Literacy Profile

Jennifer Eubank

Spring 2015

READ 670

Literacy Profile 1

II. Contextual Framework

Cumberland County is a rural community in southern Virginia that was founded in 1749.

The town consists of: three public schools at the elementary (pk-4), middle (5-8), and high

school (9-12) levels; three small restaurants; and one State Park. According to the United States

Census Bureau estimates of 2013, the community population of Cumberland is 9,841 people and

made up of 64.6% Caucasian and 32.3% African-American. The Census Bureau reports that

16.3% of these individuals live below the poverty line. In addition, the Virginia Employment

Commission estimates that 6.3% of the population of Cumberland in 2013 was unemployed,

which was higher than the estimated 5.5% of Virginia. This puts the three schools in the 60th

percentile for free and reduced lunch services and regulation lunches are provided for a high

population of their students. In addition, the schools and the community have limited access to

internet services due to one internet unit available to the entire county.

For this case study, my Literacy Profile student was chosen from the middle school.

Cumberland County Middle School has approximately 430 students enrolled in 5th through 8th

grades. The principal reports that the school has a low ESL population and a limited Special

Needs population. Also, the county faces internet access challenges, but the school had a

revamping period where each classroom received a Promethean Board and the access to

computer labs and laptop carts increased in 2008. However, the middle school and the high

school still share resources such as elective teachers and library materials. According to the

state, the school’s Report Card Rating lists as “Accredited with Warning” and they remain in the

second year of academic warning status for the areas of math and English. When meeting with

the principal, he claimed, “We have created 85 minute periods for 5th and 6th grade students to

Literacy Profile 2

build in a writing block and to provide for the needs of our students with a limited staff.” These

changes were made to allow students more instructional time in English and math classes.

The student I am working with this semester for my Literacy Profile is a fifth grade

student named C. He is an eleven year old, African-American boy with one older sister and

three younger brothers. During the school week, he meets with the 5th grade teacher during his

writing block for literacy remediation. The middle school reported his developmental level of

achievement at 3rd grade for reading based on an online assessment program called I-Ready. In

our initial interview together, I learned that his favorite subject is math. He claimed that reading

was enjoyable and he was a good reader because he can read fast. These factors will have

instructional implications for our tutoring sessions.

Based on the contextual factor information reported for the community, school, and my

student, several instruction implications will be made for my tutoring sessions. First, because

many of students in the county live below the poverty line, I will need to have materials

accessible and available to my students during my sessions. Second, I will want to consider the

lack of internet resources within the county. I think it will be a positive experience for the

students to include internet activities within my lessons; however, I will want to consider having

alternative options in case the internet is not available during our sessions. Lastly, I will need to

consider the lack of background knowledge and experiences that my student may have. He has

not traveled much outside of the county; therefore, this could affect the connections he may

make while reading and the materials and assessments I choose for our lessons. Overall, I am

excited to begin planning and working with my Literacy Profile student.

Literacy Profile 3

References

Virginia Employment Commission. (2015). Virginia community profile for cumberland, virginia

[Data File]. Retrieved from www.virginiaLMI.com

United States Census Bureau. (2015). State and county quickfacts for cumberland, virginia [Data

File]. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/51/51049.html

Literacy Profile 4

III. Assessment

The student I am working with this semester for my Literacy Profile is a fifth grade student

named C. My focal student was originally a different fifth grade student named IY; however,

due to absences, C has become my focal student for this semester. He is an eleven year old,

African-American boy with one older sister and three younger brothers. During the school week,

he meets with the 5th grade teacher during his writing block for literacy remediation. From pre-

assessment data, I have learned that the student has a high interest for reading and believes he is

a good reader. However, I believe the student was specifically selected for tutoring because the

middle school reported his developmental level of achievement at 3rd grade for reading based on

an online assessment program called I-Ready. Also, according to the school, his comprehension

of texts is below grade-level expectations.

In order to gain an understanding of my student’s literacy development, I administered a

variety of pre-assessments to explore different aspects of literacy. The first set of assessments I

gave allowed me to gain a better insight into the student’s feelings and attitudes towards literacy.

We completed two affective assessments, an interview and the Elementary Reading Inventory,

together.

The second set of assessments, the QRI-5, allowed me to gain more information

regarding the student’s reading and comprehension abilities. The Qualitative Reading Inventory

(QRI-5) includes a number of a assessments that explore different aspects of literacy such as:

oral reading rate of a passage (Fluency); silent reading rate of a passage (Fluency); word lists to

measure automaticity in word knowledge (WRI-Timed); word lists to measure decoding abilities

(WRI-Untimed); oral reading accuracy in context (WRC); comprehension (of both silent and oral

Literacy Profile 5

reading passages) in both fiction and nonfiction texts; and inferential vs. explicit questioning.

Due to time constraints, I was only able to administer assessments to measure the following

areas: word lists to measure automaticity and decoding abilities (WRI); oral reading rate of a

narrative passage (wpm); oral reading accuracy of a narrative text; comprehension of oral

passages; and inferential vs. explicit questioning.

The last set of assessments that I administered with this student gave me insight into his

spelling development and his writing ability. The Elementary Spelling Inventory allowed me to

gain an understanding of the student’s spelling strengths and weaknesses. The Writing Sample

would have given me more information about the student’s strengths and weaknesses in writing,

as well as his spelling in context. However, due to time constraints, I was not able to obtain a

Writing Sample with this student. Each of these assessments can be found within my literacy

profile binder.

Literacy Profile 6

IV. Summary of Data Analysis and Reading Levels

The variety of pre-assessments that I administered with C allowed me to discover his

strengths and weaknesses in each aspect of literacy. According to the affective measures, C has

a high-interest in reading, but prefers academic reading to recreational reading. He believes that

he is a good reader because he reads fast; however, his QRI-5 words per minute scores indicated

that his oral reading rate is slightly below grade level. In addition, his QRI-5 word list (WRI-

timed and un-timed) scores, as well as his oral reading accuracy (WRC) and his comprehension

scores, indicate that his instructional reading level is one-year below grade level. Furthermore,

he is functioning within a syllables and affixes stage in his spelling development.

The QRI-5 assessment allowed me to determine that C’s independent reading level is at

2nd grade, his instructional reading levels are between 3rd and 4th grade, and his frustration level

is at 5th grade. This instructional reading level call is based on the student’s word recognition in

isolation (WRI) scores and his word recognition in context (WRC), fluency, and comprehension

scores of oral readings of narrative texts. On the third grade level with an oral narrative passage,

Catlin scored a 97% in word recognition in context (instructional), 104 words per minute in oral

reading rate (on-target), 75% comprehension score (instructional), and 100% look-back

comprehension score (independent). On the fourth grade level with an oral narrative passage,

Catlin scored a 95% in word recognition in context (instructional), 104 words per minute in oral

reading rate (slightly below-target), and 75% comprehension score (instructional). On the

fourth grade level with the WRI word lists, C scored a 75% (instructional) on the timed list and a

95% (independent) on the untimed list. On the fifth grade level with the WRI word lists, he

scored a 50% on the timed list (frustrational) and a 70% on the untimed list (instructional).

Although Catlin is capable of decoding 5th grade words when given extended time, his oral

Literacy Profile 7

reading rate and comprehension scores in narrative texts is below grade level expectations (i.e.,

instructional scores at the 4th grade level first). Therefore, he would benefit from explicit

instruction and guided practice at a 4th grade reading level. Due to lack of time in our pre-

assessment sessions, his instructional level range could only be predicted using his oral narrative

passage scores and his word recognition in isolation scores.

I have learned in my sessions so far with C that he is an intelligent student who is bullied

often, which makes him shy around his peers. Based on his passage reading WRC accuracy

scores, WPM scores, and comprehension instructional scores, it was determined that he is

functioning one year below grade level expectations. Most likely, C’s increase in word

recognition in isolation scores from the timed to un-timed lists are a result of his shy demeanor

and his willingness to want to succeed. On numerous occasions during testing, C hesitated to

decode a word in isolation because he did not want to be ‘wrong’ and wanted my approval.

Also, when given extended time in the untimed WRI list and the comprehension look-back

assessments, the student was able to increase his score significantly. Therefore, his shyness,

need for teacher validation, and need for extended time for assignments, could directly affecting

his literacy success within the classroom environment.

ARTIFACTS

Section 4.1—Student Interest Inventory (In Binder)

I administered the Garfield Elementary Reading Attitude Survey. In analyzing the survey

results, I determined that C has an extremely positive attitude towards reading. All of his

responses were happiest Garfield (4) and slightly smiling Garfield (3). Also, he prefers to read

for academic purposes than recreationally. He scored with a 92.5% percentile rank in

Literacy Profile 8

recreational reading and a 97.5% percentile rank in academic reading. His full scale percentile

rank of reading overall was 95%.

Section 4.2—Individual Reading Inventory (In Binder)

QRI-5 Graded Word List

Word Lists (WRI)

Difficulty Level

Timed

Total

%age

Untimed

Total

%age

Preprimer 1 100 100

Preprimer 2/3 100 100

Primer 95 100

1st 100 100

2nd 95 100

3rd 70 85

4th 75 95

5th 50 70

The QRI-5 timed graded word list indicated that C is functioning independently at levels

Preprimer through 2nd grade (green), instructionally at 3rd through 4th grade (yellow), and his

frustration level is 5th grade (red). Using the WRI scores, it can predicted that C will have a

WRC independent level at 2nd grade because he has a 95% accuracy of the timed word list and

100% accuracy of the untimed list. Also, the WRI scores at the 3rd and 4th grade levels suggests

that he will be instructional at these two levels in the WRC assessment. Furthermore, he has

instructional scores at 4th grade for the timed list and independent scores at the untimed list. C

has a high automaticity in isolation percentages at the 4th grade level, in both timed and untimed

Literacy Profile 9

lists; however, his score drops to a 50% frustration level with the 5th grade timed list. From these

WRI scores, we can predict that C will be frustrational at the 5th grade level because he will have

trouble decoding words quickly, which will further affect his WRC score. Although his untimed

score at 5th grade is 70% (instructional), we can predict that his oral reading rate (WPM) will

decline significantly at this level in WRC.

QRI-5: Word Recognition in Context (WRC)

I chose to begin my WRC assessment at the 3rd grade level because this was predicted to

be an instructional level for the student based on WRI assessment data. On the third grade level

with an oral narrative passage, C scored a 97% in word recognition in context (instructional),

104 words per minute in oral reading rate (on-target), 75% comprehension score (instructional),

and 100% look-back comprehension score (independent). He was able to self-correct 3 of his 9

miscues and all of his miscues were not meaning-changing. Also, he recalled 31 out of 55 ideas

from the passage which indicated a recall score of 56%. In addition, his comprehension score

reflected 4 correct answers to explicit questions, out of four possible, and only 2 correct answers

to implicit questions, out of four possible. This indicates that C is stronger in answering explicit

questions versus implicit questions at this level.

The next WRC assessment I administered was at the 4th grade level because this level

was also predicted to be an instructional level for the student based on WRI assessment data. On

the fourth grade level with an oral narrative passage, C scored a 95% in word recognition in

context (instructional), 104 words per minute in oral reading rate (below-target), and 75%

comprehension score (instructional). He had a total of 14 miscues and over half of those

miscues were meaning-changing. Also, he recalled 27 out of 47 ideas from the passage which

indicated a recall score of 57%. In addition, his comprehension score reflected 2 correct answers

Literacy Profile 10

to explicit questions, out of two possible, and only 2.5 correct answers to implicit questions, out

of four possible. This indicates that C is stronger in answering explicit questions versus implicit

questions at the 4th grade level too. Due to lack of time during our pre-assessment section, we

were not able to finish all eight comprehension questions and the student was not able to do

look-backs with this passage.

I also did not administer the remaining WRC assessments because we ran out of time

with our 5th grade students. Also, I could predict that the student’s frustrational level of WRC

was at 5th grade from the WRI assessments; therefore, obtaining an oral narrative passage score

at this level was not a priority over us beginning instruction. If time had allowed, I would have

obtained the following scores: oral narrative text % accuracy (WRC 5th grade); expository text %

accuracy (WRC 4th grade); silent reading text % accuracy (WRC 4th grade); listening

comprehension (5th grade); fluency rates for 5th grade oral narrative, 4th grade expository, and 4th

grade silent; and comprehension scores for each.

Section 4.3—Qualitative Spelling Assessment (In Binder)

The Elementary Spelling Inventory was used to determine the student’s word knowledge

ability. This assessment indicated the student’s spelling power score was 11 out of 25, his

feature point score was 42 out of 62, and his total score was 53 out of 87. Therefore, the

student’s word knowledge level is at the early syllables and affixes stage of spelling

development. He has mastered letter name-alphabetic features and within word features, but is

using and confusing syllables and affixes features. The following “using but confusing” chart

gives more specific information into the student’s word knowledge.

Literacy Profile 11

Spelling

Stage

Features

Mastered

Using, but Confusing Features

Absent

Early

Syllables

and Affixes

-blends

-common long

vowels

-other vowels

-inflected endings (examples- shopping,

serving; student- shoping and serveing)

-syllable juncture

-unaccented final syllables

-harder suffixes

-bases or

roots

His word knowledge in this stage is most likely affecting his writing development and his

automaticity of words in his reading. Many of his mistakes in reading are occurring with two

syllable words and inflected endings. Additionally, by the end of fifth grade, students should be

functioning at a late syllables and affixes stage of development. In our lessons, we will not have

time to include extended word study instruction for both of my fifth grade students. Our first

word knowledge lesson will focus on features that both students are using, but confusing

(doubling at the syllable juncture). However, we will informally develop these features within

our reading and word study activities. I recommend that the student receive a modest to

accelerated word study instruction in the classroom to stay on track with his word knowledge

and spelling development.

Section 4.4—Written Language (Unable to obtain due to time)

I was not able to obtain a writing sample from the student in our initial pre-assessment

sessions due to time constraints. I attempted to acquire a writing sample from a writing activity

in our second lesson session; however, the student struggled with pre-writing strategies to help

him organize his thoughts and ideas to begin his writing. C was able to verbalize his thoughts

and list some his ideas, but these were not transferred into a writing sample that I could evaluate.

His ideas that he listed only vaguely related to the topic in which he was writing about.

Literacy Profile 12

Therefore, the writing instruction in our sessions will be focused on developing his pre-writing

and organization within his writing.

Section 4.5—Student Interests and Affective Measures Section (In Binder)

The Garfield Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (see section 4.1) and the student

interview were two affective measures administered with the student. The student interview

provided information surrounding the student’s interests, school, metacognition, and attitudes

and motivations. C is interested in several sports such as baseball, football, and basketball. He

enjoys reading and math in school and believes he is a good reader because he can read fast. He

claims that the hardest part about reading is when he skips lines and has to go back to sound

something out. His favorite book is Diary of a Wimpy Kid by Jeff Kinney. Overall, C likes to

read by himself, with his parents, and aloud to his younger brothers (10 years old, 7 years old,

and 6 years old).

Literacy Profile 13

V. Instructional Goals

Word Knowledge/Phonics

The student will work to improve word knowledge of inflected ending features such as –

ed and –ing.

The student will work to improve word knowledge of syllable juncture features such as

doubling of consonants at the juncture.

Fluency

The student will work to improve the prosody of reading, including using expression and

appropriate phrasing throughout a text, while using an appropriate rate.

Comprehension

The student will work to improve the use of determining importance and inferring

comprehension strategies before, during, and after reading a text.

Writing

The student will work to improve the use of pre-writing strategies to organize their ideas

for writing.

Literacy Profile 14

VI. Evidence of Research Base: Individualized Instructional Goals

Word Knowledge

One way to improve word knowledge is to analyze structures of two-syllable words, such

as focusing on the doubling of consonants at the syllable juncture. This focus allows students to

improve vocabularies and improve strategies for figuring out unknown words in reading. Donald

Bear, Marcia Invernizzi, Shane Templeton, and Francine Johnston in Words Their Way (5th

Edition) claim, “students need systematic instruction of structural elements and how these

elements combine; elements include syllables, affixes, and the effects of affixes on the base

words to which they are attached” (p. 255, 2012). In addition, “developing word knowledge lets

students read more fluently, which in turn allows them to exercise and expand their increasing

level of cognitive and language sophistication” (p. 243, 2012). Therefore, students’ word

knowledge development is supported in the structural analysis of multi-syllabic words.

Fluency

One way to improve fluency is by promoting the improvement of prosody, such as

expression and tone, and appropriate rate in reading. Thomas Gunning in Assessing and

Correcting Reading and Writing Difficulties suggests, “ Although one characteristic of fluent

reading is processing words at an acceptable rate, fluency also entails reading in meaningful

phrases and with appropriate expression” (p. 287, 2010). In addition, Gunning notes that it is

important to model fluent reading for students and explain why it’s important to group words

into meaningful phrases and read with expression (2010).

Literacy Profile 15

Comprehension

One way to improve comprehension of a text is to use a variety of comprehension

strategies while reading, such as determining importance and inferring. According to Thomas

Gunning in Assessing and Correcting Reading and Writing Difficulties, “The use of

comprehension strategies strengthens the use of the main processes of basic comprehension:

understanding, integrating, inferring, and monitoring” (p. 356, 2010). Jessy Johns, Susan Lenski,

and Roberta Berglund suggests a variety of comprehension techniques for supporting the use of

comprehension strategies in their book Comprehension and Vocabulary Strategies (2nd Edition).

Many of these techniques, such as graphic organizers and charts, were incorporated into

instruction to support the improvement of comprehension strategy use.

Writing

One way to improve the writing of underachieving writers is to incorporate brainstorming

and organizational strategies into the planning process. According to Thomas Gunning in

Assessing and Correcting Reading and Writing Difficulties, “An effective technique for helping

students’ access details is to have them brainstorm the topic” (p. 459, 2010). Vicki Spandel

suggests a variety of prewriting strategies in her book Creating Young Writers: Using the Six

Traits to Enrich Writing Process in Primary Classrooms (3rd Edition). Many of these strategies,

such as talking through a topic and making a web, were incorporated into instruction to support

the improvement of planning and organizing in the student’s writing.

Literacy Profile 16

References

Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2012). Words their way: Word study for

phonics, vocabulary and spelling instruction (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Gunning, T. (2010). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (4th ed.). New

York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Johns, J., Lenski, S., & Berglund, R. (2006). Comprehension and vocabulary strategies for the

primary grades (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Spandel, V. (2012). Creating young writers: Using the six traits to enrich writing process in

primary classrooms (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Literacy Profile 17

VII. Instructional Plan

This instructional plan was originally created for my first focal student, IY. Due to

absences throughout tutoring, C became my focal student. The write-up section of the plan was

written for IY; however, the plan was intended for both students.

Literacy Profile 18

Literacy Profile 19

Literacy Profile 20

VIII. Tutoring Log

Session # Date Time Duration Comments

1 1/28/15 1:00-3:00 2 hours Pre-Assessments

2 2/4/15 1:00-3:00 2 hours Pre-Assessments

(Chose 5th grade focal

student-IY)

3 2/11/15 1:00-3:00 2 hours Pre-Assessments

4 2/18/15 1:00-3:00 2 hours CANCELED: Snow Day

5 2/25/15 1:00-3:00 2 hours Lesson Plan #1/Word

Knowledge

(5th Grade)

6 3/11/15 1:00-3:00 2 hours SNOW MAKE-UP: Lesson

Plan #2

(5th grade-IY absent)

7 3/18/15 1:00-3:00 2 hours Lesson Plan #3

(5th grade-IY absent,

switched focal student to C)

8 3/25/15 1:00-3:00 2 hours Lesson Plan #4

(5th grade-Didn’t finish

lesson plan due to time

constraints/substitute)

9 4/1/15 1:00-3:00 2 hours Lesson Plan #5

(5th grade-C absent)

10 4/15/15 1:00-3:00 2 hours Lesson Plan #6/Progress-

Monitoring

(5th grade-both students

absent)

Literacy Profile 21

IX. Literacy Lessons and Reflections

Lesson One: Word Knowledge

Literacy Profile 22

Lesson Two: Iyana Absent

Literacy Profile 23

Literacy Profile 24

Literacy Profile 25

Lesson Three: Iyana Absent

Literacy Profile 26

Literacy Profile 27

Literacy Profile 28

Literacy Profile 29

Lesson Four

Literacy Profile 30

Literacy Profile 31

Literacy Profile 32

Literacy Profile 33

Lesson Five: Catlin Absent

Literacy Profile 34

Literacy Profile 35

Literacy Profile 36

Literacy Profile 37

Lesson Six/Progress-Monitoring: Both Students Absent

Literacy Profile 38

Literacy Profile 39

Literacy Profile 40

X. Progress Monitoring and Post-Assessments

Progress Monitoring

Based on pre-assessment data in my initial sessions with both of my students, I

determined that areas of need for these students were comprehension and writing. Our

comprehension strategy focuses were determining importance and inferring. Our writing

strategy focuses were pre-writing and organization. In addition, the students had low self-

efficacy which was determined in our initial interview discussions. The students also need

support in word knowledge and fluency; however, due to the time constraints of our tutoring

sessions, these areas were not prioritized over comprehension and writing. Therefore, I designed

progress-monitoring measures to incorporate into my sixth lesson plan and my final tutoring

session with the students. The purpose of these measures was to document the influence of my

instruction throughout our tutoring experience.

In order to document an increase in student self-efficacy, I chose five affective measure

questions to ask the students. These questions were chosen from the student interview, the

Elementary Garfield Survey, and the Reader Self-Perception Scale. In order to document an

increase in fluency (expression while reading) and comprehension of a text, I planned to take a

running record of one-hundred words from the book Thank You Mr. Falker and designed four

implicit and explicit comprehension questions. These questions would require the students to

determine importance and infer information within the text. The running record text is a level

4.8 which is an instructional level for both students. Lastly, to document growth in writing, I

planned for the students to answer the prompt “What character traits do you value most in a

friend?” using a pre-writing/brainstorm graphic organizer.

Literacy Profile 41

What I Learned

Unfortunately, IY and C were both absent for our final tutoring session. Therefore, I was

not able to complete final progress-monitoring measures with the students. However, throughout

our sessions together, I did informally see growth in the use of comprehension strategies from

the students. I incorporated a variety of graphic organizers to support students in organizing

their thinking and inferring character traits in our readings and the students were able to do this

independently by our fifth lesson together. I did not see much growth in the area of writing.

Many of our sessions together were cut short or the students were absent and we were not able to

spend extensive amounts of instructional time in the areas of writing.

If I were to re-write an instructional plan for their teachers to implement, I would suggest

a different comprehension strategy focus. The students have shown their ability to use

determining importance and inferring strategies independently and would benefit from explicit

instruction of other comprehension strategies in the future. In addition, I would share the success

of incorporating graphic organizers into our lessons and suggest the use of graphic organizers in

their classrooms to support students as they read. Also, I would note the need for a continued

instructional focus for writing. The students would benefit from explicit instruction in all areas

of the writing process to support their writing development. Below, I have included a snapshot

of two graphic organizers that the students completed in our tutoring sessions together. These

graphic organizers document the students’ ability to infer information, such as character traits,

from a narrative text. The first is C’s graphic from an earlier session and the second is Iyana’s

from a later session.

Literacy Profile 42

Literacy Profile 43

XI. Review of the Research – Revisited

Over the course of my tutoring sessions with C this semester, I have gained insights into

his abilities, as well as his personality, as a student. Pre-assessment data and progress-

monitoring measures at the beginning of the semester indicated that C is not making adequate,

grade-level progress in areas of reading, writing, and word work. Therefore, he should be

receiving Tier I intervention instruction in the classroom and could qualify for Tier II

intervention services under the Response to Intervention (RTI) model. Based on this

information, I have made a few recommendations regarding his literacy intervention in the

school context.

The first recommendation for intervention I would make for C is in regards to the

organizational pattern of his intervention. I recommend that he continue to receive tutoring

services in a small-group setting with no more than four students per group. He is functioning on

a fourth-grade reading level, which is only one year below the expected fifth grade level;

however, he is struggling with comprehension of texts, writing, and word-work. He would

benefit from explicit instruction in these areas with the literacy specialist in order to receive

additional instruction to that supplied in the classroom and to receive extensive opportunities to

practice these skills. According to Gunning in Assessing and Correcting Reading and Writing

Difficulties, “In small groups, students’ needs are met more easily, they have more opportunities

to respond, and the teacher is better able to assess their progress and adjust their instruction

accordingly” (2010, p. 534). He is currently receiving only whole-group instruction within the

classroom and two-on-one tutoring services with me on Wednesdays.

The second recommendation for intervention I would make for C is in regards to the

instructional intervention schedule. In our sessions this semester, we were only scheduled to

Literacy Profile 44

meet one day a week for twenty-five minutes. I found that this time-frame usually became

fifteen minutes per Wednesday session and C was frequently absent from school. Gunning

states, “Based on an analysis of a number of studies, Guthrie, Seifert, and Kline (1978)

concluded that a minimum of 50 hours of corrective instruction is required for sustained gains”

(p. 532). Therefore, I recommend that Catlin receive a minimum of two to three small-group

sessions per week for a minimum of thirty to fifty minutes per session. These sessions could

take place on Wednesdays during our regularly scheduled tutoring time, as well as a pull-out

time during Pride homeroom blocks.

Overall, in addition to the organizational pattern and instructional schedule for

intervention, I recommend that C’s teachers continue to use a variety of assessments and

progress-monitoring measures to document his literacy growth and areas of instructional needs.

The school relied heavily on I-Ready data to determine the Catlin’s instructional reading level to

be third-grade; however, various assessment tools, listed in other sections of the profile,

demonstrated he was functioning on a fourth-grade level. Nancy Cecil, Joan Gipe, and Marcy

Merrill in Literacy in Grades 4-8: Best Practices for a Comprehensive Program (3rd Edition)

note, “there must be a reciprocal, synergistic relationship between assessment and teaching; in

other words, teaching and assessing must continually inform one another” (2014, p. 25). He

should continue to receive classroom instruction, as well as intervention services, on his

appropriate instructional levels based on reliable and valid assessment data.

Literacy Profile 45

References

Cecil, N.L., Gipe, J.P., & Merrill, M. (2014). Literacy in grades 4-8: Best practices for a

comprehensive program (3rd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway, Publishers, Inc.

Gunning, T. (2010). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (4th ed.). New

York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.

Literacy Profile 46

XII. Report Writing

Name: C Grade: 5th grade Tutor’s Name: Jennifer Eubank Dates of Tutoring: January 28th, 2015-April 15th, 2015

Dear Ms. Thompson,

C attended 7 out of 9 tutoring sessions during the spring semester of 2015. I have enjoyed and benefited greatly from tutoring C this semester. He is spunky and always excited to learn something new. I organized the tutoring sessions to keep up that excitement and build on it while also giving him specialized lessons reflecting his strengths and needs. C participated in sessions that included reading practice to build fluency and silent reading to foster reading comprehension. Writing instruction and practice complimented the comprehension work.

Informal reading assessments conducted at the beginning of the semester showed C to be reading on a fourth grade level. His word recognition in isolation showed that he knew most fourth grade words but approximately half of a sample of fifth grade words. His oral reading rate was acceptable (104 words per minute) and demonstrated some attention to phrasing. An analysis of his oral reading miscues showed that he often substitutes words for others (e.g., handing for heading). In addition to his reading assessments, his spelling assessments showed that his spelling was slightly below grade level expectations. Notable spelling errors included inflected endings (e.g., serveing: serving) and syllable juncture (e.g., CARSE: carries) features.

I had planned to administer progress-monitoring measures at the end of the tutorial to document the growth that C has made; however, due to C’s absences at the end of our sessions, I was not able to complete post-assessments with him. Within our individual tutoring sessions, I found that C is reading with more confidence and demonstrating comprehension growth on a fourth grade reading level.

Most importantly, I designed instruction to connect with C’s interests. Our study of valuable character traits in friends sparked C’s interest in reading and writing about the topic. He demonstrated strong skills with inferring and determining importance and is aware that continuing to work on these skills will help him be more successful in all his other classes.

It has been a pleasure working with C this spring. Attached is a list of books that would be appropriate for C to enjoy reading over the summer.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Eubank

Jennifer Eubank Dr. Angelica Blanchette M. Ed. Candidate Practicum Supervisor Reading, Literacy, and Learning Reading, Literacy, and Learning Longwood University Longwood University

Literacy Profile 47

Book List

Where the Sidewalk Ends: Poems and Drawings by Shel Silverstein

Lost at Sea by Jonathan Neale

The Mystery of the Pirate Ghost by Geoffrey Hayes

Miss Daisy Is Crazy by Dan Gutman

How to Dork Your Diary by Rachel Renee Russell

Because of Winn Dixie by Kate DiCamillo

I Funny: A Middle School Story by James Patterson

Middle School Is Worse Than Meatloaf by Jennifer Holm