Running Head: LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY

Literacy Learner Case Study

Matthew Okabe

University of Hawaii

EDCS 647
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 2

Part I. Purpose and Focus

As a (future) reading specialist and teacher, part of the job description requires me to

diagnose whether or not a student has reading difficulties and then determine the best course of

action in helping the student achieve his full potential. In doing so, there must be a focus and end

goal for the student. Ultimately, the purpose of reading is comprehension (McKenna & Stahl,

2015). The debate about whether fluency or comprehension is the ultimate purpose is important,

but my view aligns with McKenna when we see that the development of fluency aides in the

building of comprehension for students. Thus, my view of assessment is that any administered

assessment will have the ultimate end goal of aiding in the process of comprehension of grade-

level appropriate text.

There are many variables when taking a single assessment and then labeling a child as

having “reading difficulties”. These variables may include trauma the child witnesses, hunger

from lack of food, a lack of focus due to sleep among other things (McKenna & Stahl, 2015).

This is why multiple assessments to inform a final decision are required before labeling a student

as having a “reading difficulty”. Not only multiple assessments for the initial labeling, but

multiple assessments by way of progress monitoring to not only show progress in data team

meetings, but to share with the student and his family in order to boost self-efficacy.

The student I chose is 10-year-old Juan. Juan is a general education student in my 5th

grade classroom at Viewmont Elementary. Juan does not currently receive any special education

or speech services. He moved back to Utah over the summer from Arizona. He had previously

attended Viewmont Elementary until the apartment building his family lived in suffered fire
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 3

damage and his family was displaced three years ago. English is Juan’s primary language for

both himself and his family. He identifies as Mexican-American. What makes Juan of particular

interest to me as his teacher is the fact that he is not receiving any services, but has performed

poorly on assessments thus far in both reading comprehension skills and fluency.

Part II. Home and Family

Juan has an older sister in middle school and a younger sister who also attends Viewmont

Elementary. He currently lives with his mother and sisters. His mom is seemingly supportive

over the phone. I have had a conversation with her and her attitude toward literacy mirror that of

the majority of parents I have interacted with in that literacy development is important. When

scheduling parent-teacher conferences, she set up the appointment and then failed to appear

without any communication as to why. Her oldest daughter recently has suffered some medical

difficulties – so much so that the middle school would not allow her to return to school without a

formal meeting to discuss the health of the child. He helps take care of his younger sister –

attempting to fulfill a positive male role model for her.

Based on conversations with Juan, he seems to have a lot of autonomy without a lot of

oversight. He arrives to school with his younger sister sometimes an hour before the first bell.

After school, Juan will go with his younger sister to the local public library to “hang out”. The

local public library branch is a popular site for children in the neighborhood as a safe place to

“hang out”. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of quiet studying that takes place here. The

neighborhood is grateful to have a safe place for the children to be while many parents are

working to provide for their families.

Juan suggests that there is not a lot of literacy in the home. There are “some” books, but

none that interest him that he can find on his level. Mom is not seen as someone who is actively
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 4

involved in literacy activities. Juan does not remember his mother reading to him in younger

grades and does not usually see her engaged in reading, other than material on her phone. It can

be speculated that she is not only engaged in social activities such as texting, but could also be

involved in activities like reading the news or Facebook articles.

Part III. Affective Factors

Juan knows that he is a struggling reader. He is aware of his first Scholastic Reading

Inventory score of 296 Lexile, placing him in the lowest reading group. He attempts to hide this

behind a façade in which he boasts to other students about his “amazing” abilities and scores.

When completing an assignment, he will make a point to announce to the class that his score was

one of the top, if not the top, in the entire class. We have taken five weeks of the basal weekly

tests – which test both the comprehension skills of the week in addition to vocabulary in context.

Over the past five tests, Juan has scored between 35% and 70%, with his overall average of the

five tests sitting at approximately 60%. He is unwilling to take risks in both reading and math at

the fear of failure. In our discussions, we are attempting to adopt the school wide paradigm of the

“Growth Mindset” as outlined by Carol Dwek. Juan has a desire to perform well on assignments

and assessments, but lacks the skills to get there.

Part IV. School Literacy History

Mom recognizes that Juan struggles in academic areas. His cumulative record has not yet

arrived from the previous school in Arizona, and I therefore do not have essential records to

know if Juan’s statements of being “at the top of his class” are accurate. Based on classroom

observations, it would suggest that Juan’s statements are not entirely accurate.

At Viewmont Elementary, reading instruction is based on the basal program “Wonders”

by Houghton Mifflin. While any English Language Learner has access to two different computer
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 5

based learning programs (Imagine Learning and Lexia), because Juan is not an English Language

Learner, he does not have access to these programs. There are two components to language arts

instruction, whole-group and small group. Much of the whole group instruction comes from the

basal program while I also supplement high interest reading material from various sources

including Scholastic News, Time for Kids, and NewsELA.com. There is time for me to work

with Juan in a small group setting in the morning for approximately 20 minutes as I attempt to

rotate through three different groups during the one hour intervention block.

Part V. Pre-tests Given and Summary of Test Results

Juan is an example of a transfer student between different states. His Cumulative

Assessment Record has been requested multiple times from the charter school he attended in

Arizona. Unfortunately, the school has been unresponsive. Juan had previously spent some time

in the Salt Lake City School District, however, when his family moved out of state, all records

were passed on to the next school. It was and has been difficult to place Juan appropriately

without the use of several measures of his literacy ability.

The Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) was administered as a screener to all students at

the beginning of the school year – as is expected of all upper elementary teachers in the school

district. This is a comprehension screener that has a combination of both questions about the text

and sentences that require you to choose the correct word. Juan scored a 296 Lexile Level. This

places him at a low second grade comprehension level. A “typical” fifth grader should be scoring

between a 770 and a 1080 Lexile level. This was immediately a red flag and additional screeners

followed.

It was important to determine if reading was the primary issue. To determine this, a

“Core Phonics” assessment (also known as the Placement and Diagnostic Assessment: Phonics
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 6

Survey) produced by McGraw-Hill Education was used. Within Consonant Digraphs, Juan was

able to read 8/10 nonsense words and scored a 10/10 in the consonant digraphs in text. In the

CVCC and CCVC words, he scored 7/10 nonsense words and 9/10 in the reading CVCC and

CCVC words in text. When reading words with the silent “e”, Juan scored 8/10 nonsense words

and 9/10 in reading words with the silent “e” in text. With r-Controlled Vowels he scored 7/10

nonsense words and 9/10 reading r-Controlled vowel words in text. In Advanced Consonants (-

tch, -dge, -x, qu, soft c & g, kn, wr, -lk) he scored 4/10 nonsense words and 8/10 reading real

words with advanced consonants in text. With vowel teams (oa, ea, oo, ai, ol, ay, ou, oi, oy, au,

aw, oe, ew, al, igh) he was able to read 18/30 words (mixed between nonsense and “real” words).

In multi-syllable words Juan was able to read 8/10 of the 2-syllable words, 5/10 of the 3-syllable

words, and 3/10 of the 4-syllable words. Finally, in the prefixes and suffixes category, Juan was

able to correctly read 24/30 of the words containing words with prefixes (such as dis-, non-, in-,

pre-, re-, un-, con-, -tion, -ous, -ness, -able, -est, --ful, -ary, and –ment). These results did not

warrant a need to return to basic phonics instruction. They were fairly consistent with other

students on the grade level – especially in attempting to have students read nonsense words at the

fifth-grade level. Like many other students, Juan tried to pronounce known words rather than

sound out words that made no sense, even with the instruction that some words may be nonsense

words. With basic phonics no longer a major concern, fluency was next on the list.

Two similar measures were administered – both to test fluency. The first assessment was

the DIBELS on the fifth-grade level. On this test, Juan achieved 69 Correct WPM on his DORF

(Dibels Oral Reading Fluency) with 93% accuracy. The other assessment was the final fluency

assessment from the Wonders Basal Reading Program on the fourth-grade level. On this

assessment, Juan achieved 80 WPM with 94% accuracy. While attention to accuracy is now to
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 7

be a focal area, Juan’s speed is not dangerously low. The criteria set forth by DIBELS in order to

move a student to the next grade level in upper grades (3-6) is the student must be reading at

least 50 WPM on the grade level and achieving 99% accuracy. Juan’s speed is consistent with

classmates, but accuracy is lower than desired – which potentially has an effect on his

comprehension.

While not necessarily a “pre-test”, the class takes the “Approaching Level” Weekly

Wonders test as a formative assessment for where students are in relation to the week’s

instruction. These weekly tests include the comprehension skill of the week, vocabulary in

context, and have a grammar component. They include two separate passages with questions

matched to the passages. Juan’s average score over the last eight weekly assignments has been

47.5%. His high score was a 70% (second week of school) and low score was 35% (interestingly

enough, the third week of school). Considering that the passages that students are required to

read have a Lexile level significantly higher than a 296, Juan is able to use other skills (hopefully

skills other than guessing) to compensate.

There will therefore be two main desired outcomes for Juan. First, increasing his

accuracy in oral reading to 99%. While increasing accuracy, we will hopefully also see an

increase in reading rate as repeated readings are employed. We will aim to keep his current

reading rate (at a minimum) and increase his accuracy to proficient levels. The second outcome

will be to increase Juan’s comprehension skills specifically with main idea and detail. By

identifying the main idea and details to support that main idea, Juan will have tools necessary to

further his comprehension.

VI. Lesson Plan Matrix

Lesson Foci/Date Objectives (include Instructional On-going

including materials (what will assessment (to
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 8

performance, use to deliver the measure attainment

conditions, and main objectives of of objectives)
criterion. State the the lesson)
Common Core State
Standard at the end
of each objective.
Accuracy Juan will read grade Reading passages at DIBELS Progress
level text with 99% appropriate lexile monitoring – use the
accuracy while level and text appropriate level at
maintaining a complexity (found at which Juan is
minimum of 63 newsela.com) performing.
WPM.

CCSS.ELA-
LITERACY.RF.5.4.B

Read grade-level
prose and poetry
orally with accuracy,
appropriate rate, and
expression on
successive readings.

Comprehension Juan will correctly Reading passages at In addition to

answer 3 out of four appropriate lexile assessment after
questions about the level and text intervention,
main idea and details complexity (found at continued monitoring
of a passage in 4 out newsela.com) of weekly assessment
of five attempts. results based on
comprehension skills.
CCSS.ELA-
LITERACY.RF.5.4.A

Read grade-level
text with purpose
and understanding.

Part VII. Post-Tests Given and Summary of Results

With accuracy and comprehension as the two main foci, post testing included an SRI test

(which is considered within the normal testing range because Juan originally took the first SRI in

August – and it is recommended approximately once a quarter.) I also used a cold read of the
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 9

DIBELS Progress Monitoring as a post-test to check for accuracy, as well as ensure that speed

did not drop below expected levels of performance. I also performed “warm reads” within Juan’s

lexile level band to ensure that he was proficient at that level. I chose to do this as the DIBELS

passages were all at a 5th grade level. Comprehension checks included Juan identifying the main

idea of a passage given a multiple choice question, then being asked to find three details within

the passage that specifically support that main idea.

I was pleased with the progress as reported by the Scholastic Reading Inventory. With an

original score of 296, Juan increased his post-test score by over 200 points to achieve a score of

506. The difficult piece is that there are many lurking variables that will have contributed to the

success or perceived success presented here. From August, Juan has received high quality tier 1

instruction in the whole group language arts setting. A lot of the focus of the tier 1 instruction is

comprehension skills that can be applied across texts. Juan also participates in small group

instruction that uses the Wonder’s program’s leveled readers. Juan has also spent time building a

working relationship with me as his teacher. Juan and I have had several discussions since the

beginning of the year regarding behavior, growth, and expectations. Anecdotally, in recent

weeks, Juan has refrained from the façade of “I performed highest in the class” and is now taking

ownership of his work and actions.

Juan’s success criteria included his ability to identify the main idea as well as details that

support the main idea in four out of five attempts. This included choosing a main idea from a

multiple-choice question, then supporting his main idea selection with details from the text. Juan

would then need to write down the three supporting details in sentence form. Juan still has room

for growth in supporting the main idea with details. There were no difficulties in choosing the

main idea, but the details chosen would be off-topic.

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 10

Unfortunately, Juan has not made sufficient progress in accuracy in reading grade level

text. For the “cold reads” I chose to wait for a couple of days after the intervention lesson. My

purpose was to try and get a gauge of how accurately Juan is able to pick up a text and read

accurately without his brain being in “reading mode”. We read two DIBELS progress monitoring

passages on separate dates. The first Juan read a total of 62 words with 8 errors. This calculated

to 87% accuracy. The second progress monitoring passage, Juan was able to read 80 total words

with 73 of them correct. This calculated at 91% accuracy. Both of these scores were below the

original DIBELS benchmark assessment of 93% accuracy. Originally, Juan scored 69 correct

WPM and his second progress monitoring passage recorded 73 correct WPM. Anecdotally, when

performing a “warm” read (400 lexile level), Juan was able to read 96 Correct WPM at 95%

accuracy. Based on Juan’s reading, I noted that the five errors on the “warm” read came from

names of people as well as dropping of suffixes from root words.

Part VIII. Reflections on Your Differentiated Literacy Lesson Plans

As I’ve taken the opportunity to pause and reflect on the lesson plans, it is clear that the

lack of progress I was hoping to see can be partially attributed to the lack of frequency in

meeting with Juan. Originally for this project, I thought that working with Juan one-on-one for

twenty to thirty minutes for the two lessons would be the effective. However, Juan did not

progress as expected in accuracy. There was, however, progress in comprehension as measured

by the Scholastic Reading Inventory. This can be partially attributed to the fact that Juan

continued to work with a small group (approximately 5 students) on specific comprehension

skills at a lexile reading level within Juan’s ZPD three times a week. These lessons are not

accounted for within the scope of this project, but definitely have had an impact on the progress

Juan has made for gains in comprehension. For whole group language arts instruction, a
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 11

modified Fluency Oriented Reading Instruction (FORI) model has been implemented, so it is

surprising that there was not a significant change in fluency abilities. This lack in fluency ability

is influenced by Juan’s strong ability to decode the root words, but leaving off endings such as “-

ed” and “ing” as evidenced in his “warm” repeated read regarding cafeteria food.

Even after hearing the text read and echo/choral reading with my, Juan had to be

reminded to “slow down” as he was reading. This behavior of rushing through the text became

noticeably worse when there was a timer involved. Instead of taking the time to sound out a

word, Juan would replace the correct word with one that he believed was “close enough” to

count (and the words generally made the text make sense). For example, on the second reading

passage from the DIBELS progress monitoring book (Ride the ICE), Juan said, “on” instead of

“in”. He also replaced “our” with “the” and skipped the word “a” twice. He also omitted the

words “there in” in one of the sentences. Juan also dropped the ending on the word “expected”

and said “expect”. If we assumed that Juan slowed down to where he was not skipping words,

replacing words, and dropping the suffixes of words, AND we were to count Juan’s one self-

correct of the word “ridden” as an error, Juan would have an accuracy score of 98.75%! When I

discussed this great achievement with Juan, he was not excited about what was possible with

slowing down slightly, rather he was concerned about rushing through the text because he states,

“but I only have a minute to read as far as I can”.

When reflecting on methodologies for Juan, the use of direct instruction with

metacognitive “think alouds” were the best option for Juan with regards to comprehension.

These are the same set of instructional skills that are used for whole group and small group

comprehension activities. It provides a powerful model for students to emulate. I believe the

frequency with which Juan was exposed to this kind of metacognitive thinking let to him using
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 12

these skills as he attempted and completed the Scholastic Reading Inventory. For accuracy, I

believed FORI to be a good model to work with. However, it seems that Juan’s accuracy is not

going to be fixed based on exposure to fluent repeated readings. It may have been more

beneficial to work with Juan on suffixes and appropriate pacing with a timer.

For future lessons in working with Juan, a renewed emphasis on accuracy would be

appropriate. Comprehension skills are emphasized as the purpose of reading within the

classroom. A lot of the activities, including the weekly assessment, record and report about

comprehension. While Wonders has a fluency component, even with the modified FORI model,

it is not enough to promote fluency to effect change. Juan may be able to look as though he is

participating during whole group instruction, however, may not be. During the one-on-one

lessons with Juan, I saw observed that there was no trouble with being able to keep up with my

pace when reading on his appropriate lexile level. In order to place this renewed emphasis on

accuracy, I would incorporate more fluency practice in the small group setting to ensure that

Juan is not simply pretending to participate. I would also incorporate a chart to help track the

fluency ability of Juan. There is a chart used in FORI that tracks not only the correct WPM, but

also the number of errors. The hope being that the error line will decrease, and the number of

words correct will increase. Another idea to promote accuracy and fluency would be the use of

technology. Perhaps having Juan record himself for a minute and take time to critique (with me

first, then independently) what is played back. Then Juan can think about what was heard and

what adjustments can be made to improve the oral reading. Reading homework is expected,

therefore Juan should already be reading daily at home for a minimum of 30 minutes. However,

without the proper oversight, it is difficult to determine if this is happening or not.

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 13

I would also increase the frequency at which the fluency intervention was being

administered. Juan’s small group (with students ranging from 275 L to 350 L) was heavily

focused on the comprehension of text. This seems to have helped comprehension when added to

the comprehension activities planned. Yet without the focus on fluency, fluency gains were not

significant. A fluency component can be added to the small group, pairing up students within the

small group, thus giving me the opportunity to work with more than just Juan on fluency tasks.

Part IX. Recommendations to Parents/Care Givers

To the next teacher: Juan is a student with good decoding skills. Juan has progressed over

the past few months based on the Scholastic Reading Inventory from a 296 to 507 Lexile level!

We have worked intensely on comprehension strategies that help us when we read (both in tier 1

and tier 2 instruction). We have worked to think aloud to identify the main idea and then have

gone back into the text to identify any details that helped us come to the main idea of the

passage. We want to work with Juan on slowing down to increase accuracy. Sometimes Juan

skips words, omits suffixes, or replaces words with others that may “fit”.
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 14

To the Parents/Guardians of Juan,

First, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to work with Juan. It has been a

rewarding experience as Juan and I have worked together on comprehending text and increasing

our accuracy. I thought you might appreciate an update as to how Juan is doing.

Juan is an excellent decoder. This means that he is able to take words and sound them out

as needed. When Juan uses the time to slow down and look at all parts of the word, he is

successful! Sometimes, Juan rushes a little too quickly when reading out loud. This leads to

skipping words, leaving off suffixes, and replacing words instead of reading what is in front of

him. As of his last reading passage, Juan was able to achieve 91% accuracy. Ultimately, we

would love to see Juan achieve 95% - 100% accuracy. We will continue to work on this at school

To help Juan at home, it would be helpful to have Juan reading out loud to you (perhaps his

current independent reading book!) Have Juan pay particular attention to accurately reading the

words on the page instead of just getting quickly to the end.

Juan has made great progress in comprehension! On the last Scholastic Reading

Inventory test, Juan scored a 507! That is just over a 200-point increase from where we started in

August! Juan has worked hard on identifying the main idea of a text and finding details that

support the main idea. We would love it if Juan continued to progress in comprehending text by

practicing at home. We recommend students read to an older family member, identify the main

idea, and then explain how they know using details from the text.

We will explore more of his progress at the next round of parent-teacher conferences. If

you want to meet before then, I’d be happy to! Please feel free to reach out at (xxx)xxx-xxxx or

e-mail at xxxxxxx.xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx to set up a meeting or if you have any other

questions or concerns.
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 15

Part X. Appendices

Appendix A: References

Don't like cafeteria coleslaw or milk? Donate it on the share table. (November 27). Retrieved
December 02, 2017, from https://newsela.com/read/elem-shared-food-table/id/37974/

McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, K.A. (2015). Assessment for Reading Instruction. New York:
The Guilford Press

Touching a museum object is more powerful than just looking, but it's risky. (2017, November
11). Retrieved December 02, 2017, from https://newsela.com/read/elem-touching-
art/id/37708/

Train departure 20 seconds early is locomation commotion in Japan. (2017, November 27).
Retrieved December 02, 2017, from https://newsela.com/read/elem-japan-late-train-
apology/id/38009/

Appendix B: Lesson Plans

Lesson 1

Objective: Juan will read text orally with 99% accuracy. Juan will identify the main idea of the

text and support it with at least 3 details from the text.

Alignment with Core: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.5.4.B Read grade-level prose and poetry orally
with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.5.4.A Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding.

Materials: Article “Touching a museum object is more powerful than just looking, but it’s

risky”, highlighter, timer, pencil, question set (provided by NEWSELA)

Instructional Steps:

Introduce the article to the student. Build background knowledge by discussing museums, their

purpose, why people go there. Remind student of how we read text in tier 1 whole group. We use

a FORI model. Read the article to the student using the prompt, “my turn, you point”. Ensure
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 16

that the student if pointing to follow along. After every couple of paragraphs, stop and ask the

question, “what is the author trying to tell us here?” Continue to the end of the article. The article

will then be read a second time. Before reading, determine the main idea of the text. Depending

on the general mood of the student, this can be done either as an echo read or choral read

activity. Echo reading may be more beneficial as you, as the instructor, have additional time to

listen to the reading of the student. First, you read a couple of sentences, exhibiting proper

prosody. Then, have the student echo the text back using the same speed and prosody as the

teacher. After every couple of paragraphs, to dig a little deeper, ask, “does this information help

support the main idea of this text?” Briefly discuss. At the end of the article, turn to the page

with the questions. Have the student answer the question about the MAIN idea of the text. At the

bottom of the page, have the student write at least three key details that support the main idea. If

helpful, use the highlighters to go back into the text and highlight important information (this is

part of the assessment).

Assessment: Use the timer to time the student for one minute. Calculate WCPM and accuracy.

Have student answer the multiple-choice question that asks, “What is the article MAINLY

about?” Use highlighters to go back into the text to highlight supporting details. Write down the

details at the end of the question set.

Lesson 2

Objective: Juan will read text orally with 99% accuracy. Juan will identify the main idea of the

text and support it with at least 3 details from the text.

Alignment with Core: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.5.4.B Read grade-level prose and poetry orally
with accuracy, appropriate rate, and expression on successive readings.

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RF.5.4.A Read grade-level text with purpose and understanding.

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 17

Materials: Article “Don’t like cafeteria coleslaw or milk? Donate it on the share table”,

highlighter, timer, pencil, question set (provided by NEWSELA)

Instructional Steps:

Introduce the article to the student. Build background knowledge by discussing the cafeteria,

food portions, and wasted food in the trash. Remind student of how we read text in tier 1 whole

group. We use a FORI model. Read the article to the student using the prompt, “my turn, you

point”. Ensure that the student if pointing to follow along. After every couple of paragraphs, stop

and ask the question, “what is the author trying to tell us here?” Continue to the end of the

article. The article will then be read a second time. Before reading, determine the main idea of

the text. Depending on the general mood of the student, this can be done either as an echo read or

choral read activity. Echo reading may be more beneficial as you, as the instructor, have

additional time to listen to the reading of the student. First, you read a couple of sentences,

exhibiting proper prosody. Then, have the student echo the text back using the same speed and

prosody as the teacher. After every couple of paragraphs, to dig a little deeper, ask, “does this

information help support the main idea of this text?” Briefly discuss. At the end of the article,

turn to the page with the questions. Have the student answer the question about the MAIN idea

of the text. At the bottom of the page, have the student write at least three key details that support

the main idea. If helpful, use the highlighters to go back into the text and highlight important

information (this is part of the assessment).

Assessment: Use the timer to time the student for one minute. Calculate WCPM and accuracy.

Have student answer the multiple-choice question that asks, “What is the article MAINLY
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 18

about?” Use highlighters to go back into the text to highlight supporting details. Write down the

details at the end of the question set.

Appendix C: Student Literacy Interview

1) Does anyone in your family read at home? Not really. 2) What do they read? [if yes on
1]…3) Are there any routines built around reading or does the family ever read
together? No, we do not.

Question #1 Do you have a teddy bear or a kitty cat you can read to? I have a big stuffed
animal. I never read to it, I’m not crazy. Question #2 Where do you like to read (your bed, the
livingroom etc) and why? At the library – because it has nice books and it’s calm over there
when you’re inside a study room. I don’t read at home. I have no books at home. I don’t want
to take my school library books home because I don’t want to lose them. (I believe this to be an
excuse). Question #3 When you read, can you hear the words in your head or do you prefer to
read out loud? I prefer to read out loud.

1. Do you have books at home? The only book I have at home is the Bible. My sister has
books that are first grade in her book bag that comes home from school.If so, how many
do you think you have? 2. Do you visit the public library? Yes, when I’m bored –
everyday after school. If so, do you check out books? I used to. I stopped because I lost
my card. I asked my mom to get me a new library card and she signed the paper, but
then the paper was lost.

Would you rather read a book yourself or have someone read to you?
I would rather read it to myself.

Do you play games with a reading component? (Monopoly, online game, pokemon/ Magic)
I like to play Pokemon – the card game.

Do you like to read as a family? Have a book you read altogether?

I would not like to read as family because I don’t like reading.

Do you listen to books on tape on car trips?

Never.

1) What are your hobbies or interests?

Pokemon cards, BMX, football (Raiders are my favorite)
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 19

2) What is your favorite video game or movie right now? (Several games and movies have been
adapted into graphic novels)
Grand Theft Auto video game. Home Alone – favorite movie.

2) Do you prefer to read a book in hand or online through an app? (Overdrive, Kindle)
On the computer I lose track, so I’d rather have a book in hand.

Question 2 - Do you prefer texts that includes graphics or texts without any graphics.
Just words so I can imagine what is going on in my head.

Question 3 - How would you rate ease of access to reading materials on a scale of A-F (A being
very easy and F being very difficult)?
C

1. What types of books do you like to read (genre)?

Books about Pokemon
2. What is one thing that you are proud of yourself about your reading?

2. What is one challenging thing for you about reading?

Trying to understand words that I’ve never seen or heard before.

1. Do you like when someone reads a book to you outloud?

No, because I’d rather read it myself.

2. Do you like reading fiction books or non-fiction books?

Mostly fiction - Goosebumps

3. Do you like reading stories/articles on websites?

Articles from Scholastic News Online

1. Do you like to read books in a quiet place?

Yes.

2. Can you read in places where there is noise (on the bus, in a restaurant, with the T.V./
music on)?
No.

3. Who is you favorite author?

Dr. Seuss because he makes funny stories.

4. What is the title of you favorite book?

Green Eggs and Ham – because it’s funny – and the food is colored weird.
LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 20

1. What websites do you go to frequently? 2. What is your favorite Youtube video? 3. Who
is your favorite author?
Logan Paul is my favorite Youtuber.
Websites include? Coolmath, Youtube, Netflix.

Appendix D: Student Work

Fig. 1: Juan takes the Core Phonics Assessment page 1

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 21

Fig. 2: Juan takes the Core Phonics Assessment page 2

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 22

Fig. 3: Juan’s end of 4th grade fluency and accuracy assessment

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 23

Fig. 4: Juan’s first cold read progress monitoring

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 24

Fig. 5: Juan’s second cold read progress monitoring

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 25

Fig. 6: Juan’s “warm” read data on a red post it note. Used tallys to count errors. Made notes to

the type of error at the end.

LITERACY LEARNER CASE STUDY 26

Fig. 7: Juan responds to “How Do You Know?” after selecting the main idea from a multiple-

choice question.