Question
Answered step-by-step
HighnessTitaniumHawk30
Reading Case Study Louise is a 2 nd…
Reading Case Study
Louise is a 2nd grade student in Ms. Ichiyama’s classroom. She is currently receiving 20 minutes per day of reading intervention in a small group with two other students. Ms. Ichiyama uses a tier-2 evidence-based practice to instruct the students. The program has the following elements:
Letter sound flashcards – students practice saying the sound of each letter as it is presented
Sound Board – students practice building and decoding words
Sight word flashcards – students practice reading sight words
Phonetically regular word flashcards – students practice reading decodable words fluently
Louise’s IEP indicates that she needs specially designed instruction in reading due to difficulties with basic decoding. Ms. Ichiyama is monitoring her progress using the letter sound fluency (LSF) measure. Louise was given three LSF probes and the mean was taken to determine her base line. Her goal was determined by using benchmark scores. Her goal is to hit the spring LSF benchmark of 46 by the end of the school year. This is the goal used in the graph below.
Louise is making progress in reading, but her last four data points were below the goal line as indicated on weeks 2-5. This indicates that an instructional change needs to be made. In order to decide how to intensify instruction Ms. Ichiyama needs more data. She collects diagnostic data including both formal and informal observations. The following are the results of data collection:
Louise is eager to participate and reports enjoying reading class.
She often has trouble staying focused when the focus is on other students, often leaving her seat.
Louise’s performance on phoneme segmentation fluency assessment is significantly lower than expected
When being given the letter sound fluency measure, Louise often states the name of the letter, instead of the sound.
When examining the dimensions included in Fuchs et al.’s taxonomy of intensive intervention, Ms. Ichiyama feels that many dimensions are being met. Evidence has shown that the program she is using is of adequate strength for students with intensive needs, the program includes many of the principles of explicit instruction making the program comprehensive, and the teacher is using DBI to individualize the program. There are areas where there is opportunity to intensify. Louise’s performance on the phoneme segmentation fluency probe indicates she needs help in this skill, her current program does not include any instruction in phonemic awareness. To increase alignment, the teacher will add the say it, move it activity. Additionally, the dosage of the program may not be adequate for Louise. To increase her opportunities to respond, Louise will work with just one other student. Additionally, her total intervention time will be increased to 25 minutes.
Reflection Question
Ms. Ichiyama assesses Louise using the phoneme segmentation fluency assessment. What other assessments could Ms. Ichiyama have used to gain more information about Louise’s reading performance? Remember that your text describes a variety of reading assessment measures.
Louise is progressing toward her goal, but Ms. Ichiyama still makes a change to the program after week 5. Was this the right move? Why or why not?
Is Louise responding to the change in instruction? Is another change necessary? Why or why not?
Calculate the slope of intervention 2. If Louise continues on this slope will she meet her goal?
Slope = (y2 – y1) / (x2 – x1)
y1= score on the first probe
y2=score on the last probe
x1=week of the first probe
x2=week of the last probe
Louise’s growth continues to accelerate. Her progress monitoring graph is displayed below. Does Ms. Ichiyama need to make any adjustments at this point? If so, what adjustments should be made?
If Louise is successful and meets her goal, should she continue to be progress monitored on LSF? If so, why? If not, what measure do you think would be appropriate? Why?
