Student:
LeAnn is a ten-year-old third grade student at George Hildebrand Elementary School in Burke County. She was retained in the first grade. In the past several years, her classroom teachers have made referrals to have LeAnn tested for Special Education services. However, she has never qualified because of the low discrepancy between her IQ and her performance. She began the “Read to Succeed” program at George Hildebrand two and a half years ago as a non-reader. Since that time she has made progress, but LeAnn has also exhibited periods of regression. Her classroom teacher’s concerns were: inability to read grade-level textbooks, inability to retain information she has been taught, periods of regression in reading skills, and lack of benefit from even slow-paced instruction provided in her reading group. LeAnn’s quiet, compliant nature could easily camouflage her reading difficulties in the larger classroom setting.

Assessment:
    The first test administered was the Word Recognition Inventory (WRI) which consists of graded word lists from pre-primer through eighth grade level. A flash and untimed WRI was used to obtain an indication of the student’s sight vocabulary and decoding skills.
    Next, an Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) was administered to determine an independent, instructional, and frustrational reading level for timed oral and silent reading. Beginning at the highest level at which the student scored 80% flash score on the WRI, the student was instructed to read graded, narrative passages and to answer comprehension questions . The IRI was also used to measure the student’s oral reading accuracy, rate of reading, and the nature of reading errors.
    Finally, phonemic and spelling pattern awareness was determined by a Spelling Inventory. The student was asked to spell ten words from graded spelling lists taken from the Qualitative Inventory of Word Knowledge (Schlagal, 1992).

Results:
    On the flash section of the Word Recognition Test, LeAnn read 70% of the words correctly at preprimer level and 80% correctly at primer level. Both scores would be considered instructional levels. At level one, she dropped to the frustrational level with only 45%. Her untimed scores on the WRI were much higher. LeAnn’s scores were in the independent range with 90% at preprimer level and 100% at primer level. On the first level, she was on an instructional level with 75%. However, she dropped significantly to a frustrational score of 25% at the second level.
    LeAnn’s oral reading accuracy scores were low. She scored 92% accuracy at primer level, 84% accuracy at level one, and 86% accuracy at level two. Only the primer score could be considered instructional level while she fell within frustrational ranges in oral reading accuracy at levels one and two. Oral comprehension scores were also low. LeAnn’s primer and first level scores could be considered instructional level with 62% and 60%, respectively. Again, at the second level she was in the instructional range with a score of 50%. LeAnn’s oral reading rates fell within the expected rates at level one as she read 46 wpm, but she read only 40 wpm at the second level. Although no expected rates are given for primer level, her score was higher at primer than the 40 wpm she had at the first level.
    In silent reading, LeAnn’s primer comprehension score was an independent level with 100%. However, she dropped to a frustrational range with 40% at level one and 20% at level two. LeAnn’s reading rates increased at all levels when she read silently. No expected rates were given for primer and first level, but her score of 85 words per minute at level two fell within the expected range.
    On the Spelling Inventory, LeAnn scored 20% at Early Level I, 40% at Level l, and 20% at Level 2.

Conclusions:
    LeAnn approached the assessment procedure with seriousness but also with quiet apprehension. She appeared to enjoy the discussions during the Interest Inventory, but her lack of confidence in reading was evident the minute we began the WRI.
    LeAnn’s flash scores on the Word Recognition Test, for primer through level one, were consistently lower than her untimed scores. This indicates that her decoding skills are higher than her sight vocabulary. At level one, LeAnn dropped below frustrational level on the flash section of the test but climbed to the instructional level with a 30% gain on the untimed WRI. For this reason, the test administrator made the decision to proceed to level two with the untimed section to further check her decoding skills. At level two, however, there was a drastic drop to a score of 25%. LeAnn’s low sight word scores are more of a concern since they indicate a primer instructional level, but the need for stronger decoding skills is also evident since she fell just inside the instructional range even at the first level. One would like to see stronger flash and untimed scores for a student who has almost completed third grade.
    On the Informal Reading Inventory, LeAnn’s oral reading accuracy scores were low. Only at the primer level did LeAnn’s score fall within the range of what could be considered instructional level. All other scores fell within the frustrational range. As her oral reading accuracy scores dropped, LeAnn’s oral comprehension scores also dropped, which indicates that her struggle to recall sight words and decode other words is interfering with her ability to remember content. It is interesting to note that LeAnn ‘s concentration was not broken when someone knocked on the classroom door while she was reading aloud at level one. She acknowledged the interruption only by an extended pause. She obviously remembered what she read as evidenced by the correct responses given to the questions that were asked relating to this section of the passage. This may reveal that low comprehension scores, once again, are more related to her low sight word and decoding skills. It was noted that LeAnn was reading word by word on all passages, indicating that speed and fluency are areas of weakness. She exhibited “tunnel vision” (Frank Smith, 1971); that is, she lost the meaning of the whole by tunneling in on sounding out parts.
    When reading silently, LeAnn’s comprehension score was in the independent range at primer level, but in the frustrational range for both first and second levels. Her silent reading rate seemed to be high at the primer level but dropped at the first level. At the second level her rate was within the expected silent reading rates, but her comprehension drops drastically. This indicates that as the words in the passage became more difficult, she may have been skipping over them at the expense of the content of the passage.
    In comparing LeAnn’s oral and silent reading scores on the Informal Reading Inventory, her reading rates increased each time with silent reading. This was not true of her comprehension scores. Except at the primer level, LeAnn’s comprehension scores for silent reading were lower than her scores for oral reading. This may indicate that she has not yet made the transition from oral to silent reading, that is, she may not able to read and comprehend without hearing it.
    Considering the low scores on the WRI and the IRI, the test administrator began the Spelling Inventory at Early Level I. LeAnn represented beginning and ending consonants in most cases and a vowel element. There were inconsistencies in spelling consonant digraphs, consonant blends, and short vowels. Sometimes even her short vowels wre not good substitutions. There was very little understanding of long vowel patterns and vowel combinations.
    In summary, no independent reading level was determined from the test data collected. LeAnn’s instructional level is primer level and level one is her frustrational level.

Recommendations:
    LeAnn’s sight vocabulary is obviusly her most basic need. She needs to develop a large core of high frequency words. Her fluency would be supported by these easily recognizable words. I would recommend that a constant review of sight words, such as the Dolch 220 Basic Words or other high-frequency word lists, be incorporated into her instructional program. A steady increase in the number of words acquired could be graphed on a chart as a visual record of LeAnn’s sight word growth. Another suggestion would be to use a portable word wall to provide constant usage and review. Games such as Bingo and Go Fish would add interest and spark motivation to learn sight words.
    To strengthen her decoding skills and decrease her inability to spell and read simple words, LeAnn should begin a word study with short vowel word families. This would help her to commit a good number of words to her sight vocabulary, as well as help her develop competence in spelling these patterns. LeAnn needs accurate, automatic knowledge of the short vowel patterns (CVC, CCVC, CVCC) that occur frequently in written language and reading. She should be given at least three but no more than four short vowel families at one time. After short vowel families, she should move on to short vowel patterns with no more than three short vowel sorts at one time. Given her inability to recall previously learned material, frequent reviews would be a necessity. The concentration game and spell checks could be used to review. Mastery of the short vowel word families would be evidenced in LeAnn’s ability to read and spell the words in isolation as well as in context. This short vowel study would give her the basic knowledge against which other vowel patterns can be compared and contrasted. “Making Words” techniques would be useful for making phoneme-grapheme connections, too.
    In reading books, it is recommended that rereading or guided reading be a part of her daily instruction. During this time, primer books would be used to match her instructional level. Rereading will help to increase her sight vocabulary and build fluency as well as strengthen her confidence as a reader. Guided reading would give her the support she needs from the teacher. Support could be provided by previewing a story, echo reading, and/or partner reading. Previewing would allow her to predict, and confirm or modify her hypotheses. Such steps would reduce her anxiety, create a purpose for reading, and aid her comprehension. Echo reading and partner reading would provide her with a model of fluent oral reading, characterized by an adequate reading rate and appropriate intonation. This may also help decrease the “tunnel vision” or focus on sounding out in oral reading. Sets of Steck-Vaughn phonics readers or a similar set of phonics books would be useful in such instruction since they repeat many of the vowel patterns she would be working on in her word study. At this level, matching word study to reading is important. LeAnn should also be encouraged to read easy books daily.
    Instruction for LeAnn should be carefully paced to accommodate LeAnn’s individual learning speed and decrease the chances of her becoming frustrated. The instruction may need to move very slowly so that she can grasp the foundational skills for reading. As her word recognition skills (sight words and decoding) are strengthened, LeAnn will more than likely increase in reading accuracy, rate, and comprehension.