A – listening comprehension
Prosody, score of 1
Retell Checklist, 12/12
Comprehension Questions (all
explicit) 3/5, Frustration level
Objectives
Phonological Awareness (not focus objective) After being read a list of 10 one-syllable words,
Rob will verbally produce a rhyming word for
each one (real or nonsense), scoring at least 8
out of 10 correct as measured by the teacher,
using a teacher-made assessment, by the end of
January (assuming instruction begins at the
beginning of the month).
Phonics (Measureable Objective #1) Rob will verbally identify and pronounce a list
of 10 short vowel one-syllable words that do
not have more than 3 phonemes, scoring at least
8 out of 10 correct as measured by the teacher,
March (assuming instruction begins at the
beginning of February).

5
Vocabulary (Measurable Objective #2) Rob will verbally identify and pronounce a list
of 40 sight words from the Dolch Pre-Primer
Word List, scoring at least 32/40 (80%) correct
as measured by the teacher, using the Dolch
Pre-Primer Sight Word Asssessment, by the end
of May (assuming instruction begins at the
beginning of April).
Fluency (not focus objective, considered a
“down-the-road objective”)
In a timed, one minute assessment, Rob will
read a grade-level narrative passage out loud
that consists of approximately 50 words,
scoring at least plus or minus 10 words correct
per minute of the 50th percentile (23) for
children in first grade during the winter, using a
teacher-made assessment, by the end of the
winter marking period in first grade.
Comprehension (not focus objective,
considered a “down-the-road objective”)
After listening to a grade level narrative story
(or reading, if he is able, depending on his sight
word vocabulary knowledge), Rob will
correctly verbally identify, 4 out of 5 times and
measured by the teacher, the main elements of
the story, including the setting, characters, plot
(including conflict and resolution), and theme,
the spring marking period in first grade.
Findings and Corresponding Lesson Plans Matched to Objective (When Applicable)
Over the course of approximately eight weeks, I worked with a 5-year old ESL
kindergarten student named Rob and assessed his reading and language skills. Rob is a fun,
energetic, hardworking student, and he was a pleasure to get to know during our time
together! Overall, after administering various reading and language assessments (see table
above), I would place Rob at the pre-reading stage, or Stage 0, according to Chall’s Stages of

6
Reading Development. Rob has relatively strong phonological and phonemic awareness, and
for the most part, knows his letter names and sounds. He can also identify some simple
sight words, and often attends to initial and final consonant sounds. However, he lacks the
ability to “use skill and insight to ‘sound out’ new one syllable words” and “to read simple
text consistently” (Stage 1 of Chall’s Stages of Reading Development). Moreover, his reading
struggles begin within phonics, specifically when trying to distinguish between long and
short vowels (the content between the initial and final sounds). For example, on the Cool
Tools Phonics Assignment, Rob said “hut” for hit, “mut” for mat, “turp” for trip, “ders” for
dress, and “kwup” for keep.” This pattern would remain consistent through his other
assessments (e.g. on the Core Oral Reading Fluency Assessment – “am” for name, “bog” for
big, “has” for his, and “plawn” for plan).
According to the National Reading Panel, the five components of an effective reading
program are supposed to be developed in the following order: phonemic and phonological
awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension (National Reading Panel,
2000, as cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). Therefore, the two measurable
objectives and prescriptive lesson plans within this report begin to focus instruction in
phonics, the first component or level where Rob’s reading skills need attention. Explicit,
systematic phonics instruction is important, as research indicates that it leads to a
significant increase in the reading and spelling ability of kindergartners and students in
first grade. I have also included a measurable objective and detailed lesson plan that
addresses vocabulary, specifically sight word recognition. One of the most effective ways to
improve reading skills is through practice and exposure. If Rob is able to increase his sight
word recognition, he will have access to many more leveled texts and readings. I have also
included objectives that address improving Rob’s rhyme production (a component of
phonological awareness), as well as his fluency and comprehension (these are long term
goals, as he would need to first master phonemic/phonological awareness, phonics, and
vocabulary).
Lastly, it is important to consider Rob’s status as an ESL student while assessing his
reading development. The language acquisition process may be a factor in some of the
observed delays in language and reading. However, after talking to his teacher and
observing him during assessments and in the classroom, I believe that Rob’s status as an

7
English language learner does not seriously affect his academic or social performance.
Moreover, upon referencing the Language Learning Checklist for Language Difficulties, I
have not identified any glaring deficits or behavioral problems. In the classroom and on the
playground, Rob is an enthusiastic, energetic participant. He frequently raises his hand to
answer questions, is engaged in activities, and socializes with his peers. I was also afforded
the opportunity to speak with Rob’s parents, who gave me some insight into his language
skills. While Rob’s first language is Japanese, his parents say that they struggle to get him to
keep practicing and speaking Japanese at home.
Concept of Print – measured using an assessment based on research by Clay (2000).
On October 7, 2015, I administered the Concept of Print Assessment (Clay, 2000).
Concept of print refers to the understanding of the forms and functions of printed language,
including how to use a book properly. Rob completed this fairly easily and scored a 12/13.
The only mistake he made occurred when I asked him to “show me one letter” using two
strips of paper. He showed me a word instead. When I asked him to show the subsequent
sections, however (word, first letter, last letter), he was able to do that correctly. When I
asked him what a period was, he called it a circle and made the shape with his arms. I asked
him what it was used for, and he said, “the end.” I counted this as correct because he knew
the general concept of what it was. Then I told him it was called a “period.”
Phonological and Phoneme Awareness – measured using the Cool Tools Informal
Reading Assessment – Kindergarten Inventory
On October 7, 2015, I assessed Rob’s phonological and phonemic awareness.
Phonological awareness refers to the understanding that words are made of sounds.
Phonemic awareness refers to the ability to identify and manipulate phonemes, or the
individual sounds, in spoken words. Overall, Rob did well - his performance is summarized
in the table above. The one area that Rob does struggle in is rhyme production. He scored a
1/3, and when I administered the additional words, he scored a 2/10. For the words he got
incorrect (the majority), Rob either said he did not know a word that rhymed at all, or he
said a word that started with the same letter. Again, this indicates that Rob can attend to

8
initial consonant sounds, but not vowel sounds. Therefore, I think we should focus on the
3rd developmental level of phonological awareness – the onset-rime division stage.
Phonological Awareness (not focus objective) After being read a list of 10 one-syllable words,
Rob will verbally produce a rhyming word for
each one (real or nonsense), scoring at least 8
out of 10 correct as measured by the teacher,
January (assuming instruction begins at the
beginning of the month).
There are many ways to reach the objective listed above. Lesson plans designed to
improve rhyme production should include fun activities. For example, the Core Teaching
Reading Sourcebook (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013) describes a rhyming game called
the “Hungry Thing.” In this game, students are asked to feed the Hungry Thing (a volunteer
student). The student designated as the Hungry Thing is given a card with a nonsense word
on it, while the rest of the students are given large cards with pictures of food on it. The
students with the cards have to choose the word that rhymes with the nonsense words in
order to feed the Hungry Thing. For example, the Hungry Thing could say, “Pilk,” and the
student who has the “milk” card would “feed” the Hungry Thing. The student with the
“milk” card would “feed” the Hungry Thing by saying out loud, “Pilk rhymes with milk.”
Another activity you could incorporate is detailed in Phonemic Awareness for
Children (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998). Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, &
Beeler (1998) describe an interactive game that would be great for kindergarteners like
Rob. The teacher would take a small ball and sit the kids in a circle. Then the teacher would
say a word and gently toss the ball to a child. The child has to catch the ball and say a word
that rhymes with the word the teacher said. After producing a rhyming word, the child
would toss the ball back to the teacher, who would catch it, say another word, and pass the
ball along again.
One activity that would specifically focus on blending onsets and rimes to make
words is an Onset and Rime Slide (“Onset/Rime Games,” n.d.). Each student would be
handed a small strip of paper that has a series of spaced-out onsets (e.g. b, d, sh, tr, fl) and a

9
small paper window with a rime on it (e.g. ag). The student would then slide the rime
window down the strip of paper, making a new word each time (e.g. bag, dag, shag, trag,
flag). The student would be asked by the teacher to read the word out loud. Lastly, the
student would be asked to tell the teacher whether the created word is a real word or a
nonsense word.
Differentiation: Rob may require extra scaffolding during the activities because he
is an English language learner. For instance, in the Hungry Thing game, the teacher might
want to write the name of the object on the cards with the pictures. For the circle/ball
game, the teacher might provide Rob with a small list of words to choose from that includes
words that rhyme and ones that do not. For the Onset/Rime Slide, the teacher may assist
Rob in pronouncing the onsets that are digraphs and blends.
Progress Monitoring: Research indicates that roughly two years of phonics
instruction is generally enough for most students, though Rob is an English language
learner, so his development may differ (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). Pacing of
instruction will be adjusted depending on how each individual student responds. If Rob
struggles to meet the objective, onset/rime instruction and the use of nonsense words can
be increased. Nonsense words should be included in all lessons, because students have to
actually decode words phonetically instead of memorizing them (Honig, Diamond, &
Gutlohn, 2013). Tools like AIMsweb Test of Early Literacy, DIBELS Next, and easyCBM can be
used to monitor phonics progress (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
Phonics – measured using the Cool Tools Informal Reading Phonics Assessment
On October 14, 2015, I assessed Rob’s phonics skills using the Cool Tools Informal
Reading Phonics Assessment. His performance is summarized in the table at the beginning of
this study. Aside from his capital letters, lowercase letters, and consonant sounds, Rob’s
knowledge of phonics is not well developed. As mentioned earlier, the most obvious deficit
in his phonics development is short/long vowel confusion (e.g. “fud” instead of fade,
“kwup” instead of keep, “mut” instead of mat). According to Chall and Popp (1996), phonics
instruction should begin first with a focus on single consonants and short vowels (Chall and
Popp, 1996, as cited by Ramer, 2015) Therefore, the following objective and lesson plan is
designed to improve Rob’s knowledge of short vowels (instruction in consonant digraphs,

10
long vowels, r-controlled vowels, silent consonants, vowel teams, and exceptions and
diphthongs would follow, in that order), especially because he still gets confused just
within that category (e.g. “hut” for hit, “mut” for mat, “ut” for let – he seems to insert the
“uh” sound for most vowels).
Phonics (Measureable Objective #1) Rob will verbally identify and pronounce a list
of 10 short vowel one-syllable words that do
not have more than 3 phonemes, scoring at least
8 out of 10 correct as measured by the teacher,
March (assuming instruction begins at the
beginning of February).
LESSON
ELEMENT
LessonTopic: Phonics/Short Vowels
Student Learning Objective: The student will learn to distinguish
between the five short vowel sounds (a, e, i, o, and u)
Materials: Two word lists (hat, box, net, fish, duck) and (mat, rock, tent,
ship, pup) on a sheet of paper typed in large print, computer with audio, 5
flashcards with the short vowels, internet access to obtain Here, Clifford
(http://teacher.scholastic.com/clifford1/flash/story_3.htm)
Context for
Learning
Classroom with 1:1 instruction with student or instruction in small groups
Objectives
With the teacher, the student will work through the interactive story, Here,
Clifford, which focuses on the five short vowel sounds.
Using a teacher-made assessment, the student will verbally identify and
pronounce two, short vowel, one –syllable word lists (hat, box, net, fish,
duck, and mat, rock, tent, ship, pup) with at least 80% accuracy (4/5) on
each list by the end of the lesson, measured by the teacher, after working
through the interactive story, Here, Clifford, also with the teacher.

11
Assessment
pronounce two, short vowel, one-syllable word lists (hat, box, net, fish,
duck, and mat, rock, tent, ship, pup) with at least 80% accuracy (4/5) on
each list by the end of the lesson, measured by the teacher, after working
through the interactive story, Here, Clifford, also with the teacher.
Resources
Two word lists (hat, box, net, fish, duck) and (mat, rock, tent, ship, pup) on
a sheet of paper typed in large print, computer with audio, 5 flashcards with
the short vowels, internet access to obtain Here, Clifford
(http://teacher.scholastic.com/clifford1/flash/story_3.htm)
Modeling
Intro
1. The teacher will model for the student the 5 short vowel sounds (/a/,
/e/, /i/, /o/, /u/) according to step 2
2. The teacher will use flashcards to show the student how to
pronounce each short vowel sound by reading the cards out loud.
Each card will have a one-syllable word with a short vowel (e.g. the
card would have the word cat. The teacher would say: Cat. The
short vowel sound in the word cat is the /a/ sound). The letter “a”
makes the /a/ sound.
3. The teacher will repeat step 2 using the other four cards, which
would have the words net, tip, hop, and nut.
4. The teacher will ask the student how to pronounce the short vowel
sounds using each flashcard: What does this word say? What sound
does this vowel make?
Check for
Understanding
The student will demonstrate understanding of the five short vowel sounds
by verbally identifying the words on the flashcards and their short vowel
sounds, as described by step 4 above, to the teacher.

12
Guided Practice
After reviewing the five short vowel sounds with the student, the teacher
will go through the interactive story, Here, Clifford, with the student, using
the computer. This interactive story contains the words that the student will
need for the assessment.
1. The teacher will go to
http://teacher.scholastic.com/clifford1/flash/story_3.htm
2. The teacher will click “begin” once the module is done loading.
3. The teacher should make sure the computer’s sound is on.
4. The teacher will click the sound/microphone icon next to each of
the three lines of text on the page. The narrator will read each line.
5. The third line will contain a blank with three options for a short-
vowel word. The words on the first page will be back, hat, and mat
(the short vowel “a”).
6. The teacher will click on each word option individually and the
student will listen to the narrator read the sentence using each
chosen word.
7. Before clicking next, the teacher should ask the student to repeat
each of the three options (back, hat, mat).
8. If the student struggles or pronounces the word incorrectly, the
teacher should correct the student, emphasizing the short vowel
sound.
9. The teacher will click “next” in the bottom right hand corner.
10. The teacher will repeat steps 4-9 for the next four short vowel
sounds.
Independent
Practice
After the student completes the interactive story module with the teacher,
the teacher will ask the student to produce five words, one that uses each of
the five short vowel sounds:
Can you please tell me a word that has the short vowel sound___?
Wrap-up
The teacher will tell the student: Vowels have short sounds and long
sounds. Today we learned their short sounds. Later, we will learn their long
sounds.

13
Differentiation
Because Rob is an ESL student, the flashcards could have a picture of the
object on it as well for extra scaffolding. The intro portion may need to be
repeated several times. During the independent practice, a list of word
options may be provided for Rob to choose from. During the assessment,
the teacher may assist the student with words that contain digraphs and
blends.
Adaptations See Differentiation Above
Progress Monitoring: Research indicates that phonics instruction is the most
efficient way to teach students the alphabetic principle (National Reading Panel, 2000, as
cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). Systematic, explicit phonics instruction is
critical for fluent reading and writing, and thus needs to be implemented as early as
kindergarten (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). According to the National Reading Panel,
early phonics instruction is especially important for ELL students like Rob, for research
shows that phonics instruction helps to reduce problems in reading for beginners at risk
(National Reading Panel, 2000, as cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). As mentioned
earlier, the rate of phonics development depends on the individual – there is no perfect
pace for addressing sounds or spellings (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). However,
Carnine et al. (2006) found that introducing a new sound or letter every few days is
effective for students who have a beginning knowledge of phonics (as cited in Honig,
Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). Progress monitoring tools could include AIMsweb Test of Early
Literacy, DIBELS Next, easyCBM, DRA 1 and 2, and PALS (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
Vocabulary and Sight Word Recognition – measured using the QRI-5 Pre-Primer I
Wordlist, the Dolch Sight Word Pre-Primer Wordlist, and the Abecedarian Reading
Assignment (K).
On October 21st and 28th, 2015, I assessed Rob’s sight word recognition using the
QRI-5 Pre-Primer I Wordlist and the Dolch Sight Word Pre-Primer Wordlist. I also assessed
his word production and synonym/antonym knowledge using the Abecedarian Reading
Assignment (K).

14
Rob struggled with all three measures. He scored in the frustration range on both the QRI-5
and Dolch sight word assessments, with 58% and 48% correct, respectively. On both of
these sight word lists, Rob continued to confuse his vowel sounds while attending to the
initial and final consonants. For example, on the QRI-5, he said “ut” instead of “at,” “wut”
instead of “with,” “in” instead of “on,” and “ha” instead of “he.” On the Dolch, some of his
mistakes included “bug” instead of “big,” “frind” instead of “find,” “hop” instead of “help,”
and “net” instead of “not.” Furthermore, when he sees a vowel at the end of a word, Rob
assumes it makes the long letter sound (e.g. he knew “go,” but turned “to” into “toe,” and
“two” into “towoah.” So, Rob needs help distinguishing between the two vowel sounds
(long and short). According to Chall and Popp (1996), short vowel sounds should be
targeted before long vowel sounds, which is why the previous objective focused on the
former (Chall and Popp, 1996, as cited by Ramer, 2015).
Rob’s scores on the Abecedarian Reading Assessment (K) are summarized in the
chart at the beginning of this study. Overall, he scored in the “did not pass/needs
remediation” category for the word production, antonym, and synonym sections. During
the production section, if Rob knew the word, he would stand up and act it out. This was a
lot of fun for me to administer. For example, for “soup,” he brought an imaginary bowl of
soup to his mouth and said, “You drink it!” For the word bath, he stood up and began
pretending he was taking a shower, laughing while he used imaginary soup. This was
hilarious and we both had a lot of fun with this. However, he only knew four of the words.
In addition to soup and bath, Rob knew wiggle and bubble. The pattern here seems to be
that Rob knew words that young children would most naturally come across. For instance,
children will drink or eat soup, take baths/showers, play with bubbles, and generally move
around and wiggle and play. Words such as blush, frost, and beast are more advanced,
though it is surprising that Rob did not know what chop or whistle meant.
This pattern, of knowing the basic words that a kindergartner would come across
most frequently, also held true for the antonym section. For example, Rob knew that
“sweet” was the opposite of “sour,” that “loud” was the opposite of “quiet,” that “hot” was
the opposite of “cold,” and that “nice” was the opposite of mean.” There was a different
pattern for his mistakes in this section. In each case of a mistake, he either gave the
synonym option or gave the word that started with the same letter as the prompt word

15
(out of three choices). For example, he said “shout” as the opposite of “yell” (synonym),
“tell” as the opposite of “truth” (same initial consonant), “ring” as the opposite of circle”
(synonym), “find” as the opposite of “follow” (same initial consonant), and “smart” as the
opposite of “small” (same initial consonant letter). Though he does not seem to understand
what an antonym is, this does show that Rob can identify similar initial consonant sounds.
For the synonym section, Rob’s correct answers and mistakes did not seem to follow
an identifiable pattern. He knew feel, bake, present, road, and ship as the synonyms, but he
did not know pony, jet, throw, tear, and listen. His mistakes were not consistent – he said
”cow” instead of “pony,” “rocket” instead of “jet,” “catch” instead of “throw” (he gave an
antonym), “bring” instead of “tear,” and “look” instead of “listen.”
Given these results across the three assessments, I think that improving Rob’s sight
word knowledge is of the paramount importance. Vocabulary is acquired indirectly
through exposure to words, and explicitly, through instruction (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn,
2013). Because Rob is an ESL learner, he is considered to be “more at risk” regarding his
vocabulary knowledge (Calderon et al., 2005, as cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
Biemiller (2005) approximates that the students who have smaller, impoverished
vocabularies will only acquire about 1.6 root words per day, compared to average students,
who acquire roughly 2.4 words per day (as cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
Furthermore, educators need to immerse their students in language by surrounding them
with a word-rich environment and supporting them in their reading endeavors. The more
sight-words Rob learns, the more tools he will have to read beginning texts. The acquisition
of sight words is particularly critical for early reading development because they are of
high frequency, and are often difficult to sound out. Therefore, the following objective
focuses on strengthening Rob’s knowledge of the forty commonly used words on the Dolch
Pre-Primer word list.

16
Vocabulary (Measurable Objective #2) Rob will verbally identify and pronounce a list
of 40 sight words from the Dolch Pre-Primer
Word List, scoring at least 32/40 (80%) correct
as measured by the teacher, using the Dolch
Pre-Primer Sight Word Asssessment, by the end
of May (assuming instruction begins at the
beginning of April). *
* Research indicates that about 10 words per week can be taught directly (Honig, Diamond,
& Gutlohn, 2013). This objective would cover 40 words over the span of 8 weeks, or
roughly 5 words per week. This is a slightly slower pace, though may be appropriate, as
Rob is an ESL learner).
LESSON
ELEMENT
LessonTopic: Sight Word Recognition
Student Learning Objective: The student will learn to verbally identify
and pronounce the first five words on the Dolch Pre-Primer Word List (a,
and, away, big, blue).
Materials: magnetic white board, whiteboard marker, 5 magnets, 5 sheets
of paper with one sight word written on each of them in large writing (a,
and, away, big, blue), a piece of paper with a list of the 5 sight words typed
in large print, 5 3x5 notecards, and a pack of crayons.
Context for
Learning
Classroom with 1:1 instruction with student or instruction in small groups

17
Objectives
With the teacher, the student will learn how to verbally identify and
pronounce the first 5 words from the Dolch Pre-Primer Word List (a, and,
away, big, blue), and create his own set of sight word notecards.
away, big, blue) with at least 80% accuracy (4/5) by the end of the lesson,
measured by the teacher.
Assessment
away, big, blue) with at least 80% accuracy (4/5) by the end of the lesson,
measured by the teacher.
Resources
A magnetic white board, whiteboard marker, pencil, 5 magnets, 5 sheets of
paper with one sight word written on each of them in large writing (a, and,
away, big, blue), a piece of paper with a list of the 5 sight words typed in
large print, 5 3x5 notecards, and a pack of crayons.

18
Modeling
Intro
1. The teacher will hand out 5 3x5 notecards to the student.
2. The teacher will attach the first Dolch word (a) on the sheet of
paper to the board using a magnet.
3. The teacher will ask the student to spell out the word on the
front of the notecard: Please look at the board and spell out the
word ____ on the front of your notecard
4. The teacher will assist the student if he needs help writing the
word on the notecard.
5. The teacher will ask the student to pick three colored crayons
and write the word again three times on the back of the card:
Please pick out three colored crayons. Then, write the word
____ three times on the back of your notecard using each of the
colors.
6. The teacher will ask the student if he knows the word or the
sounds in the word: Do you know how to say this word? Do you
know any of the sounds in the word?
7. The teacher will correct the student if necessary and will read
the word out loud for the student: This is the word ___.
8. The teacher will demonstrate how to use the word in two
sentences (e.g. the teacher will say: I have a pencil. I have a
car).
9. The teacher will ask the student to say the word out loud again:
Can you please read this word out loud?
10. The teacher will repeat steps 2-9 for the remaining 4 Dolch
words.
Check for
Understanding
The student will demonstrate recognition of the five Dolch words by
verbally identifying each word. The teacher will point to each word on the
board and say: Please read this word out loud.

19
Guided Practice
1. The teacher will place the student’s 5 notecards on the desk with the
side with the single word face up.
2. The teacher will say a word at random (NOT in the order they are
placed on the desk).
3. The teacher will ask the student to place his index finger on the
correct word: Can you please place your finger (demonstrate with
own finger) on the word I just said?
4. The teacher will assist the student if the student does this incorrectly
or needs help.
5. The teacher will ask the student to say the word out loud: Can you
please say the word you touching out loud?
6. The teacher will repeat steps 2-4 for the remaining 4 words.
Independent
Practice
1. The teacher will place the student’s 5 notecards on the desk with the
side with the single word face up.
2. The teacher will ask the student to choose a notecard: Please choose
a notecard.
3. The teacher will ask the student to say the word the student has
picked out loud: Please read the word on the card out loud.
4. The teacher will check to see if the word the student says is correct.
5. If the word is not correct, the teacher will correct the student and
say the word out loud.
6. The teacher will repeat steps 2-5 for the remaining 4 words.
Wrap-up
The teacher will tell the student: Today you have learned 5 important
words. Some of them are hard to sound out. You will use them a lot. We
will learn more words like these over the next couple of weeks.

20
Differentiation
Because Rob is an ESL learner, it is possible he may not understand what
the target words mean (definition of the words/usage), even though they are
basic words designed for the pre-primer level (Rob is in kindergarten).
This lesson and objective focuses on sight word recognition, not sight word
understanding/comprehension. This lesson could be modified to support
ELL learners who do not have an understanding of what the words mean or
represent. For example, the teacher could include large color pictures that
demonstrate the meaning of the words in the lesson.
While doing this, the teacher would need to make the meaning of the word
clear in the pictures, even if the word is more abstract (e.g. away) as
opposed to concrete. Also, research suggests that strategies for teaching or
explaining words for English language learners should depend on the utility
of a word (categorized by Tiers 1-3). The utility is partially determined by
how frequently the word is used and comes up in language (Calderon et al.,
2005, as cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
Another common strategy for teaching vocabulary to English language
learners is using cognates from the first language to help demonstrate the
meaning (Calderon et al., 2005, as cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn,
2013).
Adaptations See Differentiation above
Progress Monitoring: Monitoring the progress of vocabulary acquisition is
important, especially for ESL learners like Rob, who are at a higher risk of suffering from an
impoverished vocabulary. While research indicates that roughly 2 words per day can be
taught directly to most students, complementary studies reveal that the students who are
in the lowest quartile in terms of vocabulary knowledge may need to learn up to 3.5 to 4
words per school day (Biemiller, 2003, as cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
However, this gap can be closed through effective, explicit vocabulary instruction and an
increase in exposure to words (including reading and being read to often), combined with

21
diligent screening and progress monitoring. Some assessment tools include the CORE
Literacy Library, the Assessing Reading: Multiple Measures, 2nd Edition, the Core Vocabulary
Screening, easyCBM, and the Expressive and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Tests
(Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
Fluency - measured using the Core Oral Reading Fluency Assessment (ORF) and Prosody
Assessment
On November 4, 2015, I assessed Rob’s reading fluency using the Core Oral Reading
Fluency Assessment (ORF) and three short, leveled, kindergarten passages, titled Bob, Max,
and Jan (Wilson, n.d.). I also measured Rob’s prosody, a component of fluency, using the
short story, I See, from the QRI-5. Prosody refers to the “rhythmic and tonal aspects of
speech” (Hudson et al., 2005, as cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
On the Prosody Assessment, Rob scored a 1 out of 3. In order to measure his prosody,
which includes pitch, stress patterns, pauses, inflection, and punctuation cues, I gave him
the passage, I See, from the QRI-5 to read. He struggled to read it smoothly, and his errors
interfered with the rhythm, and ultimately, the meaning/syntax of the passage. Because
Rob has trouble decoding words phonetically and relies on a small knowledge of sight
words, his reading is a word-by-word process. Furthermore, there is no change in his tone
or inflection while he reads.
There are several ways we can work to improve a student’s prosody. According to
Honig et al. (2013), we can use oral models of fluent reading in order to help students
understand the relationships between prosody and the meaning of the text. It is important
that young children like Rob have the frequent opportunity to practice reading out loud
after watching a teacher model how to properly read text. Chunking is another specific way
we can help teach prosody. Chunking refers to the practice of reading text by separating
phrases, clauses, and sentences into smaller pieces (Instructional Activities to Increase
Reading, n.d.). For instance, the teacher could write an example sentence on the board and
model how to divide the sentence into phrases, writing slash marks where the student
should pause or take a breath. Then, the teacher could read out loud, demonstrating the
pauses orally. After watching and listening, the students should practice speaking the
sentence out loud.

22
It is difficult to summarize Rob’s strengths and weaknesses on the ORF fluency
assessment. According to the Oral Reading Fluency Norms Chart (Hasbrouck and Tindal,
2005), we only begin to keep track of WCPM/fluency scores for children beginning in the
winter of first grade. Students are considered to be meeting grade level expectations if they
are plus or minus 10 WCPM of the 50th percentile in comparison to the norms chart
(Ramer, 2015). Rob’s median score was 9 WCPM, far below the 50th percentile of 23
WCPM for winter of first grade.
However, Rob is currently a kindergartener in the fall, so we cannot make an accurate
comparison at this time. He is also an ESL student, so it is likely his fluency is delayed partly
because of the language acquisition process.
However, fluency is “a critical component of learning to read,” and therefore must
be included in any effective reading program (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013, p. 321).
Moreover, it is considered a “bridge,” and allows a reader to advance beyond decoding to
comprehension (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013, p. 321). While we cannot compare
Rob’s ORF scores to norms for his grade (K), his accuracy, rate, and prosody, the three
components of fluency, need to be targeted. This is heightened by the fact that he is an ESL
student.
Fluency (not focus objective, considered a
“down-the-road objective”)
In a timed, one minute assessment, Rob will
verbally identify and pronounce a grade-level
narrative passage that consists of approximately
50 words, scoring at least plus or minus 10
words correct per minute of the 50th percentile
(23) for children in first grade during the
winter, using a teacher-made assessment, by the
end of the winter marking period in first grade.
Ways to improve prosody have already been outlined above. Accuracy is the second
component of fluency, and requires “a deep understanding of the alphabetic principle . . .
the ability to blend sounds into words . . . and . . . knowledge of a large number of high
frequency words” (Ehri & McCormick, 1998, as cited in Honig et al., 2013, p. 322). One way
we can improve blending skills is by using Elkonin boxes (Elkonin Boxes, n.d.). An Elkonin

23
box is a rectangle divided into smaller boxes. There is one box for each phoneme. For
example, the word “sheep” will use an Elkonin box with three smaller boxes, one for /sh/,
one for /ee/, and one for /p/. Although most of a student’s vocabulary will be acquired
incidentally through every day interactions in and out of the classroom (Honig, Diamond, &
Gutlohn, 2013), he or she should still continue to receive direct, explicit, and continual
instruction for word and vocabulary learning. We need to assess vocabulary
comprehension weekly. Children can improve their sight word knowledge by being read to
frequently, interacting with plenty of literature (authentic and contrived), using
dictionaries, or playing games, like Sight Word Bingo (Sight Word Bingo, n.d.).
Most of the techniques listed above will also increase a reader’s rate (the third
component of fluency), because “in order to read at a fluent rate, a reader must be able to
read a great number of the words with automaticity” (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013, p.
322). Automaticity will increase as one’s sight word vocabulary increases as well. An
additional activity you could use to improve automaticity and fluency as a whole, is
repeated/deep reading – having students read the same passage over and over, focusing on
words per minute (Hasbrouck, 2012). According to Murray (Developing Reading Fluency,
n.d.), “over repeated readings, speed in WPM will increase and errors will decrease.”
Differentiation: Some modifications might be necessary during fluency instruction
because Rob is an English language learner. The 50th percentile norms may have to be
lowered slightly because it is likely he will not be able to read as fluently as children who
are native speakers. Also, the passages (authentic and contrived) he reads to practice his
fluency may not be grade level. They may have to be adjusted to a lower level in order to
accommodate the language acquisition process.
Progress Monitoring: Fluency instruction, accompanied with feedback, should
occur several times a week for up to roughly half an hour in order to see progress
(Hasbrouck, 2012). Rob is a kindergartner, so it is not necessary to formally monitor his
progress. Instead, we should provide him with daily opportunities to hear fluently read text
that is rich in expression (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). However, for older students
beginning in the first grade, we can use assessments such as the DIBELS Next, the Dibels
Oral Reading Fluency (DORF), the AIMSweb Reading Curriculum Based Measurement (R-
CBM), the Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF), the Core Literacy Library, and

24
the easyCBM for fluency screening and progress monitoring (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn,
2013). It is also helpful to monitor progress visually. We can plot data points on a graph
and construct a baseline, as well as an AIM line, in order to show the amount of required
growth needed to reach a target ORF score. Instructions on how to do this can be found on
page 346 in the Teaching Reading Sourcebook (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
Comprehension - measured using the QRI-5 Comprehension Subtest and a comprehension
checklist that I made for two stories administered through read-alouds.
On November 4th and 24th, 2015, I measured Rob’s listening comprehension skills
using two separate assessments. The first was the QRI-5 Comprehension Subtest, and the
second was a series of two comprehension checklists that I made and used for two read-
alouds. In both assessments, I measured Rob’s listening comprehension, not reading
comprehension, because Rob scored in the frustration range on the Pre-Primer I QRI-5
Wordlist. In order to administer the QRI-5 Comprehension Subtest, I read him the story, I
Can, from the QRI-5. The two checklists were paired with two children’s books - Down on
the Funny Farm (King, 1986), and How I Became a Pirate (Long, 2003) – that I read to Rob.
As I read the second story, How I Became a Pirate (Long, 2003), I implemented a story
grammar as a narrative text instructional strategy.
On the QRI-5 Comprehension Subtest, Rob scored in the familiar range (7/12) on the
concept questions that I asked before reading the story. For most of the concepts, he
physically acted them out (e.g. When I asked him what sleep meant, he put his hands
together under his head). After listening to the story, Rob scored a 12/12 on the retell
questions, and he told me almost all of the phrases in order, too! This is great, and
demonstrates careful listening, as well as memory/recall skills. Oddly enough, he only
scored 3/5 (frustration range) on the comprehension questions. On the questions that Rob
got incorrect, he gave implicit, or related/associated phrases, instead of explicit (required)
answers. For example, for “what can the boy in the library do,” Rob answered, “be quiet.”
This was actually correct, but was not the explicit answer the test was looking for.
However, this does show that Rob understands/comprehends the question at least (this is
important to take note of, as he is an ESL student).

25
Using Down on the Funny Farm (King, 1986) and How I Became a Pirate (Long,
2003), as well as retell checklists that I constructed for both stories, I assessed Rob’s
listening comprehension. I simply read Down on the Funny Farm (King, 1986) to Rob and
asked him to tell me as much as he remembered using the checklist. Then, I asked him
comprehension questions that I also designed to assess his recall of information he left out
during his initial retell. However, as I read How I Became a Pirate (Long, 2003), I
implemented a story grammar as a narrative text instructional strategy (While utilizing a
story grammar, I stopped periodically while reading to ask Rob questions about the setting,
characters, and events, and to highlight important information and assess his
understanding at various points). Rob’s retell for this story was slightly better, as expected.
The main difference between the two retells was Rob’s ability to describe the setting and
characters in greater detail in the second one. I think this is because we spent time
carefully going over the location and characters in the beginning using a story grammar
and story map – we did this for this for the rest of the story too, but I think Rob had become
tired by this point, which is why the story grammar may not have been as effective as it
could have been. One other possible reason the 2nd retell was only slightly better is that
How I Became a Pirate (Long, 2003) contained more detailed descriptions and difficult
vocabulary, including “pirate language” that does not follow conventional grammar rules
(particularly difficult for an ESL learner).
Using the Rubric for Story Retellings chart (Shea, n.d.), I would give Rob an overall
comprehension score between 2 and 3 on this assessment. For both read-alouds, Rob did
include most of the story elements (not all of them, though prompting did help). He did
include many accurate details – the details he was able to provide were almost always
correct, though he left out important, significant instances (ie. in Down on the Funny Farm
(King, 1986), he was unable to describe the farmer teaching the animals how to behave,
unprompted, and in How I Became a Pirate (Long, 2003), he did not describe the pirates
burying the treasure towards the end, unprompted). This is why I would hesitate to give
Rob a “full” 3.
According to our Core Reading Sourcebook (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013), I
would describe Rob’s retell ability as “more complex.” He was able to present most of the
concrete facts/story elements in sequence, though as mentioned above, he did leave out

26
some events here and there. He was also able to supply most of the information he left out
when I asked him the follow up questions. Lastly, he understood the explanations of some
cause and effect. For example, Rob knew that that in How I Became a Pirate (Long, 2003),
the pirates bring Jeremy along because they need to bury treasure and he is a good digger.
He also knew that in Down on the Funny Farm (King, 1986), the farmer buys a farm because
he does not have one.
Comprehension (not focus objective,
considered a “down-the-road objective”)
After listening to a grade level narrative story
(or reading, if he is able, depending on his sight
word vocabulary knowledge), Rob will
correctly verbally identify, 4 out of 5 times and
measured by the teacher, the main elements of
the story, including the setting, characters, plot
(including conflict and resolution), and theme,
the spring marking period in first grade.
For a beginning/emerging reader like Rob, while targeting comprehension, we
should focus on the basic story elements, including the setting, main events, characters, and
chronology (Hansen, 2004, as cited in Honig et al., 2013). We could make this process fun
by asking him to illustrate the story or draw its main ideas, supplemented with words in
summary frames.
Before students read or listen to a story, we can ask them to predict what will occur.
Joint teacher and student think-alouds and previews before a story help students predict
what will happen, focus their attention, and improve their comprehension (Honig,
Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). Predicting skills can also be improved by reading narratives
that have a predictable storyline or repetitive or parallel structure (Block and Pressley,
2003, as cited in Honig et al., 2013).
Research indicates that story grammars (the strategy that I implemented) provide
an effective framework that helps students to understand the structure of literary texts
(Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). Consistent use of a story grammar could improve Rob’s

27
ability to isolate the most important elements of a story while reading or listening. These
elements are identified in the objective above, and include the setting, characters, plot, and
overall theme. Story grammars help students simplify and consolidate input (which is
important for ESL learners), and increase understanding and comprehension.
I believe the story grammar would have been more effective for Rob, if not for the
suspected fatigue/lack of concentration. I would want to conduct a read-aloud without a
story grammar on one day, and a read-aloud with a story-grammar on a separate day, and
compare the comprehension results.
As Rob’s comprehension skills improve, the teacher could implement a greater
variety of comprehension strategies. Research suggests that the use of multiple
comprehension strategies is of the utmost importance (National Reading Panel, 2000, as
cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013, p. 623). There are countless strategies that will
improve comprehension, including question and answer relationships (QAR), directed
reading and thinking activities (DRTA), click and clunk recognition (clicks occur during
smooth reading, clunks occur when reading is impeded), frequent use of scaffolding,
including graphic organizers (such as summary frames, story maps,) prompts, cooperative
learning activities (where students help each other in small groups), picture walks
(prediction strategy where the teacher goes through the illustrations before reading to give
the student context clues), and reciprocal teaching (the teacher models discussion
technique for the students) (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). Eventually, Rob should be
encouraged to develop and use his own metacognitive strategies. Metacognition refers to a
student’s awareness of how he or she is thinking or learning about a topic, as well as the
ability to change, adapt, or modify their learning approach (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn,
2013).
Differentiation: It is important to consider Rob’s status as an English language
learner while targeting reading or listening comprehension. He may not understand certain
vocabulary words or cultural references that other native speakers would understand at
his age (5). The reading comprehension of ESL students is often hindered by a limited
proficiency in English. As such, Rob may need extra scaffolding, such as more visual help in
the form of pictures, slower, repeated readings, simple descriptions of more complex
words, etc. Also, productive skills are generally more difficult for ESL learners. It is possible

28
that Rob understands more than he is able to subsequently speak about after listening to a
story.
Furthermore, it is important to encourage the use of comprehension strategies that
ELL students have already learned during the acquisition of their first language. These
skills are useful and should be transferred to English readings and texts (Garcia, 2003, as
cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
Progress Monitoring: Comprehension instruction should begin as soon as students
begin to interact with text (RRSG, 2002, as cited in Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). As
early as pre-K, children should be immersed by reading and storybook read-alouds, which
provide vital opportunities for modeling and the implementation of comprehension
strategies. Research indicates that formal assessments of comprehension progress are not
sufficient, as they do not always measure what they are intended to measure (e.g.
vocabulary instead of comprehension, do not explain why the child is struggling, simplify
comprehension problems). These tools, such as AIMSweb, the CORE MAZE Comprehension
Test, and the STAR Reading Assessment, should therefore be complemented by informal
assessments administered by the teacher, including retellings, read-alouds, and other
discussion based activities (Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013).
Final Reflections of the Examiner on the Case Study Experiences
After conducting this case study, I feel as though I have learned a great deal about
the essential components of reading and language development. Each of the five
components (phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension) was
clearly broken down into individual assessments that, for the most part, provided valuable
insight into Rob’s language and reading skills. Although I wish to become a social studies
teacher in a secondary school, this study was a valuable experience for me. I am also in the
process of completing an ESL program of studies to obtain my licensure in TESOL
instruction. This project gave me the opportunity to apply what I have learned in other
classes to a new context – specifically, I have combined my knowledge of language
acquisition with what I have learned about reading and language development.
It was a privilege to work with Rob and his teacher over the course of the semester.
He is an energetic, funny, hardworking student. I do wish that I could continue this study in

29
order to expand upon what I have gathered regarding his development. While the
assessments that I administered to Rob did highlight his reading and language deficits, they
did not provide the opportunity to address them. That is what this prescriptive case study
is designed for. Nevertheless, I wish this project had provided the opportunity for actual
intervention. Furthermore, I would like to learn more about how to assess students who
are older. I will be receiving my endorsement in secondary history education; as such, I will
be exposed to students who are significantly older than Rob (age 5) and will undoubtedly
exhibit different deficits in language and reading development. Though our curriculum
materials did include information regarding ELL learners, I would like to learn more about
how to implement the general assessments and reading/language development strategies,
specifically for students who are struggling with the language acquisition process.
References
A Checklist for Language Learning (n.d.). In Language for Learning. Retrieved from
https://blackboard.wm.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1400240-dt-content-rid-
4705917_1/courses
/CRINX51-01- F15/Language_for_Learning_Checklist_for_language_difficulties
%20%28Primary%29%20%281%29.pdf
Clay, M.M. (2000). Concepts About Print: What have children learned about printed
language?
Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Clifford Interactive Storybooks (n.d.). In Scholastic. Retrieved from
http://teacher.scholastic.com
/clifford1/flash/story_3.htm
Elkonin Boxes (n.d). In Reading Rockets. Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org
/strategies/elkonin_boxes
Hasbrouck and Tindal. (2005) Oral Reading Fluency Norms Chart. In Reading Naturally.
Retrieved from https://www.readnaturally.com/knowledgebase/how-to/9/59
Hasbrouck, Jan. (2012). Reading FAST or Reading Well [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

30
https://blackboard.wm.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1423368-dt-content-rid-
4818248_1/courses
CRINX51-01- F15/F03%20Fluency%20with%20Jan%20Hasbrouck%282%29.pdf
Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2013). Teaching reading sourcebook (Updated second
edition). Novato, California: Arena Press.
Instructional Activities to Increase Reading Expression (n.d.). In Reading First in Virginia.
Retrieved from http://www.readingfirst.virginia.edu/prof_dev/fluency/section3
html #chunking
King, P. E., & Graham, A. (2003). Down on the funny farm. New York: Random House.
Long, M., & Shannon, D. (2003). How I became a pirate (1st ed). San Diego: Harcourt.
Murray, Bruce (n.d.). Developing Reading Fluency. In The Reading Genie. Retrieved from
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/reading_genie/fluency.html
Onset/Rime Games (n.d.). In Reading Rockets. Retrieved from
http://www.readingrockets.org
/strategies/onset_rime
Ramer, Deborah. (2015). Teaching Phonics-Chall and Popp [PowerPoint Slides].
Sight Word Bingo. In Sight Words. Retrieved from http://www.sightwords.com/sight-
words/games/bingo/
Wilson, Jess (n.d.). Leveled Kindergarten Passages. In Teachers Notebook. Retrieved from
http://www.teachersnotebook.com/product/jesswilson42/kindergarten-fluency
-passages

Pfeiffer_x51_CaseStudyRevised

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Pfeiffer_x51_CaseStudyRevised

Similar to Pfeiffer_x51_CaseStudyRevised (20)

Pfeiffer_x51_CaseStudyRevised