Case Study 667 - Grade: 90 PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Study...

Description

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study

Case Study: Informal Reading Inventory Elizabeth Rubin Touro Graduate School of Education

Description of Child’s Background The child that is being tested is Bridget. She is 8 years old and is in the 3rd grade. She is in a general education classroom along with 18 other students at Oak School #3. The test was

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study

1

administered in her home in Oceanside, New York. Bridget, along with her mother, father, and younger sister are in the upper middle class. During the period of time Bridget and I spent together, she did not present herself with any behaviors that were non-typical for her developmental age. Before beginning the session, Bridget’s mother was present and was informing me of some qualms she had. Bridget’s mother explained that when reading aloud, Bridget would occasionally stutter before continuing the reading. In addition, she would become frustrated because of this, making her less motivated and encouraged to continue on with the reading. I administered the Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) to determine Bridget’s reading performances on three levels.

Description of Reading Problem When beginning the administration of the assessment, Bridget seemed eager to start. She did not appear to have any form of physical abnormalities or behaviors that were non-typical for her age. During the start of the assessment, Bridget’s demeanor changed - she became visibly nervous and was guarded. According to Dr. Hoffses (2018), this may be occuring due to a form of anxiety titled performance anxiety. Dr. Hoffses states that this form of anxiety becomes stressful for people who believe they need to perform exceptionally well on a test or task especially when they feel it is vital to their success in a certain area. In this instance, I felt as though Bridget was experiencing a minor form of this anxiety. Continuing on with the assessment, I felt it was important for me to create a calm and encouraging environment for Bridget so that she can be comfortable and confident to complete the assessment. When reading the word lists, Bridget began to stutter the beginning sounds of some of the words - however, not all the words. When she was stuttering, she would cross her arms tightly

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study

2

out of frustration. The type of stuttering that Bridget was demonstrating can be termed as “phrase repetitions or revisions” (ASHA). According to the American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA), this is qualified as a non-stuttering disfluency (ASHA). The association also declares that this fluency disorder can greatly affect the students’ school, home, and social lives because of the commonly associated anxiety and fear that coincides. Going further into the IRI oral passage portion, Bridget was demonstrating a pattern of miscues that correspond with the ongoing stuttering. For instance, she presented with repetitions (however these do not qualify as errors in the IRI) and self-corrections. These miscues allowed me to understand how Bridget processes information gained from the passages, as well as how she handles errors when reading. According to Opitz & Erekson (2015), when educators and school officials complete and analyze a miscue analysis, they are able to gain valuable knowledge about how a student comprehends and processes information through text. Continuing on with the assessment, after completing the oral passage and collecting the miscues that were presented, I instructed Bridget that it was time to complete the silent reading portion of the assessment. When I told her she had to read the passage independently and silently, she became more at ease with her new task. To test her comprehension of the reading, I chose to ask option 3 of the Informal Reading Inventory Manual (Opitz & Erekson, 2015, p. 330). I asked Bridget, “In your own words, what was this story about?” Bridget was nervous at first, but quickly became eager to retell the story. When she was stating the retelling of the passage, I noticed there was not as much stuttering as before - making me believe that the stuttering is brought on by nervousness. This is a similar ideology presented by Ruth EzratiVinacour & Iris Levin (2004). According to the authors, anxiety and stuttering are parallel on many facets - clinically and personally. The authors suggest that stuttering is brought on and

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study

3

demonstrated because of how a person - in this case Bridget - perceives a threat. This threat does not mean danger, but a threat to their cognition and ability to perform (p. 136). This theory seems to make sense of Bridget’s on-going stuttering. Once I commenced the asking of comprehension questions, I decided to not administer the listening capacity portion of the IRI because Bridget answered the comprehension questions with enough detail for me to understand that she grasped the information from the passages.

Administration Procedure of IRI For the administration of the IRI, I chose to administer the assessment to Bridget in her home to make her feel as comfortable and confident as possible. Since Bridget is a family member, I have a well-established rapport which made the administration process run much smoother. I spoke to Bridget at her eye-level and stated that I wanted to see how well she can read. In addition, I told her I would be jotting notes down while she reads so that I can keep track of all the information I am receiving. Once I instructed Bridget on what was occuring, I administered the Word Recognition Inventory (WRI). I administered the sets of word lists starting two grade levels below Bridget’s current grade-level placement. I administered the word lists until Bridget reached her point of frustration with the material. I knew when this was occuring because her stuttering was getting increasingly more intense. At this point, I knew it was time to administer the oral passage portion of the assessment. When I handed the passage to Bridget, her demeanor completely altered. She became shy and reserved. When I asked her to read the passage aloud, within the first few words of the passage she was making miscues. In addition, whenever a miscue would occur, she would sit back in her seat, take a deep breath, and continue on with the passage. I kept track of all the

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study

4

miscues Bridget demonstrated, i.e., repetitions (not considered an error in scoring) and selfcorrections. Once the reading was completed, I asked Bridget a series of questions that would confirm to me her comprehension of the material. At this point, I allowed Bridget to have a five minute break to ease her mind. Then, I administered the silent reading portion of the assessment. I explained to Bridget that she will read this part of the passage by herself and silently. This in turn lead to her becoming more relaxed and calm. Furthermore, once she completed the reading, I asked her another set of comprehension questions that would allow me to gain insight on her knowledge and comprehension abilities. I followed this guideline until Bridget reached a point of frustration with the questions I was asking.

Analysis of Assessment Results Through the administration of the Informal Reading Inventory, I was able to gain insight on Bridget’s reading abilities over multiple levels. On the first portion of the IRI, Bridget scored a 93%, which put her in the buffer level. The buffer level is an area of scoring that falls between the frustration and instructional levels. This score corresponds with the behaviors that were presented during the assessment. Bridget was becoming frustrated, but continued until she could not read further. Further into the assessment, Bridget scored a 92% on the comprehension level of the oral and silent reading, putting her in the instructional level. Within this level, the child is able to problem-solve and come to conclusions on their own, however, explicit teaching is occuring. Bridget demonstrated the characteristics for this level because she showed improvement with the help of a more knowledgeable other (MKO). Bridget demonstrated many strengths that carried her throughout the entirety of the

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study

5

assessment. However, there were some areas in which Bridget needed extra support in order to continue with the assessment. Throughout the administration of the assessment, Bridget presented with many behaviors that we can assume was due to nervousness and anxiety. She becomes hesitant and anxious when reading aloud, causing her to stutter some of her words and sounds. Because of her reaction to her possible anxiety, she could not complete the oral reading portion to her best potential. Nonetheless, Bridget exemplified many strengths and positive behaviors that guided her through the assessment. For instance, Bridget demonstrated valuable coping mechanisms when confronting a challenge in the passages. After reading through the oral passage, she sat back in her seat and took several deep breaths. Once she finished, she sat up and was ready to begin the next portion. This was extraordinary to witness because Bridget was aware that she was feeling overwhelmed and was attentive to her feelings, allowing her to get herself prepared for the following tasks.

Implications for Teaching Strategies

After administering the IRI to Bridget, I was able to gain great insight on her reading abilities through various levels. With the data that I have collected there are many types of teaching strategies that can fully benefit Bridget if she happens to have this form of anxiety. In order to help students who display shy behaviors, authors Papa, Romano & Saulle explain that educators and school officials need to first understand that the apprehension students display can be brought on by many factors. The behaviors can occur due to embarrassment, tension, fear, and apprehension or even a cumulation of all these emotions (Papa, Romano & Saulle). According to

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study

6

Harris & Coy (2003), there are many methods to help support students through the negative emotions they may be experiencing. For instance, the authors encourage all school officials, educators, and parents to be involved in the supports for a student who may experience test anxiety. Educators and instructors should be conscious of the students’ physical, behavioral, and cognitive capabilities, as well as the amount of test preparation and practice they are placing on the student before the administration of any assessments (Harris & Coy, 2003, p. 3). In order to better assist students - along with Bridget - who stutter within the classroom, there are multiple steps educators and school officials can take to ensure we support these students to our best capabilities. According to Guitar & Scott (2012), if a child begins to display stuttering characteristics and behaviors, there are many methods that we can apply to better serve and support the student. For instance, when a child’s stuttering arises, it is vital that we as educators remain as an open communicator and support system for these students. In addition, it is crucial that we attempt to not fill in the words or sentences that the student is getting stuck on instead, be patient and allow them to finish and complete the word/phrase at their own pace (Guitar & Scott, 2012). This strategy would be beneficial to Bridget because it would teach her how to problem-solve independently and finish a task at her own pace. She would be able to apply her own technique to cope with any issue she is confronted with pertaining to her stutter. Further into the authors’ guidelines, they address instances in which creating oral reports an easier process for students who stutter. They explain that there are many methods to make this process a positive experience for both the student with the stutter and for the rest of the class. When assigning an oral report to a student with a stutter, it is vital that we create an order of presentation, teach practice opportunities, address the audience size, and identify any other issues that may arise (Guitar & Scott, 2012, p. 7). Further into the guidelines, the authors mention the

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study

7

step-by-step processes and checklists if an educator decides they want to make a referral. Within this checklist, there are multiple distinctions that would determine if the child’s disfluency is normal or typical stuttering behaviors. For Bridget, her teacher can take into consideration these factors and further determine the best fit supports and possible interventions to help Bridget succeed. To further support Bridget in and out of the classroom, LaBlance, Steckol, & Smith (1998) emphasize how educators and school officials should establish positive and good speech models for students. Meaning, instructors should display clear and annunciated speech. This in turn can help students imitate this form of language and behavior. In addition, the authors highlight the importance of improving the child’s self-esteem and establishing a good speech environment (LaBlance, Steckol, & Smith, 1998). When Bridget is reading aloud, it is vital for the instructor to display their recognition of her efforts. When the disfluency occurs, the teacher should still provide praise and support - implying that the educator was paying attention and listening to the students’ attempts. According to Coleman, Scaler-Scott, Reeves, Bailey & Gainey, there are protocols school officials and educators can implement to support students who have a stutter. They explain that teachers, parents, and speech language pathologists can become strong advocates for students who stutter when undertaking timed oral reading fluency sections of reading assessments (Coleman, Scaler-Scott, Reeves, Bailey & Gainey). The option of having alternative assessments and accommodations for these students are important to highlight as well. In addition, the authors state that if the child makes the decision to participate in the assessment, then the advocates for this child - parents, SLP, teachers, other school officials - can demand that the scores obtained from the oral reading assessment would not be utilized to determine reading

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study

8

level placements for the child. Instead, school officials can look at the students’ overall academic performance - specifically their comprehension scores to further evaluate the student.

References Childhood fluency disorders: Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29, 2018, from https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/childhood-fluency-disorders/ Coleman, C., Scaler-Scott, K., Reeves, N., Bailey, M., & Gainy, H. (n.d.). Timed oral reading/presentaions & children who stutter[Pamphlet]. New York, NY: National Stuttering Association. Ezrati-Vinacour, R., & Levin, I. (2004). The relationship between anxiety and stuttering: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 29(2), 135-148. doi:10.1016/j.jfludis.2004.02.003 Guitar, C., & Scott, L. (2012). Stuttering: Straight talk for teachers: A handbook for teachers and speech-language pathologists. Memphis, TN: Stuttering Foundation. Opitz, M.F. & Erekson, J.A. (2015). Understanding, Assessing, and Teaching Reading: A Diagnostic Approach (7th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson. Chapter 4, “Oral Reading

RUNNING HEAD: Case Study

9

Assessments”, (pp. 57-79). Harris, H. L., & Coy, D. R. (2003). Helping students cope with test anxiety. ERIC Digests,2-3. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED479355.pdf. Hoffses, K. (2018). Test anxiety. KidsHealth. Retrieved from https://kidshealth.org/en/kids/test-anxiety.html. LaBlance, G. R., Steckol, K. F., & Smith, V. L. (1998, July 20). Stuttering: The role of the classroom teacher. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from https://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/kuster/InfoPWDS/lablance.html Papa, L., Romano, L., & Saulle, E. (n.d.). 4 simple strategies to help a shy student. Retrieved October 29, 2018, from http://www.teachhub.com/4-simple-strategies-help-shy-student...