Education 529/683 Case Study Artifact Description

Artifact Description
The artifact I chose for Education 529/683 class is my case study project. It is a 15
session long project which involved two students, an elementary student TS, and a
middle school student, ES. However, my artifact description will only focus on my
elementary student.
My rationale choosing this artifact is that it allowed me to work with a struggling
student and apply all of the different skills we were taught in Education 529. It is
aligned to all 10 teaching standards, but I will focus on three, which will be
elaborated in further detail below.
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard

1:
2:
4:
8:

Teachers
Teachers
Teachers
Teachers

know the subjects they are teaching.

understand that children learn differently.
know how to teach.
know how to test for student progress.

Professional Growth and Development

I loved taking these two classes together. I found that taking them one right after
the other really helped me to apply what I had learned about assessment and
interventions to the student I focused on for my case study. Below are four
practices which I learned in EDUC 529, and how they will impact me as an educator.
My professional growth while teaching my case study student for EDUC 683 follows.
EDUC 529
1.

Practice 1: Learning to Use the QRI-5 and the San Diego Quick Assessment

What it is/How it will impact me: I really appreciated that we spent time on our face
to face days learning how to use both assessments, but especially the QRI-5. It will
impact my career both immediately and in the future, because now I feel like I have
more data to base my instructional decisions on when working with students.
Before taking this class, I relied heavily on The Benchmark Assessment System (F
and P) and the STAR assessment. Now I feel like I have more pieces in which to
triangulate the data. I plan on beginning with the San Diego Quick Assessment to
help me find a level at which to start the QRI-5. I really liked how the QRI-5 allows
for think-alouds while the student is reading, and the section for mining a students
background knowledge. These are two short-comings of the F and P. The F and P
simply states a standardized introduction before the student starts reading, and
then asks both literal and inferential questions at the end.
2. Practice 2: Learning different strategies to use in the Intervention Strategies
book, and how they correspond to the skills assessed in the QRI.

What it is/How it will impact me: I was amazed at how many strategies are listed in
the Intervention Strategies to Follow Informal Reading Inventory Assessments book.
What a great companion resource for the QRI-5. I plan on reading Chapters 8-11
focusing on vocabulary and comprehension while I am on the mission trip. There
were so many great ideas in the two chapters I was assigned during our face-to-face
days (Chapter 7 and 12). For example, I loved the idea of discussion cards in
Chapter 12, and I can see that working very well with my struggling readers this fall
when we are working in small groups. I am looking forward to reviewing the other
chapters too. Knowing the ages of the students I will be working with for my
practicum I think using the strategies on vocabulary and comprehension will be on
our main focus.
3. Practice 3: Using the Ebsco website to find the article on interventions
What it is/how it will impact me: Another thing I found helpful in this class was
using the Ebsco website to find the article on intervention. I was really amazed to
find out that the correlation between the word work taught in the teachers manual)
and the text read in LLI books (letter to text match) was around 43% due to the
code vs. meaning emphasis. I had never read an independent study about the
program before, and it made me a much more aware of how I need to customize the
word work for my students if we use that as an intervention. That really helped me
to reflect on the use of programs vs. research based strategies. Before reading
this article, I kind of thought that LLI was the end all/be all of great intervention
resources, but now I am more wary of pre-packaged programs. I do still think LLI is
a great resource. It has a wonderful mixture of fiction and non-fiction text, but I
wont stick so closely to its scripted format and will look at other ways to
differentiate word work.
4. Practice 4: Asking our classmate to present on the STAR Assessment and
general classroom discussion during the face-to-face days.
What it is/how it will impact me: I didnt know that there was a diagnostic part of
STAR that gave strand information with lessons. Teachers in my district werent
given much professional development on STAR last fall. Even though Deb was
having trouble accessing some of the detailed reports, because of her explanation I
was able to find a web video on the features of the reading dashboard, how to plan
for growth, and how to access individual or group lesson plans. I didnt know that
any of that existed, so I definitely think it is nice to have those face-to-face days
when we can collaborate together as professionals. Learning on-line has its
advantages time-wise for assignment completion, but it doesnt replace the
discussion that occurs when people actually sit down and work together. It will
affect my teaching because, like the QRI-5, STAR is one more piece of data to use
when looking at a student, and one more resource to use for strategies when
moving students forward on the reading continuum.

EDUC 683
In order to make sure that I wasnt relying too heavily on one assessment, I used a
combination of the following: The San Diego Quick Assessment, the QRI-5 and its
word list, and the Benchmark Assessment System (F and P). I also did a Words
Their Way analysis so we could work on decoding and spelling at their
developmental level. While we were in the middle of the tutoring sessions, I also
decided to check the amount of high frequency FRY words that TS knew. His
fluency is below grade level, so I wanted to see how many sight words he knew
automatically. I was surprised to learn that he actually knew 94% of all of the words
on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade lists and 85% of the words on the 4th grade list. I
also checked the number of phonemes that TS knew.
During the Tutoring: When I analyzed the data, I discovered that TS really needed
to work on decoding strategies when he comes to an unknown word, and monitoring
his comprehension. Based on his small self-correction ratio, his strategy would be
to say a word that looked visually similar, whether it made sense or not.
Each day I also did a quantitative reading record with each student. We monitored
for accuracy and fluency, and I did a miscue analysis. This was helpful for me to
catch TS errors on word endings, as well as watching for growth. I used the LLI
framework (re-reading a previous book, word study, introducing a new book,
comprehension) with TS and substituted some of the leveled books for books of his
choosing at his instructional and independent level. I also retaught some of the
decoding strategies (look at the pictures, say the first sounds, go back and re-read,
etc.) that we had done with the students at the Tier 2 level last year during RTI
groups.
Re-Assessing: During the last three days of our time together I used the same 3
tests I used in the pre-assessment phase to show growth. I saw some growth on the
San Diego Quick Assessment as well as on the Benchmark Assessment System test.
I also saw some growth on the QRI-5 for TS in the area of accuracy.
How the Practicum Benefitted Me
What I took away from this experience is that its ok to deviate from a structured
program for intervention. Previous to this, as a Tier 4 special education teacher, I
found myself relying heavily on the script of the Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI
program).
Through independent research, I did discover that there are some really wonderful
best practice methods which Leveled Literacy Intervention incorporates, like poetry
books and word sorts. However, I also know that kids have different topics of
interest that help keep them engaged in reading. For example, I could see the
difference in TS excitement when we read books about hunting.

This practicum also gave me experience with other assessments than just the
Benchmark Assessment Test. I am glad that we were required to purchase the QRI5, because now I have my own instrument to assess students if I would teach in a
different school district. The San Diego Quick Assessment definitely helps find a
good starting place for the QRI-5 (in addition to the word lists that come with it).
Using the Words Their Way assessment helped me to find my students
developmental spelling level. It is a program that my district purchased in the
spring of last year, and so I was really looking forward to trying it out with students
over the summer. I found that both TS and ES made gains in their spelling ability,
and enjoyed the game format of sorting activities.
Finally, it was really helpful to focus on one student at a time. I felt like I got to
know my students much quicker than I would have in a small group of 3 or 4
students, which is usually the case. I liked that we did daily reflections and reading
records, because it helped me to see the direction that I needed to go with TS.

Implications of Future Teacher and Student Impact

1. I really found the book, Intervention Strategies to Follow Informal Reading
Assessment? to be a helpful resource. I liked that the book comes with
professional development lessons you can download, and book titles for use
with students (such as on rhyming and spelling patterns). I also think that
the correlation between the QRI-5 and the Assessment book make it easy to
find strategies to use with kids. Some strategies that I really liked were the
reading by analogy and teaching vowels by spelling patterns and crosschecking in Chapter 5.
One thing I found interesting is that the best practice methods described in
our book, Intervention Strategies to Follow Informal Reading Assessment?
do not always align with the reading curriculum that is being used for core
instruction in our district. For example, we use a program at K-2 called
Super Kids. It uses systematic phonics, which is a good thing, but still
introduces a letter a week vs. the letter a day which is recommended.
The book also makes a strong case for teaching vowel sounds by using
spelling patterns (such as eap or eam), but our core program still
introduces these combinations by rule, such as, when two vowels go
walking, the first one does the talking. The hard thing is that if you are
trying to get very young students to generalize their interventions to the
regular classroom, then you almost have to use the same language as their
regular education teacher or it gets confusing for the student. For example, I
like to teach e at the end of a word as the silent e, but some teachers like
to teach it as magic e or bossy e, so I have to be careful to use the same
vocabulary.

2. Now that I have taken the practicum, my students will benefit because I am
better be able to understand each students unique needs. Focusing on each
student in a 1:1 setting really allows you to notice their individual patterns of
decoding, fluency and comprehension. This class encourages us to not treat
students with a one size fits all approach, so that interventions can be more
targeted.
3. Finally, I definitely observed a higher level of engagement when I was able to
tap into my students individual preferences for reading. I really liked the
student interest survey and family survey that one of our classmates shared
on the Viterbo Moodle website. I plan to use that with all of my students now,
because it helps me to know the value that a family places on reading, what
kinds of print materials the student has access to, and of course, what my
students like to read about.
In summary, because of the research based strategies I learned, in combination
with the importance of individualized instruction, and knowing my students
personal reading preferences, my students reading skills and test scores will
improve. When students set goals and can see their own progress it becomes
self-motivating. This leads to a desire to read more, which leads to further skill
development which leads to a positive experience rather than a negative one.
Positive, early, goal-directed intervention is critical at all ages for students who
are significantly below grade level.

Understanding and Application of Standards:

Standard 1: Teachers know the subjects they are teaching.
My case study meets this standard 1.K.2 the teacher understands how students
conceptual framework for an area of knowledge, conceptions and misconceptions
can influence their learning. Throughout each session I had with TS, I was
observing things on a daily basis like:

What kinds of errors he made while decoding (his most consistent pattern
was to leave off endings)
What his fluency was like when he read and how to help him become
smoother
What kinds of spelling errors he made while writing (which also affected his
decoding)
What kinds of comprehension strategies he used to understand what he read
(literal vs. inferential, how he was at re-telling, etc.)

It meets standard 1.S.3 the teacher can evaluate teaching resources and
curriculum materials for their comprehensiveness, accuracy, and usefulness.
For example, during my EDUC 529 class I did some research on the LLI program

and found that the correlation between the word work and the actual stories
read for the lesson was only 43%. This was really surprising to me because I had
thought the correlation was much higher than that. Learning that fact really
made me analyze how I could individualize the word work portion of the lessons
that I taught TS. That is one of the reasons I started using Words Their Way in
conjunction with evaluating the phonemes he knew. It also makes me a better
practitioner now because I know that I have to be student specific when we are
doing word work.
Standard 2: Teachers understand that children learn differently.
My case study meets standard 2.K2 the teacher understands physical, social,
emotional, moral, and cognitive/developmental influences learning and knows how
to address these factors when making instructional decisions. One of the things
that was reiterated in many of my classes was the importance of incorporating
student interests into the reading material for intervention. I did a student interest
inventory with TS and found that he had an absolute passion for hunting. I knew he
loved animals because his family brought a bunch of their farm animals to summer
school for a different class. But when you brought up hunting, TS eyes lit up and he
couldnt stop talking. I loved listening to him share his passion when he talked
about hunting, and I learned so much about the topic, not being an avid hunter
myself.

Standard 4: Teachers know how to teach.

My case study meets standard 4.S.1 the teacher evaluates how to achieve learning
goals, choosing alternative strategies and materials to achieve different
instructional purposes and meet students needs.
I was able to incorporate many different curriculum materials into creating a
program specifically tailored to TS needs. We used some hunting trade books from
the library, books from the LLI kit, some word work sorts from Words Their Way in
order to achieve the goals that I had for TS. During our tutoring sessions, Tyler and I
focused on several things:
1. Strategies to use when you come to an unknown word. We practiced the
following:
a. using picture clues
b. saying the first sounds
c. breaking the word into chunks you recognize
d. re-reading to see what might make sense

e. skipping the word and reading to the end of the sentence

f. flipping the vowel sound from short to long
g. carefully reading all parts of the word
I printed these on a bookmark for him to refer to while reading.
2. Paying attention to the middle and endings of words and being careful not to
substitute a word that might make sense, but does not look visually correct. I did a
miscue analysis on TS every day that we worked together to analyze his decoding
mistakes. TS miscues fell most often in the category of endings (such as saying the
word planes for places or image for imagine. In terms of substitutions he
might say the other for another or where for there.
3. Continue working on comprehension questions which are inferential in nature.
TS was able to find answers to literal comprehension questions (things stated
directly in the text) as well as make inferences to questions (using your background
knowledge and clues in the text to make an educated guess), but we used books
like Smokejumpers (Level O LLI) to work on questions which were above and beyond
the text. For example, here is a sample lesson we did:
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
TS

Grade 3

(10:00-11:00)

Tutoring Session #7
Materials Needed:
Words Their Way, Sort 8, plus word work on endings (play Crazy 8s)--play the "word endings"
found on Pinterest with s, ed, ing and phonemes chart
Leveled Literacy Lesson #99
Smokejumpers book, Level O, Expository Text
Word Work: Work on Sort #8 on long i / short i and game for word endings.
Comprehension: Finish the story, Smokejumpers p. 6-18.
Literal:
Why are smokejumpers needed to fight a wildfire?
How do smokejumpers stay safe in a wildfire?
Inferential:
Do smokejumpers consider themselves heroes? Do you? Why or why not?
Why is a wildfire considered dangerous to the environment?
Why do you think the author included an interview with Dan Cottrell?
Why is the information included in the sidebars important?
What do the stories Horse Hero and Smokejumpers have in common?
Fluency: Model the question and answer format for the interview section on pages 16 and 17.

Reflection: Tyler has several phonemes that he doesnt know yet. The following are the ones he
missed:
cc (occur)
x (xerox or xylophone)
ea (beat)
irr (mirror)
que (antique)
ss (mission)
ie (chief)
ear (heard)
kn (knee)
au (haul)
ou (soul)
gn (gnome)
ei (vein)
u (truth)
Tyler likes the game format that we have been using. He was able to identify all of the word
endings for the game we played today, so it is really a matter of paying close attention to the
ends of words as he is reading rather than skipping over in anticipation of what he thinks it will
say.
Standard 8: Teachers know how to test for student progress.
My case study meets the standard for 8.S.1 the teacher appropriately uses a
variety of formal and informal techniques to enhance his or her knowledge of
learners, evaluate student progress, and modify teaching and learning strategies.
Throughout the 15 sessions that I had with TS, I gave several assessments in order
to know the starting point, goals, and how to progress monitor TS throughout our
time together. I used the San Diego Quick Assessment to help me determine a
starting point for using the QRI-5. I then used the QRI-5 to give me an accurate
reading level and to analyze TS accuracy and comprehension. I used the
Benchmark Assessment System to cross-check my results of the QRI-5. I found that
they correlated very closely. I also used the assessment from Words Their Way to
analyze TS spelling errors, the FRY list to analyze the sight words he knew and an
informal phoneme/grapheme chart I found to check which ones TS was missing.
Based on the results I got (both formal and informal) I was able to adjust my
instruction. For example, after I realized which phonemes TS was missing in the
lesson plan listed above, I adjusted my instruction to focus on those during word
work.
Bibliography:
Leslie, Lauren & Caldwell, JoAnne. (2011) Qualitative Reading Inventory-5.
Pearson, N.Y.
San Diego Quick Assessment: The Graded Word List: Quick Gauge of Reading
Ability. (1999) Core.
Fountas, Irene, and Gay Su Pinnell. The Benchmark Assessment Kit: Heinemann,
2010. Print.
Caldwell, S. JoAnne & Leslie, Lauren. (2013) Intervention Strategies to Follow
Informal Reading Inventory Assessment. (3rd Ed.) Pearson, N.Y.

Landrigan, Clare & Mulligan, Tammy. (2013) Assessment in Perspective: Focusing

on the Reader Behind the Numbers. Stenhouse, Maine.
Fountas, Irene C., and Gay Su Pinnell. Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy
Intervention. Kit (2009).
Templeton, Shane. Words Their Way. Harlow, Essex: Pearson, 2014. Print.