Running head: CASE STUDY

Case Study

Katie Kingston

EDUC 635 - Spring 2022

University of Pennsylvania
Running head: CASE STUDY
2

Part 1: Case Report

Background Information Regarding the Student

Stella,1 a seven year old first grade student, navigates her world in a way that is caring,

loving, curious and fearless. She approaches her work with a positive attitude and is very willing

to try new things. She will often complete a task while engaging in another movement or

thought, showing that she can multitask and learns best when her mind and body is engaged in

multiple activities. She benefits from moving her hands and her body while learning, as she will

often lay down on the rug during whole group instruction, or get out of her seat to dance or twirl

during independent time. Stella prefers to engage in tasks in a kinesthetic way. She very much

processes information physically through hand and body movement, control, and expression.

Movement serves as an aid to her memory as she seeks out touching and manipulating objects

when learning about them. Last month (March 2022) she was introduced to fidgets, as my host

teacher and myself began to encourage her to use them throughout the duration of the school day

to aid her learning and focus.

Academically, Stella has made strides forward in her phonological awareness and speech

therapy. Stella was evaluated for a speech IEP last year in kindergarten, and started to receive

services in Fall 2021. Prior to her IEP services, Stella was receiving 1:1 support to master her

letter names and sounds. She was considered a Tier 3 student in December 2020 based on the

AimsWeb testing data for letter recognition and letter word sound fluency.When assessed, Stella

knew 18/26 of her letters and 13/26 of her letter sounds. Daily intervention began to occur in

January 2021, as Stella received reading intervention with the reading specialist 5 days a week to

meet her letter recognition and sound goal. Stella met her letter and sound goal March of 2021,
1
Pseudonym for student’s real name
Running head: CASE STUDY
3

showing that the interventions put in place were very beneficial for her. She then transitioned

from Tier 3 to Tier 2 in March of last year. As a result of her growth, she began to meet with the

reading specialist 2-3 times a week, and continued to make gains in reading as she began to

blend sounds in cvc words. Once she entered first grade in the fall of 2021, Stella began to

receive in school services for her speech. They were centered around articulation, especially

focusing on the initial “s” and “z,” final “s” and blends including but not limited to; “sl, sw, sk.”

As of now (April 2022), she continues to go to speech 1-2 times a week, focusing on articulation

with blends and digraphs. Just in the few short months I have known her, I have seen tremendous

progress in her articulation with “s” blends.

Implementation of Baseline Formal Assessment

I began working one on one with Stella at the end of January, pulling her during

independent group time (late morning) for phonetics and reading intervention on Tuesdays and

Thursdays. When discussing with my host teacher, she explained to me that Stella needed

additional support with certain phonetic skills, specifically, silent e and digraphs, and that

working with her each week would be very beneficial for her phonological awareness. Prior to

starting consistent intervention, I carried out a phonic snapshot assessment (see appendix A) to

pinpoint the direct skills that Stella needed further support with. Based on that assessment, it was

evident that she needed to work more with silent e, vowel teams, r-controlled vowels,

diphthongs, and digraphs. However, she was very strong and comfortable working and engaging

with initial constants, final consonants, and short and long vowels - as she received a 12/12,

13/14, and 10/10 on those skills! Again, this assessment allowed me to pinpoint the skills that we

were going to focus on in the 1:1 intervention.

1:1 Repeated Intervention Description & Reasoning

Based on the results of the phonetic snapshot assessment, my host teacher and I began to

create a week by week phonics intervention that focused on the specific skills that Stella needed

extra support with. We decided that her one on one intervention with me would focus on

digraphs, while her small group with my host teacher would focus on silent e, as there were other

students in the class that needed support with that skill as well. The intervention guide that my

host teacher and I curated together was based upon a template that the reading specialist Stella

worked with last year created. Therefore, Stella was already familiar with the format of this type

of instruction. However, we changed and switched out certain methods and activities to fit

Stella’s needs. For instance, we included some articulation practice with a small mirror so that

Stella could get even more speech practice. I also switched out basic word work to a more hands

on activity with magnetic letters so that Stella could have manipulatives. Each lesson was around

30 minutes, and again focused on a specific digraph. The digraph changed after day five of

instruction. Each lesson had 7 sections; a warm up activity, phonological awareness and or

articulation, letter-sound correspondence, word reading and blending, word work, dictation, and

text application (see appendix B for example of lesson). The first five lessons were centered

around the digraph “ch.” Prior to day one of this intervention, Stella scored a 2/5 on the digraph

skill in the phonological snapshot assessment mentioned above. However, after 3 days of this

intervention she was able to identify 10/10 words that include the ch digraph, as well as

articulate 9/10 of the targeted ch words properly. By day 4 of the intervention, Stella was able to

skip the phonological awareness and letter sound correspondence section of this lesson because

she had mastered this skill (see that it was noted in the lesson template in appendix b). She was
Running head: CASE STUDY
5

also able to identify the ch digraph within her own writing, and was able to dictate 12 of the

words within the reading list (see appendix c). On day 5 (the last lesson focusing on the ch

digraph) Stella was able to read the targeted skill words within the text application with a 92%

accuracy rate (see appendix D for day 5 text application).

The next set of lessons within this intervention focused on the digraph “ck.” This was the

last digraph that I worked on with Stella, as I implemented 10 intervention lessons throughout

the duration of my time in the field. The format of these 5 lessons mirrored those of the “ch”

lessons prior - as they were broken into 7 sections, integrating targeted repeated words with the

digraph “ck” in them. Throughout the duration of the first 2 lessons Stella was unable to delete

the phoneme at the beginning of a word, out of 6 words she was not able to correctly delete the

sound to create a new word. However, this did not affect her understanding of the digraph ck, as

she began to become more familiar and comfortable articulating and identifying “ck” throughout

the duration of the lessons. She was able to properly articulate each letter sound correspondence

for all 12 targeted “ck’ words by the 3rd lesson. When engaging in word work, she created 10/12

targeted words correctly in lesson 3, properly placing the ck digraph in each word. In the 2 words

she did not create (built word using magnetic letters) she chose the wrong vowel sound, mixing

up “u” and “o.” However, by lesson 5 she was able to correctly write and spell each targeted

word, indicating that the repeated practice “ck” words aided her learning. At the end of the 5th

lesson (the final lesson in the sequence), during the text application she read all the words with a

“ck” ending with 95% accuracy.

Other Assessments Implemented Throughout the Semester:

I continued to carry out various types of assessments along with the 1:1 phonic and

reading intervention throughout the duration of the semester. Due to the fact that I worked with
Running head: CASE STUDY
6

Stella on a regular basis, I was the one who would often implement her assessments. These

assessments would also provide me information for my intervention lessons and allowed me to

see what skills Stella had mastered, and the ones that she needed to still work on. Besides myself,

there were 3 other teachers that would implement assessments to other students within the

classroom; my host teacher, another Upenn student, and a 1:1 aid.

Formal Assessments; Description and Results

At the beginning of the semester Stella took the Renaissance Star Early Literacy

assessment to provide baseline standardized assessment data for the new year. This state

mandated assessment took the place of the Aimsweb test, as the district switched to a new

standardized assessment type this year. The test is taken on the computer, and has around 30

questions. This test is meant to represent how “well a student understands concepts and

possesses specific skills that are important in the development of reading ability” (this

description is taken from the Renaissance website). The scaled score of this test is determined

by the number of correct answers a student receives. The scaled scores range from 300-900. The

score range indicates what stage of literacy learning that student is at (emergent, transitional, and

probable). *It is crucial to acknowledge that this test is not a true indication of the child’s

literacy, as one assessment does not encapsulate a student’s literacy learning and abilities* On

district benmark 1, Stella scored higher than 30% of 1st grade students nationally with a 739

overall. This score is associated with the “on watch” category (see appendix E) for the

Renaissance criteria.

The primary spelling inventory (see appendix F) that I implemented on 2/3/22 was

another formal assessment that helped determine what phonetic skills Stella needed more support
Running head: CASE STUDY
7

with, and what skills she has already mastered. This assessment targeted phonological awareness,

as the student read a word that corresponded to a specific phonic skill. Stella scored a 7/7 on

both initial and final consonant sounds, a 6/7 on short vowels, and a 3/7 on digraphs. I stopped

the assessment after blends, as Stella has not learned long vowel patterns and inflected endings

(carrying out those sections of the assessment would not be a true indication of what she knows,

as she has yet to learn them).

I would often implement assessments that would promote writing practice when

addressing a specific phonic skill. For instance, on 3/8/22 Stella completed an assessment that

centered around cvce words. At this point Stella had been working with my host teacher on silent

e words for about 2-3 weeks. The assessment had 24 pictures, and under each picture the student

had to write the word that corresponded to the image (see appendix G). However, I gave Stella

the corresponding word to ensure that she was writing out the correct word and not interpreting

the picture incorrectly (as this would have affected her aurrancy) Each picture’s corresponding

word included a silent e (except paving). Out of 24 words, Stella correctly wrote 5 of them.

When she was writing each word she would segment and break down each sound. She did this

correctly for each word, writing down exactly what she heard. However, based on this

assessment, it is evident that Stella needs more practice with silent e words, as I let my host

teacher know so she could continue with this skill during her small group instruction. Looking at

her dictation, she wrote 3 of the 4 letter “g's'' in reverse. I also noticed that she checked her “b’s”

and “d’s” with her fist, using the “bed” hand motion we practice in phonics instruction, to help

with those two letter reversals.

The last and most recent formal assessment that I implemented was another phonics

assessment that focused on Vce words (see appendix H). This was conducted a few weeks
Running head: CASE STUDY
8

(4/5/21) after the previous assessment described above. After about another 2 weeks of small

group instruction that focused on silent e and CVCe words, my host teacher wanted to see where

Stella was with this specific phonetic skill, and was wondering where and if she needed to adjust

her small group instruction accordingly to meet her needs. Many of these words on the

assessment were nonsense words, so the student needed to use their knowledge regarding the

rules of silent e words to read them correctly. The premise of this assessment was for the student

to read each word out loud. I would then check if they read the word correctly, or if they read

that word incorrectly I would write down how they read / pronounced the word. Stella blended

each and every word consistently, using her segmenting hand motions when “chopping” each

sound. Out of 35 words, Stella read 17 words accurately and with the correct pronunciation. She

correctly read all 5 “long a” and “long i” words, indicating that she understands that when the

silent e is at the end of the word the a and i vowels say their name (which is what my host

teacher had been working on in small group, showing that this skill had stuck with her!). During

the middle of the assessment she paused and told me the words got “harder to read.” I reassured

her and told her to just try her best. We also took a short 1-2 minute break so that she could reset

(as she was getting visually frustrated). These words that she was referring to focused on the

ending v and j, the soft c, and suffix endings. These were all phonic skills that were not yet

introduced in her small group instruction, but had been introduced during whole group phonics

instruction.

Informal Assessments; Description and Results

During independent reading time, the students would alternate between decodable

readers, just right readers, and choice texts (any book that they would like). On 2/22/22 I sat with

Stella as she read Our Drive, a decodable reader. Stella was able to decode almost all CVC
Running head: CASE STUDY
9

words in context on her own. She was able to stretch out words she was unfamiliar with and

segment them accordingly. Stella is great at using context clues, and will often look at the picture

when trying to figure out a word. She did need support while blending in isolation with certain

CVCe words, and I noticed she would often drop the final sound (lim/lime).

During whole group phonic instruction, I would often observe Stella on various

occasions, jotting down notes regarding her grows and glows on the skills the class was working

on, and her overall disposition during that specific lesson. For instance, on 3/10/22 the whole

class was focusing on CVCe words, more specially words with gentle “c.” Throughout the lesson

I would see how she was doing and note what words she seemed to struggle with. She followed

along well with her classmates as they worked together / independently on their white boards;

segmenting and trying to spell new words with gentle c and e endings (ex; space). Stella was

grasping and following along well with the new phonic words. In the beginning I noticed she

was weary of her spelling and often would glance at her classmates' boards to check her own

work. If her board did not match she would erase and write what they had down. However,

halfway through the lesson she began spelling and segmenting words correctly - indicating that

she was beginning to notice and understand the gentle c pattern in correlation to the silent e

ending. To practice this skill more, my host teacher incorporated some of the new target words

into her small group instruction.

Students are also encouraged to write in their journals during centers time. Centers

include; tech time, writing workshop, independent reading, small group, and phonic games.

When I am not pulling a small group (I lead a small group that Stella is not apart of), I will often

observe Stella throughout centers time, specifically when she is in writing workshop, writing in

her journal. In writing, Stella often will need support recording her ideas - while she is eager and
Running head: CASE STUDY
10

excited to get ideas down she will often need support with organizing her thoughts into

sentences. Her latest journal entry (see appendix I) is about a show that she had just watched at

her cousin's house. I noticed that while writing she is able to utilize sound segmenting strategies

to help her stretch out the sounds in words. In this journal entry in particular, she summarized the

show in her own words, indicating that she is able to retell events! I also noticed how she used

capital letters for proper nouns and at the start of each sentence. She also put periods at the end

of each sentence. Stella was very excited to draw a picture for her writing. Stella is a very

talented artist, and will often express that her favorite part of the writing workshop is drawing the

picture. Her pictures are always very detailed and include labels (as seen in appendix I). There

were no letter reversals in this journal entry! As she has been focusing on b, d, and g after the

formal assessment from 3/8/22 where many of those letters were reversed.

General Recommendations/Findings

Stella has been a joy to work with, and I have loved forming such a strong connection

with her over the past few months. Her growth academically, specifically with phonics

instruction, has highlighted her perseverance and willingness to problem solve when she is

unfamiliar with the new content. I have noticed that she is more willing to complete a task when

you permit time and space where she can move her body to assist her learning. For instance,

during our 1:1 intervention time, she began to become frustrated with one activity and I noticed

she was no longer engaging with the content. She began to bounce in her seat, look around the

room, and fidget with her hands. I then expressed that after each question she could twirl or hop

to a square in the hallway space where we were working. Since we were in the hallway, the space

permitted her to do so in a way that was not distracting to others and benefited her learning.
Running head: CASE STUDY
11

Once she did this a few times, she began to focus more on the lesson and was more excited about

each question and activity.

Again, it benefits Stella’s learning and processing when information/content is presented

through movement. For example, she may want to touch or manipulate objects while they are

being taught a particular section of work. I suggest when she is engaging in phonics and reading

instruction to incorporate manipulatives such as magnetic letters, white boards, and word sort

cards. The physical action of her touching and handling these materials aids her development, as

this was apparent when she would create words with the digraph “ck” on the magnetic board. I

have noticed that she remembers information better when she is engaging in some type of

movement. Some steps that a teacher can take to ensure her engagement are; teacher proximity,

small group support, fidgets/manipulatives, preferential seating in whole group instruction (back

or front row so that she can spread her legs out when needed), verbal prompts, and visual cues.

She also benefits academically from repeated instruction, going back and reviewing what you

have learned before starting a new topic allows for her to really build up that specific knowledge

base. I found that before starting a new phonic skill, it is beneficial to have a review day to really

solidify her learning and ensure that she is building upon those skills before moving on.

While Stella has found a way to regulate her engagement and or frustations within

lessons and instructional content (permitting movement), she sometimes needs additional support

with emotional regulation. When she engages in a conversation that is upsetting to her, or

realizes something is out of place or not right in her own learning / thoughts, she becomes visibly

upset, this obviously addicts how she then proceeds with learning throughout the day. She will

often wrap her arms around herself, start to breath heavily, and overall just become physically

overwhelmed. When this occurs, it is usually after she has already tried to regulate herself with
Running head: CASE STUDY
12

the movements mentioned above. Through observation, talking, and interacting with her during

these times, it is best for Stella to be removed from the space where she became overwhelmed or

frustrated. This is the best solution for her to come back down from the interaction, as this allows

her to process what has just happened in a space that is removed and comfortable for her. She

will usually want a teacher or an adult figure to accompany her at this time. I have found that

walks around the hallways as well as drawing has helped her calm down from whatever has

made her upset.

Part 2: The Case Analysis

This semester came with many challenges, both in and out of the field. Many were things

that I did not expect, while others I had prepared for. However, this semester I grew as not just a

teacher, but a student as well. I learned new ideas, methods, and strategies each and every day. I

had many successes in the field. For instance, the connections I made with my students,

especially Stella, building up my teacher presence, and finding management styles that worked

best in my host classroom are all triumphs. However, I did have some challenges that I had to

overcome while in the field. As I come from an education background, graduating from

undergrad with an elementary education degree, I have been placed in many different classrooms

over the past 4 years. Thus, it was hard for me not to compare my own teaching practices and my

role within those other classrooms to the role that I had this semester. I repeatedly had to remind

myself that I was fulfilling a different job, and that was more difficult for me to do than I had

expected. While I haven't had my own classroom yet, I have had experiences in the past where

my host teacher permitted me to essentially take over their lessons and day to day tasks. Last

spring I was student teaching, and I was expected to transition to the lead teaching role in a

general education classroom. Whereas through this program, I was expected to learn the
Running head: CASE STUDY
13

responsibilities of a reading specialist, not a classroom teacher. However, due to the fact that I

was placed in a general education classroom, with a teacher who had her reading specialist

certification, the lines became blurred. A challenge was finding my place and where I was

needed in the classroom. I worried that the students would not see me as a teacher, and I felt

more like a “helper.” However, my host teacher was more than willing to collaborate and assured

me repeatedly that my presence was positively aiding everyone in the classroom, especially

Stella.

One benefit of taking on the role of a “reading specialist” is that you are able to work

more individually with students, and form stronger deeper connections with them. Being a lead

classroom teacher, you are often spread thin and not able to meet with each and every student on

a daily basis. My host teacher immediately thought of Stella, and suggested I work with her, as

she is a student who often needs more support. Having the routine of working with Stella during

our 1 on 1 intervention each Tuesday and Thursday allowed for me to recognize the importance

of individualized instruction, and the benefit of tailored one to one learning. Prior to consistently

working with Stella, my host teacher shared with me her past work, test scores, and her IEP. As I

am also certified in special education, I am familiar with IEPs and the documentation process. I

was able to read her evaluation report and the information that was provided by her parents as

well as her past teachers. It was interesting to note the way that the IEP team phrased and

outlined Stella’s needs. The ways in which they described her learning style as “distracted and

fidgety,” instead of “kinesthetic” and “hands on” presented her in a certain light that is often

viewed as not being a “good learner.”

There was a small paragraph in the beginning of the evaluation that shared an excerpt of

her mother’s description of Stella, which more accurately fit how I would describe her - it
Running head: CASE STUDY
14

focused more on her personality, rather than her “struggles” within the classroom. She

highlighted how Stella “has recently made such strides forward in learning all better sounds” as

well as how “kind, imaginative, funny, helpful and friendly” she is. She included her interests

and indicated how she loves to dance and be physically moving. This section in particular

reminded me of Denny Taylor’s (1991) story of Patrick and what he describes as a “cautionary

tale of educational decision making gone wrong” (p. xi). As Taylor (1991) asserts, the education

system must value parents’ rights to expect that the school will be an advocate for their child. As

seen by the way in which Stella’s mother describes her, she is aware of how capable, smart, and

gracious Stella is, and thus expects the school to provide her with means to aid her learning, not

diminish it.

While I am familiar with the language surrounding IEPs, Stella's surprisingly struck me.

While this evaluation took place last spring, the circumstances obviously differed with the online

and hybrid format of school, it felt as though the IEP team was setting goals that Stella could

easily achieve, such as knowing / identifying all her letter sounds. Although, there were

suggested reading and writing goals dispersed throughout the document, the IEP was mainly

centered around her speech - her articulation with various diphthongs and digraphs.There were a

series of anecdotal notes presented within the document as well, sessions from last March and

April during her personal instructional time with the reading specialist, highlighting what she had

difficulty on, what she did academically, and the ways in which she was “distracted” during each

meeting. Reading this with little to no prior knowledge of Stella, I was apprehensive at first, not

knowing how she would react during our own 1:1 intervention. Nonetheless, I quickly learned

how caring, loving, and resilient Stella was.

As indicated on her IEP, Aimsweb & STAR test scores, and by my host teacher, Stella

has been labeled as an “on watch” student. It is crucial to note that I myself never saw her as

such, and or never referred to her as a student who was “on watch.” That label is rather arbitrary,

as I asked myself, “on watch for what?” Yes, she still needed support with articulation and

practice with CVCe words as well as digraphs, but all students need extra help with certain

skills, whether it be academically or otherwise. As Taylor (1991) suggests, “observations of

abilities that contradict test scores should not be denied” (p 6). Rather, they should be accepted

as “evidence of the complexity of the student’s learning” and pushback against the limitations of

standardized assessments (p 6). Stella is such a multifaceted learner, as she benefits from visuals,

manipulatives, and physical movements - her processing skills are very unique. I felt as though

the intervention lesson template confined her to learning styles that did not necessarily benefit

her as best as others could. For instance, the selected stories had no pictures. Stella loves drawing

and looking at images, and she would often tell me that the stories she was reading during our

1:1 intervention time were boring. While I collaborated with my host teacher in choosing what

digraphs to teach Stella, the template and materials of the intervention lessons were already laid

out and formatted - as they mirrored the lessons Stella did with the reading specialist last year.

Therefore, I myself did not have much autonomy over the materials we used during the lessons. I

did however, switch out some materials such as the white board for magnetic letters during word

work, as I knew Stella enjoyed working with manipulatives.

Overall, I am very appreciative that I was able to form such a strong relationship with

Stella. As I was never given the space or time to work so closely with a student before, it really

showed me how important individualized instruction is, and the benefit of truely getting to know

a student beyond their “label” and perceived abilities.

Reference:

Taylor, D. (1991). Learning denied. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Appendix A
Running head: CASE STUDY
17

Appendix B
Running head: CASE STUDY
18

Appendix C

Appendix D
Running head: CASE STUDY
19

Appendix E
Running head: CASE STUDY
20

Appendix F
Running head: CASE STUDY
21

Appendix G
Running head: CASE STUDY
22

Appendix H
Running head: CASE STUDY
23

Appendix I