Running head: STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

Student Literacy Study

Meghan Avrett
George Mason University
EDRD 515
Eng
May 2, 2016

Student Literacy Study

Introduction
Over the course of three months, I observed and worked closely with a focal student
named Lee1. The purpose of this work was to gain insight into her skills and relationship with
literacy in order to deepen my understanding of language and literacy for culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD) students. This study includes a description of Lees sociocultural
background, her attitude and response to literacy, a literacy profile, and implications for her
literacy development. Lastly, I reflect on my experience and explain how my understanding of
language and literacy has been impacted by this study.
Description of the Focal Student
Lee is a nine-year-old girl in 2nd grade. She has a very caring personality and loves to help
classmates and teachers. Lee was born in Korea and lived in an orphanage with other children
who had disabilities under the age of four until she was adopted into a Spanish speaking family
1 *Pseudonyms are used throughout this study to protect the students identity.

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

at three-years old. Her family moved to a new neighborhood in Washington, D.C. this year, and
she is the youngest of five children. Her siblings are nineteen, fifteen, twelve, and ten years old.
When Lee was adopted, she only spoke about ten Korean words and then began speaking
Spanish with her family. Spanish is Lees first oral language, but she began learning to speak,
read, and write English when she entered Pre-K as a six-year-old. However, Lee was pulled out
of this school in March because her parents did not feel she was getting enough language support
as an ELL and a student with special needs (Appendix I). Lees parents then enrolled her in a
dual bilingual immersion school. At this school, Lee spent 50% of her day in a Spanish
immersion classroom and the other 50% in an English immersion classroom (Appendix I). Lees
mother noticed language improvement while at the immersion school because she was able to
communicate with other students (Appendix I). Lastly, Lee has a mild cognitive and physical
disability and has a difficult time communicating her frustrations, which leads to behavioral
issues at school (Appendix I). Despite Lees cognitive and physical obstacles, she has a resilient
spirit and demonstrates a very determined attitude with everything she sets her mind to
(Appendix A).
Sociocultural Context
Home & Community
As previously mentioned, Lees family speaks Spanish at home. Lees mother is from
Massachusetts and speaks English, and her father is from Peru and speaks Spanish (Appendix I).
Also, Lees community is a primarily Spanish-speaking neighborhood, so the friends she
interacts with on a daily basis communicate with her in Spanish (Appendix I).
Although she speaks Spanish at home, Lee reads only English books. Specifically, every
night, her mom or dad will read Harry Potter to Lee and her older brother, and then Lee will
attempt to read one page by herself before bed (Appendix I). When Lee reads Harry Potter
independently, she is not able to accurately read it but is still being exposed to the words on the

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

page. Her mother also noted that Lee enjoys reading girly books like Pinkalicious at home
(Appendix I).
Conversations with Lee and her mother lead me to believe Lees family is middle class
due to the fact her mother does not need to work, and her father has a stable job in the computer
tech industry (Appendix I). Additionally, every summer her family travels on vacation to Peru,
Wisconsin, or Massachusetts, which is another reason why I think her family is of middle
socioeconomic status (Appendix J).
School
Lees family recently moved to a new area in Washington D.C., so Lee had to transition
from the dual bilingual immersion school to a small public charter school in her new
neighborhood. Her new school includes grades Pre-K to 5th and uses the International Primary
Curriculum (IPC). This elementary school is relatively diverse, with a student population of
45.3% white, 32.6% black, 13.8% Hispanic, 7.7% Asian, and .6% Native American (DC Office
of the State Superintendent of Education, 2015).
Lee is one of seventeen students in Ms. Pauls2 classroom, which is a mainstream
classroom. Because Lee is an ESL student and also has an IEP, she receives about one and a half
pullout hours, including literacy instruction and occupational therapy throughout a regular school
day. Specifically, she remains in her regular classroom during math, IPC (social studies or
science), specials (PE, drama, Spanish, and Mandarin), but during language arts, Lee works in a
small-group setting with an inclusion teacher and other ELLs/struggling readers.
Students Attitude and Response to Reading/Writing
Overall, Lees attitude and response to reading and writing appear to be inconsistent.
Generally, Lee responds well to reading and writing when the topic is interesting to her, such as
writing about Harry Potter, her family, and princesses (Appendix L). She has prior knowledge
about these topics, so the fact that she enjoys reading and writing about them is a reasonable
2 *Pseudonyms are used throughout this study to protect the students identity.

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

behavior. Also, I have witnessed Lee responding well to oral reading when she role-plays. For
example, one day Lee wanted to be the teacher and proceeded to read a book to me as if I were
her student. She meticulously decoded each word and demonstrated motivation as she read me
the story (Appendix L). Also, Lee enjoys playing pretend at home, so it makes sense that roleplaying is a motivator for her (Appendix I).
Although Lee responds well to some literacy tasks, on many occasions during language
arts I have seen Lee act avoidant as opposed to dedicated (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010, p. 18).
First, Lee displays a negative attitude when she does not feel confident in her writing ability. For
example, when Lee could not think of anything to write, she expressed that she was a bad
writer and grew frustrated (Appendix L). Interestingly, Lees low self-confidence in writing
differs from her self-perception in reading. When asked during an interview- What kind of reader
do you think you are?, Lee answered, A good reader (Appendix J). Because, according to
Cambria and Guthrie (2010), confidence is clearly linked to motivation, it makes sense that Lee
is more motivated to read than to engage in writing. In other words, she believes she is a good
reader; therefore, she is motivated to read.
In an attempt to set Lee up for success and build her confidence, Lees teachers select
books that she can read fluently at her reading level (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010). However, these
decodable books are simpler than her group members books. On one occasion, Lee was clearly
aware that her book was different, and she did not appear to be interested in the story. After
refusing to read the story and saying that her book was boring, Lee became aggravated and
ripped up her paper (Appendix L). On a second occasion, Lee showed disinterest when she
refused to read sight words and write them in a sentence (Appendix L). Analysis of these
particular responses lead me to the conclusion that Lee reacts negatively when the tasks is not
relevant to her life or when she feels left out from her peers. Regardless, these moments are

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

concerning because when Lee refuses to to interact with the text, her learning is hindered
(Cambria & Guthrie, 2010, p. 18).
The last reason why Lee sometimes responds negatively to writing is because she
struggles with fine-motor skills due to her physically disability. I have noticed that she holds her
left hand in a tight ball and is not able to hold down the paper easily, so it moves as she writes.
Also, her writing hand appears to be weak, so handwriting exercises are physically taxing for her
(Appendix L).
Overall, Lees inconsistent attitude towards reading and writing is multifaceted. At first, it
was difficult to know where her avoidant behavior stemmed from. I wondered whether it was the
reading or writing task being physically and mentally demanding, her disinterest, or that she
simply wanted to be in control and her way of exerting control was refusing to do her work.
When I spoke with her mother, she believed it was a combination of factors (Appendix I). The
most important insight I gained was that Lees level of motivation completely alters her attitude
and response to reading and writing, both positively and negatively, and the key to her
engagement is knowing what those motivators are and providing her with meaningful support.
Students Literacy Profile
Reading
A substantial assessment I used to analyze Lees reading abilities is the Developmental
Reading Assessment (DRA), which was administered to her in February by an inclusion teacher.
Currently, Lees DRA assessment and Lexile score of 80 reflects a level 6, which places her at a
1st grade reading level (Learning A-Z). The DRA measures reading engagement, reading fluency,
and comprehension. After analyzing formal and informal assessments, diagnostic tests, and
parent-teacher interviews, I have recognized Lees decoding skills, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension reading abilities.

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

Decoding Patterns. Overall, Lee has good phonemic awareness. For example, after
listening to a word, she can come up with new words that begins with the same beginning
consonant sounds, such as the /s/ in sink, /p/ in pie, and /f/ in fast (Appendix B). She also does
well listening to individual phonemes and putting together a complete word, like after hearing
/m/ /e/ /n/, she correctly says men (Appendix C). Overall, Lee knows how to break down
simple words to their individual phonemes. For example, upon hearing the word pat, she
correctly segments the sounds /p/ /a/ /t/ (Appendix D). These examples demonstrate Lees
aptitude in attending to, thinking about, or intentionally manipulating the individual phonemes
in spoken words and syllables (Moats, 2010, p. 57).
Because Lee has developed phonemic awareness, she is able to apply that knowledge when
decoding words in a text (Herrera et al., 2015). In some cases, Lee exhibits a strong ability to use
her knowledge of sound-letter relationships to read and pronounce words correctly. She
specifically succeeds when she reads simple CVC and VCe words and words that are spelled
according to normal English rules. For example, Lee is able to read words like, put, hot, and
big and make, time, and liked without error (Appendices E/F). She can also correctly read
consonant blends in the words, flour, flat, and play (Appendices E/F).
Lee appears to struggle most when decoding words that include diagraphs and rcontrolled vowels. For instance, I noticed while taking a running record that Lee pronounces
oil as ol and olla, bread as bared and beard, and the word dough as dog (Appendix
E). However, on other occasions, Lee correctly pronounces words like house, play, and flour,
which also include diagraphs (Appendix E/F). Her trouble with diagraphs might stem from her
L1 being Spanish because according to Opitz, Rubin, and Erekson (2001), vowel teams like oi
as in oil reflect one type of sound-symbol transfer issue from Spanish to English (p. C-13).
Another source of difficulty for Lee is r-controlled vowels. For instance, when listening back to

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

the recording of the running record, Lee does not pronounce the er and our in the words water
and flour (Appendix E). However, this error might be more related to a speech issue than a
decoding issue.
Surface constructs of fluency. Based on my discussions with her inclusion teacher and
analysis of Lees ability to match sound to letter, I have noticed she is a reader who spend[s] so
much time and energy on decoding the words on the page that they forget what they are reading
(Herrera et al., 2015, p. 182). In other words, she is able to accurately decode unknown words
but does not have automaticity of most words when she reads, which limits her fluency.
Specifically, the DRA results show that Lee has 93% accuracy, which places her in the
Developing stage as a level 6 Early Reader (Appendix F).
To gain a sense of Lees automaticity of sight words, I administered a Houghton Mifflin
Emerging Literacy Survey and asked Lee to read words from a list. From this survey, I identified
Lees strengths as being able to read 9 out of 10 words correctly from the most frequently used
words in English and 13 out of 15 words correctly from the list of additional high-frequency
words in English. According to Pikulski (2000), knowing how to read these words automatically
is a significant skill that contributes to fluency. However, Lees ability to read sight words does
not necessarily translate into authentic reading tasks. For example, Lees DRA fluency score
illustrates that she did not self-correct miscues during the running record, some of which
included reading no instead of on and and instead of had (Appendix F). Interestingly, in
this same passage prior to and after her miscues, Lee correctly read both on and had. Further,
I believe Lee is capable of reading sight words with automaticity; however, she has yet to
develop the consistency of these words in authentic reading tasks, and she is still emerging in her
ability to read lower-frequency sight words, like the word bread (Appendix E).
Overall, Lees prosody positively impacts her fluency. For example, during the running
record, when reading Oh, no! she used the exclamation point as a marker to read the phrase

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

with enthusiasm (Appendix E). Also, according to Lees DRA, she reads in short phrases most
of the time, which places her in the Independent stage on the continuum for an early reader
(Appendix F). However, because Lee still reads at a slow pace, her fluency [is] negatively
affected (Herrera et al., 2015, p. 189).
A second strength regarding Lees fluency is her capability to use the semantic cueing
system. While using the cueing system, Lee constructs the meaning of a word by applying prior
knowledge and by using context clues (Herrera et al., 2015). For example, during a running
record, Lee reads, She put the bread on a rock out to cold, instead of She put the bread on a
rock outside to cool (Appendix E). This demonstrates that Lee is able to problem solv[e]
unknown words using context from the story (Appendix F). Even though Lee read the two
words incorrectly, she replaced them with known words to understand the meaning of the
sentence. This cueing tactic helped Lee read the sentence without losing the message.
Deep constructs of fluency. Herrera et al. (2015) states that deep constructs, including
vocabulary and comprehension, are vital components that contribute to a students reading
fluency. From my analysis of Lee, I have noticed both strengths and weaknesses in her
comprehension and vocabulary use. First, a couple strengths Lee demonstrates in comprehension
are previewing and making connections. On the DRA, Lee scored advanced for both of these
categories after reading a passage and retelling the story (Appendix F). Specifically, Lee
identifies and connects at least 4 key events without prompting and makes a thoughtful
connection that reflects a deeper understanding of the story when she says, Theyre playing
with each other but they miss each other when they don't have time to play (Appendix F). Even
though she does not specify who they is, it is clear that she understands the story. On the other
hand, when Lee read to me, she could not summarize the story. However, after looking at
pictures, she was able to retell some of the events (Appendix L).

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

When analyzing the type of vocabulary Lee generally uses in her retelling, I would place
her on Level 2: Emerging for Vocabulary Usage, according to WIDA Consortium (2012)
because she uses General and some specific content words (p. 8). For example, when Lee
retells the sequence of the story in the DRA, she uses some specific content words, like school,
art, class, grandma, and soccer game (Appendix F). However, she also uses general vocabulary
words, like the boy, she, they, and the girl to explain the characters in the story instead of using
their names (Appendix F). Additionally, with prompting, Lee was able to retell the names of the
characters with misinterpretation by saying, Tim-no-Pan and Lee (Appendix F). The correct
names of the characters in the story were Pam and Lee.
Because Lee speaks Spanish at home, I also analyzed her Spanish reading comprehension
compared to her English reading comprehension. I asked Lee to read two passages, one in
Spanish and one in English that were almost identical in function and content words. When Lee
read the Spanish passage, she read it with minimal fluency and mumbled through words she did
not know. When she read the English passage, she read at a fluent rate and accurately
pronounced most content and function words. Overall, Lee identified 14 words Spanish passage
and 49 words in English (Appendix H). The fact that Lee was able to fluently read the English
passage helped her comprehend the details because she answered the questions with 100%
accuracy and used specific content words in her answers, such as poodle, cat, chicken, and bed
(Appendix H). On the other hand, when asked questions that related to the details in the story
from the Spanish passage, she answered with only 50% accuracy. Interestingly, when I translated
the English passage to Spanish and read it to Lee, she answered 3 out of the 4 comprehension
questions correctly (Appendix K). This leads me to believe that Lees listening vocabulary in
Spanish is better than her Spanish reading vocabulary (Herrera et al., 2015, p. 110).
Writing

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

10

To gain a holistic perspective of Lees writing abilities I analyzed two writing samples.
The first sample is a sequential retelling of a decodable story that Lee had previously read the
day before (Appendix M). The second sample is Lees Citizen of the Week response in which
she was asked to write what she liked about a classmates presentation (Appendix M). After
analyzing these samples, I noticed both strengths and weaknesses in Lees writing, specifically as
they relate to orthography, vocabulary, sentence structure/conventions, and discourse.
Orthography. Overall, Lee demonstrates a good sense of phoneme-grapheme
correspondence. Specifically, Lee does well writing CVC words. In the first writing sample, she
spells Pat, her, has, not, pen, hat, and dad correctly (Appendix M). She also makes some strong
spelling attempts when she writes, frag instead of frog, may instead of my, and ken instead
of can (Appendix M). Although these are spelling errors, they demonstrate Lees ability to
orthographically represent letters how they sound. For example, one could say the o in frog does
make the same sound as the a in father. Lee also spells ken instead of can. She is correct in
thinking the hard c sound can be represented with the letter k.
One inconsistent pattern Lee exhibits in her writing is writing words that contain
vowels. For example, in the first writing sample Lee writes, faind, last, frag, ken, and hos
instead of find, lost, frog, can, and house (Appendix M). According to Moats (2010), vowel
graphemes have a more variable relationship to phonemes than consonant graphemes do (p. 95).
Therefore, it is reasonable that Lee struggles when trying to match vowel phonemes to their
graphemes.
Vocabulary. From my discussion with one of her teachers and analysis of the two
writing samples, Lees vocabulary seems to be somewhat limited in her writing. For instance, in
the first writing sample, the words she writes, such as frog, pen, mom, hat, and dad are
general content related words and everyday social and instructional words and familiar
expressions (WIDA Consortium, 2012, p. 6). Also, one of the writing skills Lee is working on

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

11

right now is using synonyms to write in her own words instead of copying the words directly
from the book. Therefore, I would place Lee on the Level 1: Entering stage for vocabulary usage.
Sentence structure/conventions. In terms of sentence structure and variety, in the first
writing sample, Lee uses two types- declaratives and questions. She also writes repetitive, simple
phrases, such as Pat lost her frog? Who can find my frog? Mom cannot find the pen. Who has
my pen? Dad lost his hat. I cannot find my hat (Appendix M). With these examples in mind, I
would place Lee in the Level 2: Emerging stage, which states, the ELL is able to produce
formulaic grammatical structures, variable use of conventions, [and] repetitive phrasal and
sentence patterns (WIDA Consortium, 2012, p. 9).
Concerning conventions, Lees first writing sample appears to include correct
noun/pronoun and subject/verb agreement although her tenses are not always consistent. For
example, she correctly writes, Pat lost her frog and Dad lost his hat. However, she switches
from past to present tense when writing, Mom cannot find the pen (Appendix M). Therefore, I
would place Lee in the capable category for grammar usage (Education Northwest, 2014).
However, Lees punctuation can be quite inconsistent or missing completely. For instance, in the
first sample, she frequently left out periods and used a question mark in place of period
(Appendix M). Because she does not use end punctuation consistently, I would place her in the
developing stage for punctuation (Education Northwest, 2014). On the other hand, her
capitalization is proficient. She regularly capitalizes the first letter in her sentences as well as
proper nouns in both samples, and her self-corrections of capitalization are apparent (Appendix
M).
Discourse. I think Lee consistently has a logical and structured manner of writing. For
example, the sequence of the story in the first writing sample matches the sequence in the book.
However, her sentences in this first sample are consistently simple and her expressions are
limited, so her discourse level according to WIDA Consortium (2012), would probably fall under

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

12

Emerging (p. 9). In contrast, her second sample (the opinion piece) demonstrates her ability to
write expanded sentences and express multiple related ideas, which would place her in the
Developing stage (WIDA Consortium, 2012, p. 9). For example, she writes, I now abt you or
fone(I know about you [you] are funny) (Appendix M). She expresses that she knows about her
classmate and she thinks he is funny. She also expands her sentences by saying, I thek you or a
god fed you or a smot boy (I think you are a good friend [and] you are a smart boy) (Appendix
M). Even though these sentences are grammatically incorrect, they not only resemble a
compound sentence, but they also show that Lee is capable of writing sentences that relate to
each other.
Lees second writing sample demonstrates a use of individual expression and that she
is conscious of her reader (Education Northwest, 2014, p. 6). Specifically, she knew her
classmate would be reading her piece, and her sentences reflect that awareness. For instance, she
writes positive affirmations to her classmate, like I think you are a good friend and a smart boy,
I think you are best friends with Danny3, I know about you, you are funny, and I thank you
(Appendix M). She is consistently good at expressing her opinion; therefore, I would place Lee
in the capable category for voice (Education Northwest, 2014).
Recommendations for Literacy Development
Reading
Analysis of Lees reading skills demonstrates a need for her to develop automaticity,
which will ultimately improve her comprehension. Lees decoding skills are slow, yet accurate,
but she does not apply phonetic and word analysis skills simultaneously (Herrera et al., 2015,
p. 181). To help Lee develop automaticity of words, her teachers frequently ask Lee to read sight
words. She is able to read these words from deck of flash cards or from a list; however,
according to Herrera et al. (2015), sight word training in isolation hinders reading
3 *Pseudonyms are used throughout this study to protect the students identity.

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

13

comprehension. Instead of drilling sight words out of context, Lee must be provided with
diverse, meaningful interaction with text to improve automaticity (Herrera et al., 2015, p. 183).
One example to facilitate this suggestion includes repeated reading of various text types, like
poems, songs, and plays.
Vocabulary
In addition to automaticity, analysis of Lees speaking and writing abilities leads me to
recommend vocabulary development. Specifically, the vocabulary usage in Lees writing from
her DRA results places her as emerging or entering. Most of the words she uses are simple,
everyday words or words that came directly from the text (Appendix F). As a nine-year old,
fluent, Spanish-speaking student, I know she has background knowledge that her teachers could
build upon to make connections to new vocabulary words. Therefore, I would recommend that
her teachers engage Lee in diverse, engaging language routines to develop her academic
vocabulary (Gambrell & Morrow, 2014). Doing so is the best way to help CLD students acquire
the vocabulary needed for academic success (Herrera et al., 2015, p. 115).
One type of authentic text experience used to build vocabulary is a read aloud. During the
read aloud, Lees teacher might pause to emphasize pre-selected, Tier Two vocabulary words and
later on, implement a direct instruction lesson in which she would build off of Lees background
knowledge and make connections to new vocabulary words (Herrera et al., 2015).
A second way to build vocabulary authentically is to encourage Lee to develop an interest
in learning new words. According to Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2013), having interest in
unknown words and desiring to find the meaning of those unknown words is a trait of people
who have strong vocabularies. Therefore, Lee must engage in activities that motivate her to seek
out and learn the meaning of unknown words. One suggestion is allowing Lee to search through
different text types and self-select vocabulary words. According to Gambrell and Morrow
(2014), self-selection encourages students to learn the words more effectively and also remember

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

14

the meanings longer.

A final way Lees teachers can spark her interest in learning new words is through Word
Wizard, which requires students to write down words they see, hear, or use outside of school and
then report back to the class to engage in a discussion (Beck et al., 2014). Not only would these
activities make the act of learning new words fun for Lee, but, more importantly, they would
extend her vocabulary learning beyond the classroom.
Motivation
I believe one of the biggest roadblocks Lee faces in terms of her literacy development is
her lack of motivation to engage in reading and writing tasks. As I previously noted, reasons for
her avoidant behavior seem to exist partly because the tasks are physically and cognitively
difficult but also because she is disinterested, calling them boring (Appendix L). Eliminating
the difficulty in her reading and writing tasks are not my recommendation. However, I do
propose a few different strategies that are likely to increase her will to engage in literacy
practices.
First, I suggest that Lees teachers make reading and writing more relevant, by
connecting the literacy task to her life, which has the potential to motivate long-term
achievement (Cambria & Guthrie, 2010, p. 21). This can be accomplished by providing an
authentic purpose for the writing task or tapping into Lees interests. For example, when Lee was
asked to write a letter to first graders about her favorite book, her level of motivation was
through the roof, and it was hard for me to get her to stop writing (Appendix L). This activity
built off of her interest in Harry Potter and the purpose was authentic. However, when a genuine
purpose to write was not clear, and Lee was asked to write sentences that sequenced a story plot
that she did not find interesting, Lee was highly unmotivated to engage (Appendix L).
Another way to tap into her interests as a method to increase motivation is by having her
engage in role-playing exercises, like Readers Theater. I think this would motivate Lee because
she enjoys acting in drama class, and she likes imaginary play, like pretending she is the teacher

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

15

(Appendix L). During a meaningful activity like Readers Theater, Lee would have adequate
time to practice reading her lines from a script before she would perform it with her small group.
Not only would Readers Theater be motivating for Lee because she likes performing, but it also
benefits her fluency through repeated reading of a text by allowing her to develop prosody of
English (Herrera et al., 2015). Additionally, since Lee is a native Spanish-speaking student, there
are opportunities in Readers Theater to pair her with a more proficient English-speaking student
to model the correct expression and tone of the language.
In addition to emphasizing relevancy, I would also suggest that teachers provide Lee with
literacy experiences that build her confidence, and, ultimately, increase her motivation to engage
in reading and writing tasks. One example is to facilitate interactive approaches to reading and
writing. Herrera et al. (2015), explain that literacy performance strengthened when children were
engaged in interactive approaches, such as creating a class book. I think giving Lee an
opportunity to collaborate with peers and contribute her ideas to a group project would give her a
sense of pride and boost of confidence in her writing. It would also give her a glimpse into the
book-making process, which might spark her interest. This simple activity would ideally change
her belief about herself from thinking she is a bad writer to an accomplished author, and I
think that would be a real source of motivation for her (Appendix L).
Reflection
Completing this student literacy study was a valuable, eye-opening experience for me. I
have not had a lot of experience working with ELL students, so getting the opportunity to
observe and interact with one at such a pivotal time in her language development, gave me a
deep understanding of language and literacy for CLD students. I think the most monumental
learning I gained from this study was that a CLD students entire biography must be taken into
consideration when teaching and assessing components of literacy, including decoding, fluency,

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

16

vocabulary, comprehension, writing, and motivation. I have learned that each student will come
into my classroom with various forms of prior knowledge, skills, and experiences, and the better
I understand these differences, the more equipped I will be at creating lessons that meet their
needs (Herrera et al., 2015). Ultimately, it is my responsibility to build off of my students assets
and help them make connections between known and new knowledge as a pathway to their
learning.
A second major learning I gained was an understanding that students, especially CLD
students, learn best and are motivated through meaningful and authentic literacy experiences.
When I reflect back on my interactions with Lee, I learned a significant amount by observing
activities that were not meaningful or authentic to her. These activities, such as reading and
writing sight words in isolation, proved to be disengaging for Lee because they did not provide
extended and meaningful interactions with a text (Herrera et al., 2015, p. 183). Seeing these
missed opportunities for Lee to develop automaticity and build a robust vocabulary through
authentic experiences, such as Readers Theater, motivates me to always ask myself whether or
not I am providing meaningful tasks to my students. On the other hand, I did observe occasions
when Lee was highly engaged in the writing process. These incidents occurred when she was
given a clear and meaningful purpose for the task, like writing a letter to her family or 1st graders.
This instructional strategy is one that I would like to emulate in my future classroom. It inspires
me to structure writing exercises in a way that allows CLD students to build off of their prior
knowledge, utilize their native languages, and make real connections to their lives.
Studying Lee as an ELL student also opened my eyes to the complexity of second
language acquisition and the professional skills and knowledge base it requires to effectively use
a students L1 to improve English. I believe this study made me aware of common

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

17

decoding/encoding patterns and ways to assess phonological awareness, such as the Houghton
Mifflin tests. However, I also realize I do need more professional development in phonological
awareness in order to effectively help my future CLD students make cross-linguistic connections.
Specifically, I would like to gain cross-linguistic strategies to help students like Lee (who are
illiterate in their L1 but can fluently speak and understand it) utilize their L1 to develop English.
Lastly, I would like to invest in my own professional development to build strong homeschool connections for CLD students because I have experienced how sociocultural factors
influence student literacy (Herrera et al., 2015). For example, when I interviewed Lees mother, I
gained important information about the types of books Lee enjoys reading at home, how she
interacts with them, and factors that motivate her to engage in reading. Vital information such as
this allowed me to gain a more holistic picture of Lee as a reader and think about the types of
reading activities I would implement to increase engagement. Also, I realize that if I develop a
strong and trusting relationship with my students families, they would be likely to encourage
and support literacy learning at home.
Studying Lees language and literacy development over a three-month period was truly
an invaluable experience. It showed me how complex and challenging the literacy process can be
for CLD students in mainstream classrooms. However, this study has also empowered me and
made me more aware of meaningful instructional strategies that I will use to meet the needs of
my future students and enable them to live up to their fullest literacy potential.

References

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

18

Beck, I. L., McKewon, M. G., & Kucan L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary
instruction. New York: The Guildford Press.
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, on behalf of the WIDA Consortium.
(2012). 2012 amplification of the English language development standards:
Kindergarten- grade 12. Retrieved from
http://www.opi.mt.gov/pdf/Bilingual/12WIDA_Standards.pdf
Cambria, J. & Guthrie J. T. (2010). Motivating and engaging students in reading. The NREA
Journal (46)1, 16-27.
D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education. (2015). Creative Minds International PCS
2014-2015 equity report. Website: http://learndc.org/schoolprofiles/view?
s=3069#equityreport
Education Northwest. (2014). Traits rubric for K-2. Retrieved from
http://educationnorthwest.org/sites/default/files/new-rubrics-k-2.pdf
Gambrell L. B. & Morrow, L. M. (2014). Best practices in literacy instruction (5th ed.). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Herrera S. G., Perez, D. R., & Escamilla, K. (2015). Teaching reading to English language
learners: Differentiating literacies (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Learning A-Z. Learning A-Z correlation chart. Retrieved from https://www.readingaz.com/updates/raz_correlation_chart.pdf
Moats L. C. (2010). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers (2nd ed.). Baltimore:
Brookes.
Opitz, M. F, Rubin, D., Erekson, J. A. (2011). Reading diagnosis and improvement (6th ed.).
New York: Pearson.
Pikulski, J. J. (2000). Emerging literacy survey: With phonemic awareness screening. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

19

Appendix A
Inclusion teacher Interview-Ms. Riley4
What is Lees attitude and response to reading?
Generally positive attitude towards reading. When she has a negative attitude while doing
reading tasks its related to being tired or not wanting to be engaged with anything. Doesn't ever
really get frustrated with the actual reading task. If in bad mood does want to do anything. She
has a very determined attitude with everything she sets her mind to. Think its because she has a
difficult time with a lot of things but she stays determined.
4 *Pseudonyms are used throughout this study to protect the students identity.

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

20

What are some of her strengths with reading?

In every facet of reading, she is behind grade level. However in her own independent reading
journey, she is good at phonics and sounding out words that she does not know. She has a
difficult time with sight words because she cannot sound out the letters. Even though she has a
hard time with sight words, she is determined to work on them. Her mother has her using a lot of
decodable books at home, so she is good with phonics
How does she use Spanish to acquire English?
Dont really use Spanish with Ms. Riley.
Spanish level?
Fluent in Spanish because she speaks it at home, but Im not sure about reading and writing.
Conversation with Ms. Riley about LeeMs. Riley says that when Lee gets really frustrated, a method she (and other teachers) use to
calm her down is going to a teacher who speaks Spanish. Lee will talk with that adult in Spanish
and communicate why she is feeling frustrated or angry. Sometimes the teachers find Lees older
brother and allow her to walk up and down the hallway and talk about the problem in Spanish.
This mechanism also works well for Lee because she is able to communicate in her native
language.

Appendix B

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

21

Appendix C

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

22

Appendix D

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

23

Appendix E

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

24

Appendix F

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

25

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

26

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

27
Appendix G

Appendix H

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

28

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

29

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

30
Appendix I
Parent Interview
4/13/16

Where is family from?

Father is from Peru. Mother L1 Spanish from Massachusetts
ages of family members?
19, - 15 (adopted from Peru)- 12, one brother- 10
Lees academic history? Instruction in Spanish?
Spent 1st 3 years of life in a Korean orphanage primarily made up of children with special needs. When Lee was
adopted, she only spoke about 10 words of Korean. This was partially do to the fact that the orphanage had children
4 years old and younger, so the children were not exposed to a lot of language nor did they verbally communicate
with each other.
Part of pre-K at school, but pulled out middle of march because not getting support that was needed.
Pre-K at bilingual school (dual immersion program 50% of day in a Spanish immersion classroom and 50% day in
an English immersion classroom) She was in an inclusion class with other students with learning disabilities. She
was less different at this school. She improved greatly during her time there because she was able to communicate
with other students.
Lee transitioned to her current school at the beginning of this year (2 nd grade) and the transition has been socially
difficult because there is no real Spanish support for Lee. She often has a hard time communicating with other peers
because she is much more confident at speaking Spanish than English so she will just become frustrated and not
talk. The social aspect has been difficult this year.
Tell me about your community/languages in community?
Speaks only Spanish at home and in her community. lives in the area around the school (Washington D.C.) All of
her friends in her neighborhood also speak Spanish.
Languages spoken at home?
Spanish
Does Lee like reading at home? What kinds of books?
Yes, she reads only in English though. Not in Spanish. She likes reading girly books like pinkalicious. Her dad or
mom reads harry potter every night to her and brother and before bed, Lee reads 1 page of Harry Potter to herself,
but in actuality, Lee is looking at the page and not really reading.
What motivates Lee in literacy?
She is motivated by her peers/siblings to read. For example, when she sees her older brothers reading chapter books,
Lee wants to do the same even though she is unable to read at their level. She likes to bring in Harry Potter to school
because all the other kids are reading chapter books.
She has some control issues. Mom believes this is due to her being special needs. She says: She has so little control
of much of her life, so I think she tries to exert control in school. When she acts out or refuses to work on
reading/writing, that is her way of gaining control. Part of her defiance is because the work is difficult for her and it
is also because she is intentionally trying to be difficult.
What do you and husband do for a living?
Mother does not work and father works in the computer industry.
What are Lees interests outside of school?
Imaginary play, playing with friends, playing school

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

31
Appendix J
Sociocultural Literacy Profile

Name: Lee
Age: 9
Grade Level: 2nd
Native Language: Spanish
Place of Birth: Korea
Country of Origin: Korea
1. Who is in your family? Where are they from?
Mom- Massachusetts Dad- Peru. In the summer, we like to go to Massachusetts and
Wisconsin.
2. What language do you speak most at home?
Spanish. Everyone in my family speaks Spanish.
3. What language did you first learn to read?
6 years old I learned to read in English
4. What do you read at home?
Harry Potter in Spanish, Dr. Suess books in Spanish like Green Eggs and Ham
(after mother interview- realized this is incorrect: Lee does not read in Spanish at home- only
in English)
5. Who do you read with at home?
Mom, Dad, Brother, and Sister
6. Do you like to read? What do you like or dislike about reading?
Yes! I like reading about different characters.
7. If you could choose anything to read about, what would it be and why?
Bones because it is a good story. I want to be Elsa.
8. What kind of reader do you think you are?
a. A very good reader
b. A good reader
c. An average reader
d. A poor reader
e. A very poor reader

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

32
Appendix K

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

33
Appendix L
(Field Notes)

2/16/16
Lee wanted to play teacher because she got new glasses. I picked a book and she read to me as if I were her student. She sounded
out each letter of each word in the book. After she finished a page, I asked her what happend in the story to gauge her
comprehension. She said she did not know. But when I asked she what was going on in the pictures, she could tell me the story.
The book she read to me was Everyone can Learn to Ride a Bicycle which is a 4-8 year old book.
She also chose to read books with animals in them.
3/2/16
Literacy with LeeWord sort. Lee sorted words into 3 categories by end consonant blends. She read through each word on her own very well.
Needed some help with a few.
Lee read a book about feelings. She reads more fluently when she tracks the words with her finger
Reading comprehension
Lee does not like the book she is supposed to be reading. Says its boring She is reading a lower level book than the rest of her
small reading group. Her inclusion teacher tells me that she wants to read their book but it is too difficult for her. She is instructed
to write sentences about her story plot but does not want to.
Her anger escalates and she rips up her paper in frustration because she does not want to do her writing task.
3/4/16
Worked with Lee while she was writing a poem about colors. She wrote about pink because it is her favorite color. Even though it
was hard to get her to write full sentences, she did seem motivated to work. Her spelling was not accurate.
Worked with Lee on sorting words by their phonemes. She was able to place words into three different categories based on their
ending phonemes.
Then Lee started working on a reading program. One of the online books was a Spanish lullaby and she was singing along to the
words. I think she knew this song
previously.
3/17/16
WritingMet with a lot of resistance to start the writing task.
Maybe because writing task is not authentic to her life
She is working on collecting information from an article she is reading about Chuck Brown. The assignment is to answer
questions like born, death, interesting facts, made a difference, things they are confused.
One strategy to pull information Lee uses is to highlight the facts with a crayon and then write the sentences on the paper.
I read her a paragraph about what Chuck Brown did for his career. She pointed out that he played guitar.
I asked her what do you call people who play music?
She responded with musician.
She asked how to spell musician and I helped her sound it out and spell it.
3/22/16
Work with Lee on handwriting. She copies sentences and says that she is a bad writer.
She says she doesn't want to do it and grows frustrated
She has a difficult time holding the pencil.
I help her with typing.
During sight word bingo lee is asked to write the sight word in a sentence. She refuses, but after a while Lee defiantly just wrote
a couple sight words.
During reading time, Lee is asked to write a paragraph retelling the sequence of a story.
She does not want to do anything, but finally responds when the teacher says she just has to do the first two sequences.
Preliminary ideas is that she gets overwhelmed and shuts down when she is asked to complete a big writing task.
4/13/16
Work with Lee on writing task: instructions are to write a letter to 1 st graders telling them your favorite book, characters and part
of the story. 3 paragraphs.
Lee writes about Harry Potter. She is very enthusiastic about this writing task and enjoys writing about her favorite book. At the
end of the lesson, Lee doesn't want to stop writing. She has to be asked more than three times to finish up her thoughts and join
the class in the front of the room.
Lee is asked to orally read a sequence she wrote the day before. (Her teacher tells me that she needs to improve her ability to read
her own handwriting). Lee grows frustrated with this task and says she does not want to do it.
She retells me the sequence of the story instead of reading it.

Appendix M

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

34

STUDENT LITERACY STUDY

35