Running head: CASE STUDY 1

Case Study of Reading and Linguistic Needs

Bryan Anderson

Concordia University, St. Paul

583 ED 582 Teaching Students with Linguistic Differences

Professor Nichole Kloss

May 26th, 2016

CASE STUDY

Case Study of Reading and Linguistic Needs

Reading comprehension, according to Cain, Oakhill & Bryant, “is a complex task that

draws on many different cognitive skills and processes” (2004, p. 31). This makes pinpointing a

student’s need for comprehension support difficult, but critical. Many students can decode text

and read it aloud, but are unable to create connections or meanings to that text. According to

Clarke, Snowling, Truelove & Hulme, “as a result [of their inability to comprehend text] these

children have significant educational difficulties that often go unnoticed in the classroom” (2010,

p. 1106). In this case study the author will explore comprehension challenges faced by a third

grade student by examining data on the student’s reading abilities, collaborating with colleagues

and district specialists for assessment needs, determine an appropriate intervention for that

student, provide that intervention for the student, gather data on its effectiveness, and analyze the

results.

Overview and Current Status

Background Information

Zak is a third grader at Northern Elementary School. Zak has been identified as needing

special education services for attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). His identified

areas of concern are reading and mathematics. Zak was initially identified by his teachers

because of his inability to focus on class and homework and his inability to complete his

assignments. Zak’s teachers have indicated that he does very well with visual and auditory

input. This is the first year Zak will participate in the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments,

so data on his current levels of performance have been taken from the STAR Reading Test,

AIMSWeb Reading Tests, and the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Academic Achievement – Fourth

Edition. Zak’s STAR Reading Test score was 199, which indicates an independent reading level

2

CASE STUDY

of first grade, fourth month. Areas of concern identified by the test were: key ideas and details,

craft and story structure, and integration of knowledge and ideas. For AIMSWeb, Zak scored a

22 on Spelling and a 17 on the Reading Maze, indicating that he is well below grade level.

Areas of concerns indicated by AIMSWeb were: fluency, effective strategies for unknown

words, vocabulary and comprehension. Zak scored a 71 in Broad Reading and a 77 in Broad

Written Language as measured by the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Academic Achievement.

This placed him as developmentally appropriate in writing (borderline average) but

developmentally difficult (below average) in reading. Zak scored exceptionally low (58) on the

passage comprehension section of the test.

Zak currently lives in foster care with his older sister. His father remains in the area, but

does not have a lot of contact with Zak because of incarceration and parole violations. His

mother currently resides in Chicago, IL. She contacts Zak infrequently and school

administration is unable to currently contact her. As such, Zak and his sister have had to grow

up within the child services system. They have had numerous foster care placements and have

gotten kicked out of group home services due to sexual misconduct allegations. Zak is acutely

aware of what behaviors and actions will result in prompting another placement and has admitted

to engaging in these behaviors when he does not feel comfortable within a certain foster home.

This ongoing transiency of residence has resulted in Zak having no concept of home or a typical

family unit.

Zak’s teachers describe him as full of energy and positive, and they all feel they have a

good rapport with Zak. In class, Zak is described as “hyper alert”, constantly looking around the

room, checking where the teacher is and if the teacher is monitoring him. Zak Is very sensitive

to external cues and is easily drawn off task anytime he sees or hears something. This is the

3

CASE STUDY

biggest barrier concerning Zak in reading. He cannot maintain sustained reading for any length

of time, and is unable to retain the main idea and concepts of the text to form connections or

comprehension. Zak’s numerous residential placements and concept of home has also impaired

his academic achievement. Zak has not received, or expects to receive, any support from home

concerning his behavior or academic work. Zak has difficulty being responsible for both his

belongings and his actions when held accountable for behavioral issues. He frequently lies or

denies any accountability for his actions. This creates a problem when Zak is asked about

assignment completion or establishing educational goals. Zak does not take responsibility or

ownership of his academic learning.

Summary of Need

Zak’s diagnosis of ADHD prevents him from maintaining the focus needed to read a

selection of text. “ADHD includes a combination of persistent problems, such as difficulty

sustaining attention, hyperactivity and impulsive behavior” (2016, Retrieved from

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/adhd/home/ovc-20196177). This constant

interruption by various stimuli severely affects Zak’s ability to comprehend the text he is

assigned to read. According to Foroughi, Werner, Barragán & Bohem-Davis, interruptions do

disrupt reading comprehension when students are required to connect and synthesize information

across the passage (2015). The intervention chosen for Zak addressed his deficiency with

comprehension of an assigned text. Since Zak responds well to visual and auditory input, Zak

will listen to a book being read to him, read the book independently, and provide an oral

summary of the book to his teacher.

4

CASE STUDY

Alternative Teaching Proposal

The method of intervention chosen for addressing Zak’s comprehension need was Raz-

Kids, a reading program developed by LAZEL Inc. According to their website, Raz-Kids is a

program designed to provide differentiated levels of book so students receive a personalized

reading practice. It uses Close Reading skills and measures the reading and writing connection

through interactive tools and constructed response quiz questions (2016, Retrieved from

https://www.learninga-z.com/site/products/raz-kids/overview). For 30 minutes a day, Zak will

engage in the following intervention: he will listen to a book read to him, he will read that book,

and will provide an oral account of what happened in the book. He will then take a

comprehension test of the book as provided by the Raz-Kids program. His progress will be

charted and displayed by Raz-Kids program. At the end of the case study, Zak will take another

STAR Reading test. Zak’s goal is to increase his reading comprehension from 50% to 70% as

measured by the STAR Reading Test.

This intervention was chosen through various means. Zak’s teachers suggested that he

was responsive to auditory input. This is supported by Janney and Snell, who state that a

comprehensive literacy program addresses skills for reading, oral language and writing (2013).

The Raz-Kids program provides an option for students to have the book read to them,

highlighting each sentence being read and each word as it is spoken. This will also support

Zak’s limited background knowledge of vocabulary and theme, allowing him to decode

unfamiliar words and generate connection to its meaning. The program was suggested by Zak’s

teachers as well as the special education staff, who use Raz-Kids and a more specialized version,

Headsprout, for their interventions. When the author interviewed Zak, he also indicated that he

preferred to have text and directions read to him. He stated that he was able to understand and

5

CASE STUDY

comprehend material efficiently when he was able to listen to it before he was expected to read

the text independently. Having students provide input to determine what intervention is chosen

to implement is important. Whitten, Esteves & Woodrow state that working with students to set

goals improves focus and academic effort (2009). Finally, the author chose this intervention

because it 1) fit within what the school setting already had in place, 2) was preferred by the

student, his teachers and other educational staff, and 3) was accessible for the author to

implement and maintain for the short time allowed for this case study.

Outcomes

Application and Outcome

The implementation of Raz-Kids for Zak’s learning deficiency proved to be a successful

intervention. Zak’s study lasted two weeks; the desired result was to increase reading

comprehension from 50% to 70%. Zak worked at a computer station for 30 minutes a day; first

listening to a book being read aloud, then reading the book independently, and finally providing

the author an oral summary of the key concepts and main idea of the book. Zak’s reading

comprehension was measured at the end of the two weeks by the STAR Reading Test. Zak’s

comprehension score was 82%, exceeding the goal by 12%.

Zak’s success had many factors. The first was that he was able to read text specifically

for his reading level. He also has a designated computer station, sheltering him from classroom

distractions. Since he listened to the book before he read it, Zak wore headphones which also

prevented external audio noises from distracting him. Zak also likes technology, and preferred to

read a book on the computer instead of having a physical book in front of him. Zak struggled

with providing an adequate oral account of the book to the teacher at first, but once he

successfully completed the first two, he no longer had trouble. He was, in fact, eager to discuss

6

CASE STUDY

the storyline of the book he had read. His overall attitude toward reading transformed over the

two weeks, also providing a boost to motivation and performance. This focus on motivation

along with reading strategies is supported by Anmarkrud and Bråten, who state that instructional

strategies “should not make us overlook the specific importance of promoting motivation for

reading comprehension” (2009, p. 252).

There were also many limitations to this case study. The first and foremost was that it

occurred in a short time period. Two weeks is not enough time to accurately gauge the overall

effectiveness of a program long term. Another limitation is teacher time involved. Since the

author was conducting this study on his own, he only had Zak to attend to. Trying this

intervention for multiple students within a classroom would prove burdensome. Providing time

to have student’s accurately summarize a book verbally is a huge demand, and there were times

that it took Zak 10 minutes to complete. This was also a specific case with a specific student.

As stated by Clarke et al., that “a number of factors likely play a role in causing [a student’s]

reading-comprehension difficulties” (2010, p. 1106). This is confirmed by Kendeou, McMaster

& Christ who state that “reading comprehension is complex, and a clear understanding of its

component processes is necessary to effectively and efficiently address difficulties” (2016, p.

62). This variation in processes present in reading comprehension creates a problem when

determining the appropriate intervention plan.

The author suggests that Zak maintain his current intervention for another 6 weeks, after

which he suggests substituting an oral summary with a written one. As Zak continues to

improve, the support of listening to the book first would also be dropped from the intervention,

with the knowledge that any of these components can be reintroduced whenever Zak shows signs

of struggle due to his increase in reading level and text difficulty.

7

CASE STUDY

Reflection on Collaboration

The author found that collaboration with Zak’s general education teacher and the school’s

special education staff extremely beneficial to this study. As stated by Thousand, Villa & Nevin,

collaboration and sharing between staff regarding the students they serve allows “functional

decisions for differentiating content, products, and processes of learning” (2015). Zak’s general

education teacher was able to provide the specific focus he needed in reading, providing the

author with insights to Zak’s overall behavior, strengths and needs. The special education staff

expanded this knowledge by providing insights to what interventions to use and how they should

be implemented.

When considering what intervention the student needs, the inclusion of all staff that has

had contact with the student will increase the effectiveness and success of the intervention.

Meeting with a student’s general education teacher, special education teachers, support staff,

administration, parents as well as the student will provide a full profile of that student. That

profile will contain their background in education, educational needs and the best modes of

support for that child (Thousand et al., 2015).

Research/Annotated Bibliography

The author’s research on reading comprehension provided him with numerous articles

and resources. The following articles were chosen not only for the topic of reading

comprehension, but how they could be connected to the individual the case study focused on.

These journals provided insight to the author on what reading comprehension entails for a third

grade student, as well as how other factors such as motivation, interruptions, working memory

and race can affect performance.

8

CASE STUDY

Anmarkrud, Ø, & Bråten, I. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learning and

Individual Differences, 19(2), 252-256. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002

Evaluative Summary

This article summarized a study of how motivation impacts comprehension when reading

a social studies textbook. Anmarkund & Bråten designed their study to answer the basic

questions of: “Can I understand what I read?” and “Do I want to understand what I read and

why?” (2009, p. 252). Their study showed that motivation can predict text comprehension

beyond that afforded by achievement, gender, knowledge of the topic or strategic processing.

They concluded that “an emphasis on such cognitive constructs [such as prior knowledge and

strategic text-processing] should not make us overlook the importance of promoting motivation

for reading comprehension” (2009, p. 255).

Cain, K. A., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability:

Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.csp.edu/login?

url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csp.edu/docview/210973706?accountid=26720

Evaluative Summary

This journal article focuses on how different language skills and processing resources are

related to a child’s reading comprehension level. Reading comprehension, according to Cain,

Oakhill & Bryant, “is a complex task that draws on many different cognitive skills and

processes” (2004, p. 31). Cain, Oakhill & Bryant focused their research on students between the

ages of 7 to 10 and their skills in inference and integration, comprehension monitoring, and

knowledge of text structure. They go on to state that “the ability to generate these types of

inferences [integration of information among individual sentences and of general knowledge to

9

CASE STUDY

information to the text] is related to both age and reading comprehension skills” (2004, p. 33).

Older readers and sharper comprehenders are better able to explain the sorts of information that

may be provided by the introduction and conclusions of text. Cain, Oakhill & Bryant stated that

“even from a young age, children’s skills that foster meaning construction make an important

contribution to the determination of comprehension level over and above the contribution made

by word-level and verbal skills” (2004, p. 40).

Clarke, P., Snowling, M., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating Children's Reading-

Comprehension Difficulties: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychological Science,

21(8), 1106-1116. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41062341

Evaluative Summary

This article focused on a study to improve student’s reading comprehension through text-

comprehension training, oral-language training, or a mix of both. Clarke, Snowling, Truelove &

Hulme state that “children with specific reading-comprehension difficulties decode texts

accurately when they read aloud, but they show significant problems in comprehending these

texts.” “As a result these children have significant educational difficulties that often go

unnoticed in the classroom” (2010, p. 1106). These difficulties result from a wide range of

language impairments, such as vocabulary, oral expression, listening comprehension,

vocabulary, figurative language and grammar. They go on to state that students with reading-

comprehension impairments are “an important group to study because their difficulties have

serious educational consequences that often go unnoticed because such children read aloud

accurately” (2010, p. 1113).

10

CASE STUDY

Foroughi, C. K., Werner, N. E., Barragán, D., & Boehm-Davis, D. (2015). Interruptions disrupt

reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 704-709.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.csp.edu/10.1037/xge0000074

Evaluative Summary

This journal article explores the theory that the transient portion of working memory is

not necessary for reading comprehension. They conducted an experiment where subjects were

exposed to multiple interruptions while reading assigned passages. They were then asked

questions to measure their comprehension of the text. These questions went beyond simple

recognition information. The result of the study was that interruptions do disrupt reading

comprehension, although providing a brief period of time to process information before the

interruption appeared to conserve comprehension development.

Kendeou, P., McMaster, K. L., & Christ, T. J. (2016). Reading Comprehension: Core

Components and Processes. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences,

3(1), 62-69. doi:10.1177/2372732215624707

Evaluative Summary

Kendeou, McMaster & Christ state that “reading comprehension is complex, and a clear

understanding of its component processes is necessary to effectively and efficiently address

difficulties” (2016, p. 62). They focus on two processes, inference and background knowledge.

They go on to state that students “fail to perform the fundamental inferential processes that

construct meaning while reading, and if meaning is not constructed during reading, then it is also

not a product once reading is complete” (2016, p. 62). One interesting point Kendeou et al.

propose is that general knowledge can both facilitate and disrupt comprehension. They point out

that experts in a field are better readers of text in their area of expertise, but that readers with

11

CASE STUDY

inaccurate knowledge generate false inferences during reading that creates flaws in their

comprehension.

Analysis

There are many factors that play a role in a student’s reading comprehension. These

factors include (but are not limited to) motivation, listening comprehension, vocabulary,

interruption of student focus, oral expression, narratives, figurative language, inferences,

background knowledge and grammar. Fluency is not a standard with which to measure

comprehension, but it can lead to teacher oversight on a student’s reading deficiencies. One way

to combat this oversight is to create a support team for that student. Teacher collaboration with

general education teachers, special education teachers, support staff, administration, and parents

is crucial to construct a complete profile of the student’s background, educational history and

instructional needs. Teachers need to meet with the student and discuss strategies they find

beneficial and create attainable and measureable goals for academic growth. The inclusion of

the student support team’s knowledge will increase the chance of success for any intervention

implemented.

12

CASE STUDY

References

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. (2016). Retrieved May 23, 2016,

from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/adhd/home/ovc-20196177

Anmarkrud, Ø, & Bråten, I. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learning and

Individual Differences, 19(2), 252-256. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002

Cain, K. A., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability:

Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31-42. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.csp.edu/login?

url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.csp.edu/docview/210973706?accountid=26720

Clarke, P., Snowling, M., Truelove, E., & Hulme, C. (2010). Ameliorating Children's Reading-

Comprehension Difficulties: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychological Science,

21(8), 1106-1116. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41062341

Foroughi, C. K., Werner, N. E., Barragán, D., & Boehm-Davis, D. (2015). Interruptions disrupt

reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(3), 704-709.

doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.csp.edu/10.1037/xge0000074

Janney, R., & Snell, M. E. (2013). Teachers' Guides to Inclusive Practices:

Modifying Schoolwork. 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Kendeou, P., Mcmaster, K. L., & Christ, T. J. (2016). Reading Comprehension: Core

Components and Processes. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences,

3(1), 62-69. doi:10.1177/2372732215624707

Raz-Kids: Online Leveled Kids Reading Resource - Learning A-Z. (n.d.). Retrieved May 23,

13

CASE STUDY

2016, from https://www.learninga-z.com/site/products/raz-kids/overview

Thousand, J. S., Villa, R. A., & Nevin, A. (2015). Differentiating Instruction: Planning

for Universal Design and Teaching for College and Career Readiness. 2nd ed. Thousand

Oakes, CA: Corwin Press, a Sage Publications.

Whitten, E., Esteves, K. J., & Woodrow, A. (2009). RTI Success: Proven Tools and

Strategies for Schools and Classrooms. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Pub.

14

CASE STUDY

CASE STUDY RUBRIC

15

CRITERIA Exemplary250-225 pts.

Competent224-200 pts.

Novice 199 points or less

Introduction and overview

Clearly & effectively introduces background information, summary of need, and alternative teaching proposal.

Vague introduction material, lack clarity for purpose of assignment.

Introduction and overview poorly written, vague or not stated.

Outcome of Instruction

Clearly & effectively responds to the assignment. Key findings are succinctly summarized and include strengths, challenges and suggestions for improving instruction. Collaboration has been well documented.

Responds to the assignment with some evidence of key findings stated however lacks clarity; limited application available.

Assignment information vague or missing.

Limited evidence of usability.

Key Findings ambiguous or missing.

Research Excellent annotated bibliography of at least 5 sources. APA cover page format utilized and zero grammar or spelling errors.

Standard annotated bibliography of 5 or fewer sources. APA errors and/or grammar and spelling errors exceed five (5).

Weak annotated bibliography. APA errors and/or numerous grammar and spelling errors.

MAED 2015.16 TOTAL POINTS /250