Midterm Assessment

1. Midterm Assessment READ 693 Clinician: Laura Burnette Tutee: Brian Cohn

2. Demographic Information • Name of Clinician: Laura Burnette • Name of Tutee: Brian Cohn • Age: 7 • Grade: 2

3. Background Information 2009 • An occupational therapist evaluated Brian in November of 2009 due to his lack of clear hand dominance and use of a mature grip on utensils. • The testing reported a delay in his grasping skills and that he neurologically prefers the right side, but his challenges with the trigger thumb he was born with has caused him to use his left side as well. • Occupational therapy was suggested in order for him to increase his success in school and independence with tasks.

4. Background Information 2010 • Brian was tested by Riverpoint Psychiatric Associates in December of 2010 and their evaluation was that he may have some slight delays with his handwriting and overall handedness based on his medical history, but that therapy was not necessary. The doctor did recommend that Brian may benefit from meeting with a reading specialist.

5. Background Information 2011 • Brian was tested by Speech, Language, and Literacy Evaluators at the Children’s Hospital of the King’s Daughters in April 2011 and suggestions include: • increased fluency training • multiple readings of continuous text • reading text with a high accuracy rate

6. Background Information 2011 • reading material three to four times for optimal benefit • multiple readings of single words and phrases • arranging for short, frequent periods of fluency practice • incentives for reading practice • concrete measures of progress

7. Background Information 2011 • Brian’s PALS test scores show that his accuracy level is at 96% for the First Grade Oral Reading in Context assessment. • He had a perfect score for beginning/ending sounds and CVC short vowel sounds. • He is strong with digraphs, blends, CVCs, and r- and l- influenced words. • His PALS scores indicate that he struggles with long vowel sounds and nasals. • His DRA level (as reported by his teacher in Fall 2011) was 16 and the benchmark was 18.

8. Background Information 2011 • An optometrist evaluated Brian in May of 2011 and concluded that Brian needs extra time while working on assignments and that time pressure could cause lowered levels of comprehension. He stated that “extra time on tests, written class work, and reading assignments is essential to his overall performance.” • Brian was identified as intellectually gifted in July 2011.

9. Background Information 2012 • Brian began seeing a reading specialist on a regular basis in January 2012. • Brian began wearing glasses in February 2012.

10. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used • Elementary Reading Attitude Survey:

11. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used • Elementary Reading Attitude Survey:

12. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Profile Record: Reader Interview • Brian identified his favorite author as Melanie Watt and named her Chester and Scaredy Squirrel books as his favorites. He also wrote about Library Mouse and Stink. • Reading habits: • Looking at the book to see if it is the right level. • Skipping unknown words. • Using the dictionary for unknown words. • Advantage to being a good reader is to understand everything.

13. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Graded Word Lists:

14. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Graded Word Lists: Form A, Primer

15. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Graded Word Lists: Form A, Level 1

16. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Graded Word Lists: Form A, Level 2

17. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Graded Word Lists: Form A, Level 3

18. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Form A Reader’s Passages:

19. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Form A, Preprimer: Word Recognition: Independent, Comprehension: Independent • Analysis: • Brian’s prior knowledge/prediction was appropriate and used the visual cue from the picture on the page. He used the first two sentences to make a possible prediction. • Brian did not have any miscues. He made one self-correction, which was after he had a miscue and he repeated reading to make the self-correction. • He read fluently and at a good pace. • He was able to retell the main parts of the story. • For his comprehension questions, he answered them all satisfactorily. • Brian’s emotional status was confident.

20. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Form A, Primer: Word Recognition: Independent, Comprehension: Instructional • Analysis: • Brian’s initial prior knowledge/prediction was appropriate and used the visual cue from the picture on the page. He used the first two sentences to make a possible prediction. • Brian did not have any miscues. He made three self-corrections: the first after an omission and repeated reading, the second immediately after a substitution, and the third after an omission and repeated reading. • He read at a fairly fluently and at a reasonable pace. • He was able to retell some parts of the story in order. • For his comprehension questions, he answered most of them satisfactorily. He answered incorrectly to both PIT (puts information together) questions. • Brian’s emotional status was confident.

21. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Form A, Level 1: Word Recognition: Instructional, Comprehension: Instructional

22. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Form A, Level 1: Word Recognition: Instructional, Comprehension: Instructional • Analysis: • Brian’s initial prior knowledge/prediction was appropriate and used the visual cue from the picture on the page. He used the first two sentences to make a possible prediction. • None of Brian’s miscues changed the meaning of the sentences. Most were syntactically unacceptable. Brian made two self-corrections while reading the story. Only two of his miscues were graphophonically similar, both in the initial parts of the word, one at the final part. • He read at a fairly fluently and at a reasonable pace. • He was able to retell some parts of the story in order. • For his comprehension questions, he answered most of them satisfactorily. He answered incorrectly to both PIT (puts information together) questions. • Brian’s emotional status was confident.

23. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Form A, Level 2: Word Recognition: Instructional, Comprehension: Independent

24. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Form A, Level 2: Word Recognition: Instructional, Comprehension: Independent • Analysis: • Brian’s initial prior knowledge/prediction was appropriate. He mentioned that the story does not have a picture so he does not know if the baseball star is a boy or girl, so he decided to call her a girl. He used the first two sentences to make a possible prediction. • Brian’s miscues all changed the meaning in half of the sentences, but did not in the other half. Over half of his miscues were in the last two sentences of the story. Most were syntactically unacceptable. Brian made two self-corrections while reading the story. Six of his miscues were graphophonically similar, five in the initial parts of the word, two in the medial parts, and one at the final part. • He read at a fairly fluently and at a reasonable pace. This was despite the fact that he had eleven miscues and six self-corrections. • Brian’s retelling had a few details but was in disorder and showed signs that he did not comprehend it. • For his comprehension questions, he answered all of them satisfactorily. • Brian’s emotional status was confident.

25. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Form A, Level 3: Word Recognition: Frustration, Comprehension: Frustration

26. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Analytical Reading Inventory Results: • Form A, Level 3: Word Recognition: Frustration, Comprehension: Frustration • Analysis: • Brian’s initial prior knowledge/prediction was appropriate. He used the first two sentences to make a possible prediction. • Brian’s miscues all changed the meaning in half of the sentences, but did not in the other half. Most were syntactically unacceptable. Six of his miscues were graphophonically similar, five in the initial parts of the word, two in the medial parts, and one at the final part. Brian made two self-corrections while reading the story. • He read at a fairly fluently and at a reasonable pace. This was despite the fact that he had 25 miscues and two self-corrections. • Brian’s retelling had a few details but was in disorder and showed signs that he did not comprehend it. • For his comprehension questions, he answered all of them satisfactorily with the exception of the two RIF (retells in facts) questions. • Brian’s emotional status was slightly nervous.

27. Assessment/Diagnostic Tools Used Woodcock Reading Mastery Test • Visual-Auditory Learning: Brian had 27 total errors during the test, creating a raw score of 107.

28. Information from Results and Observations • Brian enjoys reading for pleasure. • When he gets to words he doesn’t recognize, he identifies words based on initial and final sounds. • Brian will continue reading after guessing words. When asked, he can summarize what he read with or without errors in reading. • He comprehends literal and figurative language. • He does not show frustration when he misses words. • Brian expressed an interest in working on his fluency skills.

29. Diagnostic Teaching Strategies Used • Reminders to chunk words • Questioning before, during, and after reading • Tracking • Introduction of several types of books • Utilization of word building skills during games • Compound word building • Matching Word Parts to Build Words (from Improving Reading text)

30. Recommendations/Suggestions for Long-Term Instruction • Work on identifying medial sounds • Defining fluency with Brian. • Identifying qualities of a fluent reader. • Creating goals for increasing Brian’s fluency. • Implementation of the Reading Progress Chart • Implementation of the Reading Fluency Rubric • Attempt to focus Brian less on speed and more on accuracy.