Nicole Messina

TE 846 Case Study

December 2019
Student Background

During my case study, I worked with a student in my second grade classroom. Leo

(pseudonym has been used) is a seven year old Caucasian male. Both his parents and his first

grade teacher described him as a struggling reader. As a first grader, Leo received an Individual-

ized Reading Intervention Plan (IRIP) and worked with literacy aides daily as part of that inter-

vention plan. Leo qualifies for additional aide as part of his IRIP again this year based off his

testing data from NWEA, Fountas and Pinnel (2016) benchmark assessment, and DIBELS, the

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills assessment. He will work with a reading aide

20 minutes daily using the Explode the Code program that my school has purchased for interven-

tion. He will also receive small group instruction four times a week with me based on his Foun-

tas and Pinnel (2016) and Words their Way spelling inventory (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, &

Johnson, 2016)

Outside of school, Leo has a very supportive family. He lives with his mother, father, and

two younger siblings. He also frequently spends time playing football at his grandparents’ house.

Leo’s brother is in first grade. It has been communicated by the family that it is very important to

support Leo’s reading development so that he does not feel overshadowed by his brother’s own

skills in this area. Leo’s parents communicate frequently about his progress, have enrolled him in

outside tutoring programs , and generally are involved in his education.

Overall, Leo has a positive attitude about reading. He identifies a desire to read chapter

books and says that he enjoys reading them. He also says that it can sometimes be hard to read

chapter books when they do not have pictures. Leo says that he likes reading both by himself and
with others. His primary interests are Marvel comics and sports. Leo utilizes his interests when

picking books for his independent book box as he frequently includes books on these subjects.

Identifying Student Needs

When I met Leo this September I quickly realized from informal writing samples and

shared reading with him that reading presented an area where growth was needed. His mother

and first grade teacher quickly reached out to share with me that Leo was a “struggling reader".

As reading encompasses many elements that lead to success, as shown in McKenna and Stahl’s

(2015) cognitive model, I recognized that I needed to conduct a variety of assessments to deter-

mine which area of reading Leo needed to strengthen the most in order to move him toward suc-

cess in reading comprehension at a second grade level.

In the beginning of the school year, I completed many beginning of the year assessments

with all of my students. As a school district, we are required to assess our students using NWEA,

DIBELS, and Fountas and Pinnel’s (2016) benchmarking assessment tool. This information pro-

vides a comprehensive look at my students’ language skills, foundational skills, fluency skills,

strategic knowledge skills, and ultimately comprehension. Through these assessments, I was able

to assess many of the areas of that cumulatively lead to reading comprehension. According to

Leo’s scores in the chart below, he was working below a second grade reading level in all of

these areas.
 Assessment Score District Norms for Beginning of
Year 2nd Grade
NWEA 159 179
Fountas and Pinnel E J
DIBELS 103 141
Words Their Way Spelling Inven- Digraphs Not available
tory (Bear, et al. 2016)

In addition to these assessments, I also utilized a primary spelling inventory from Words

Their Way (Bear et al., 2016). While spelling may typically be associated with writing skills, the

inventory presented from the Words Their Way also reveals extensive knowledge of what a stu-

dent understands about the patterns and meanings of words (Bear et. al, 2016). The organization

of the words within the spelling inventory give insight into the student’s understanding of alpha-

betic principle, within word patterns, and the meaning of words. In Leo’s case, I was specifically

interested in understanding what he knew about words so that I could better support him in using

that knowledge to produce words in writing and to decode words within his reading. Based on

Leo’s spelling inventory, his spelling stage is at digraphs. This puts Leo at the letter name alpha-

betic stage which is consistent with students ranging from kindergarten to the beginning of sec-

ond grade (Bear et al., 2016). At this point, I would like to support Leo within his current stage in

order to support his progress toward the transitional stage, which often begins within first grade

for many students. Working on digraphs and blends before moving into long vowel patterns is

consistent with Leo’s next step of development and is aligned with the Common Core State

Standards of foundational skills from first to second grade ( National Governors Association

Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). As such, in order to
help Leo in his reading and progress towards grade level skills, I will focus on supporting his

word knowledge of digraphs.

Creating a Plan to Support Leo

When creating plans to support Leo, I first started by considering what my main objec-

tives were for his literacy development. First, I wanted him to have a firmer grasp on the differ-

ences between the digraphs, sh and ch, so that he can communicate more effectively through his

writing. Second, I wanted him to be able to transfer his knowledge of digraphs into his reading

so that he would be able to spend less of his mental energy on decoding words with these fea-

tures and more on comprehension. The natural place for me to approach both goals was through

word study. As stated earlier, word study provides students with word knowledge related to

sounds, patterns, and meaning, while also providing insight into students current knowledge of

words that is utilized when they are reading (Bear et al., 2016). I also chose word study as the

approach to my lessons because it encompasses several other best practices that are essential for

supporting student learning in literacy skills.

As I designed my lessons for Leo, my goal was to use word study within my small group

instructional time that allows my students to take an active role in their learning. This is reflec-

tive of the best practices of literacy instruction including using small group differentiated instruc-

tion as well as having students become contributing members of the learning community (Mal-

loy, Marinak, & Gambrell, 2019) Through my word study lessons, Leo has been placed in a

group based on his developmental level and is working on objectives that will progress him for-

ward in his word knowledge in ways consistent with literacy research of Bear and his colleagues
(2016) as well as in the Common Core State Standards. Through word study discussions, Leo

actively created new word lists by himself and with others while constructing meaning for him-

self about the letter sound relationship within digraphs. This allows him to become an active

member of his community of learners and support him in taking ownership of his own work.

In addition to my small group instruction, I also provided space for Leo to complete in-

dependent work within each day of the lesson. Rather than completing worksheets, Leo engaged

in meaningful tasks including word hunts, games, word sorts, and open ended tasks. This reflects

the best practice of replacing worksheet based, rote assignments with more inquiry based as-

signments ( Malloy et. al, 2019) I also created such tasks to honor the commitments I made to

Leo in developing our powerful reading plan to honor his interest in completing games to help

support his learning. This adheres to the principle of using motivating factors to support student

learning (Guthrie & Barber, 2019) In that document, Leo asked to play games and to use books

to help him work on reading and writing words with digraphs.

My lesson sequence also followed a gradual release model of instruction. While I began

the week with explicit instruction in what digraphs are, throughout the course of the week Leo

engaged in several group, partner, and independent activities that put more of the responsibility

of constructing that knowledge on him. For example, on day one of the lesson I explicitly pro-

vided the words for instruction. However, as the week went on, Leo and his classmates deter-

mined words in print and created their own words that were then added to our group’s chart

paper that reflected student learning. Throughout the week I also asked students to share their

own thinking and to write their observations, shifting the responsibility from me explaining di-

graphs to Leo and his classmates to them verbalizing their understanding to me. This model al-
lowed Leo both the explicit instruction that he needs to be successful as well as the exploration

that is necessary to construct learning for deeper understanding ( Malloy et al., 2019).

Finally, I chose word study as my main approach due to the large amount of formative

assessment that it provides. In order to truly understand Leo’s development I must be able to

assess his learning frequently. It is through this ongoing assessment that I am able to adjust my

lessons from day to day to support Leo and provide feedback to guide his learning ( Malloy et

al., 2019). Each day of word study provides me with direct observations and student anecdotes

through our small group as well as through the collection of his independent work. I also can see

his progress though work samples of writing and reading throughout the day. Compiling this

would give me a more comprehensive look at where Leo is in his development of using digraphs

accurately in his reading and writing.

Reflecting on Lesson Implementation

The first week of Leo’s word study instruction specifically focused on discriminating

between the ch and sh digraph. During the first week of word study, Leo demonstrated a high

level of success in discriminating these sounds throughout our small group activities and in his

independent work. Within our small groups, Leo was able to accurately sort words based on the

sh and ch category when given the word verbally. In his independent work, Leo was able to sort

words using pictures and accurately label the pictures with the correct digraph in his spelling.

Leo was able to successfully read his decodable reader featuring these digraphs and sort them

into proper categories. Leo was also able to read the words in isolation orally with the correct

pronunciation of the digraph. This anecdotal evidence and collection of work samples throughout

the first week suggest that Leo was successful in engaging in word study to increase his ability to
identify the correct digraph in his spelling of words and in reading of words with the digraph

feature.

In addition to work samples from our small group, I also completed a spelling test, also

referred to as a spell check, at the end of the first week. Leo was asked to spell ten words with

the sh and ch digraph features. I generated the words for the spelling test using some words from

our spelling list from that week’s whole group instruction and words that were not included in

our spelling list. All words were single syllable words with a ch or sh digraph that included short

vowels or the CVCe long vowel pattern. While this was done to alleviate mental energy to focus

on unknown vowel patterns, the only scored element was the digraph feature. Upon checking

Leo’s spell check, Leo scored 100% on the digraph feature and spelled nine of the ten words

completely correctly. This suggests that Leo had accomplished my initial objective to be able to

independently determine the appropriate digraph in his writing by accurately spelling the digraph

component of words within his writing. In addition my formative assessment of listening to Leo

read Shag Sheds and Watch Chuck Chip, decodable readers within my school’s reading program,

I felt confident that Leo was making adequate progress in my reading goals for him.

Based on the success Leo had with our first word study, I decided that I wanted to explore

this area more by helping Leo expand on his knowledge of the ch digraph by helping him dis-

criminate the use of the spelling ch or tch in his writing of words with that digraph sound. Since

he no longer seemed to need focused instruction on the difference between the sh and ch sound,

this seemed like an appropriate choice to make to support Leo. I also noticed upon reflection of

the words that I chose for my first word study, that all of the words with the ch digraph appeared

at the beginning of the words and did not give Leo exposure the digraph at the end of words.
Based on Leo’s success and my own reflection of my instructional choices in that first week, I

chose to explore the use of the tch or ch digraph at the end of a single syllable word.

The second week of word study was not as successful as the first for Leo. While Leo was

able to sort words correctly by sight , such as in decodable readers and with word cards, he was

not able to independently determine the spelling pattern for the digraph when looking at pictures

to represent the word with success. In discussions about the words, Leo and his classmates strug-

gled to verbalize the patterns that they noticed. I initially tried to guide them into noticing the

differences in the vowel sounds. The long vowel sound is associated with the use of the ch di-

graph while the short vowel sound is associated with the use of the tch digraph. Students needed

a lot of support to identify this pattern throughout the week. At the beginning of each lesson the

students worked to identify this pattern and consistently needed support. At the end of the week,

when Leo was given a spell check, he scored 40% when scoring for the correct use of the di-

graph. It is worth noting, however, that he spelling zero words correctly because the words that

feature the ch digraph also feature long vowel patterns that Leo is not successful at utilizing in

his spelling. Overall, this part of the lesson proved to be unsuccessful and not conducive to sup-

porting Leo’s current level of understanding of words and their patterns.

Upon looking at Leo’s work samples, notes from that week’s word study, and his spell

check, I concluded that Leo was not yet ready to explore this comparison of the ch and tch di-

graph. As I used many of the same strategies that were successful in our first week of word

study, I determined that the issue was more related to the content rather than my instructional

practices. While on the surface the pattern seems to revolve around the use of digraphs, the un-

derlying explanation of the pattern has much more to do with long and short vowels, something
that Leo is still working to develop, based on this word study lesson and on his initial Words

Their Way Spelling Inventory. After realizing that I misunderstood what the next step should be

for Leo, I concluded that the more appropriate route would have been to

explore consonant blends, as noted as an area for improvement on prior assessments, and then

work with long vowels before finally coming back to the idea of ch and tch digraphs at the end

of words. This approach would be more consistent with the natural progression of word study

present by Bear and his colleagues (2016).

In addition to my weekly spell checks on these words, I also was concerned with how

word study would support Leo’s ability to utilize less cognitive energy sounding out words and

more cognitive energy focusing on comprehension (McKenna & Stahl, 2015). While I was not

teaching reading comprehension specifically in my case study with Leo, I was looking to see if

strengthening his decoding skills would support his growth on my district’s benchmark test for

reading comprehension. At the beginning of the year, Leo was an independent reading level E

according to the Fountas and Pinnel (2016) benchmarking system. At the end of November Leo

was an independent F. While my instruction does not prove causation, I do see a positive

correlation between his work in class and his assessment data.

Modifying for Future Implementations

After teaching these two lessons I have determined that the strategies provided by Bear

and his colleagues (2016) to implement word study cab be highly conducive to support student

learning if the appropriate choices for word lists and features are made. I saw that in the first
lesson Leo was successful because as an instructor I made the correct choice for his learning. In

the second lesson, Leo was not as successful because I misunderstood the purpose of the word

list I created and did not present an appropriate lesson for Leo’s current level of understanding.

This has taught me that when selecting word lists for my students using word study, that I need

to be more cognizant of what other word understandings they already have and need to be

successful in developing the patterns necessary to understand and apply the word list in their

reading and writing. Had I fully acknowledged and understood that Leo would need to be more

confident in his ability to understand and apply long vowel patterns to be successful in my

second word study lesson, I would not have engaged him in that lesson. Instead, I would have

explored consonant blends.

I also see the need to be more aware of the word lists that I create for my word study.

While my first lesson was largely successful, I should have chosen more oddballs, a term used by

Bear and his peers (2016) to describe words that do not fit the pattern being explored. By being

more selective and aware of the words that I chose I could have explored the idea of using tch

and ch in my first lesson and perhaps seen more positive results. While words did feature some

tch spellings, because I was focused on ch and sh digraphs, I did not pinpoint whether Leo

identified the difference. Perhaps, that is something that I should have been more aware of when

determine criteria for success for Leo on this lesson.

Finally, I think that the biggest factor moving forward will be considering how I am able

to assess Leo and other students engaged in word study. Decoding skills are a constrained skill,

that can be easily assessed, but what I ultimately want to see is how that constrained skill
supports the much more unconstrained skill of reading comprehension and writing development

(Stahl, 2011). Assessing students on their writing by looking at the correct use of the feature in

their daily work, weekly spell checks, and semester benchmark assessments is something that I

feel confident in doing and can trust in the validity of the result. Finding a way to determine how

word study supports reading growth is much harder since comprehension growth is ever evolv-

ing and contains many other factors beyond decoding. While I could ask students to read words

with features in isolation, I ultimately want to see its ties to reading comprehension rather than

decoding abilities in isolation. If I am using a comprehension test to assess word study skills the

validity of that assessment for my purposes of word study does not exactly line up. However, I

am seeking understanding of the application of this tool beyond decoding purposes. This leads

me with the desire to seek out more training in how to use the assessment tools that I have in

order to find and incorporate ways to utilize the assessment of unconstrained skills, like decoding

and word pattern work, to support more complex growth in reading comprehension as a whole.

Final Thoughts

Overall, working with Leo using word study was a valuable experience for both Leo and

myself. Leo showed growth in his reading both on word study spell checks and benchmark

reading comprehension tests. I have gained knowledge in how to use and apply word study. I

have goals to learn more about word study list word selection and the use of assessment in my

classroom. This process proved to give me insight about myself as a teacher and about the capa-

bilities of my students based on the instructional decisions that I make in the classroom.
References:

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. R. (2016). Words their way:

Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

Fountas, I., & Pinnel, G. S. (2016). Benchmark Assessment System (Third). Portsmouth:

Heinemann.

Guthrie, J.T. & Barber, A.T., (2019). Best practices for motivating students to read. In

Morrow, L.M., & Gambrell, L.B. Best practices in literacy instruction. (6th ed. pp.52-74).New

York: The Guilford Press.

Malloy, J.A., Marinak, B.A., & Gambrell, L.B. (2019) Best practices for developing liter-

ate communities. In Morrow, L.M., & Gambrell. Best practices in literacy instruction.(6th ed.

pp. 271-288).New York: The Guilford Press.

McKenna, M.C., & Stahl, K,A., (2015) Assessment for Reading Instruction. S.1: Guilford

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School

Officers . (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington D.C: National Governors Associa-

tion Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers

Stahl, K. A. (2011). Applying new visions of reading development in today's classroom.

The Reading Teacher , 65(1), 52–56.

Artifact 1: Words Their Way Spelling Inventory

Lesson One

Title: Digraph Word Study

Date:November 4th -November 8th

Overview: On days one through four of this lesson, Leo will participate in small group word study in-
struction, partner work, and independent practice throughout our classroom’s daily literacy centers. On
day five, Leo will complete a final sort and be given a spell check assessment.

Objectives:
1. Leo will be able to independently determine the appropriate digraph (sh or ch) in his reading by
accurately pronouncing the sound of the digraph within the word.

2. Leo will be able to independently determine the appropriate digraph (sh or ch) in his writing by
accurately spelling the digraph component of words within his writing.

Daily Formative Assessment: Student independent work and teacher observation of small group. Student
work samples from daily morning journal writing time.

Day 1:

Introduction: On day one of his small group instruction, Leo will be introduced to the sh and ch digraphs.
I will explain to students that today we will be learning about digraphs. I will say that digraphs are two
letters that make one sound. I will then explicitly show students the letter sh and ch and model the sound
that each digraph makes. Students will then take turns independently saying the sound of each digraph.

Body: Next, students will participate in a teacher directed closed sort. I will determine the categories of
the sort as sh and ch. Students will then work together as a group to sort picture cards that contain the sh
or ch digraph. In order to support students, I will provide names of the images when needed. I will also
provide support by asking students to compare the sounds that they hear in the word to sounds in the
words that they have already been sorted.

Closure: After completing the sort, students will discuss their observations of the words in each sort. I will
guide their thinking by asking open questions such as, “ What do you notice about our sort?” “What other
words could be included in our sort?”

Independent Practice: Following small group, Leo’s word study group will independently sort each pic-
ture and add labels.

Day 2:

Introduction: During small group, I will explicitly state each sound and spelling pattern of the digraph ch
and sh. Students will repeat each sound.
Body: Students will brainstorm words on a white board that may fit into our ch and sh categories. Stu-
dents will share out the words and I will record their ideas on chart paper.

Closure: Students will discuss what they notice about the words.

Independent Practice: Students will complete a draw and label activity. Students will draw other words
that fit into the sh and ch digraph category. Students will use developmental spelling to label the pictures.

Day 3:

Introduction: During small group, I will explicitly state each sound and spelling and sound of the digraphs
ch and sh. Students will repeat each sound. I will explain that today we will be reading a story and search-
ing for words that have our sh and ch sounds.

Body: Students will listen and follow along as I read a short story recorded onto chart paper. As we hear
the words students will circle them. Following the reading we will record the words into categories.

Closure: Students will read each of the words and discuss any observations about the categories.

Independent work: students will work in partners to complete a word hunt focusing on the sh digraph.
Students will highlight sh or ch words in Journey’s blend it book 64, Shag Sheds and Journey’s blend it
book 67, Watch Chuck Chip

Day 4

Introduction: During small group, I will explicitly state each sound and spelling pattern of the digraph ch
and sh. Students will repeat each sound.

Body: students will share the words that they found from day 3’s independent work. Students will then
sort the words from their word hunt with previously sorted words on group chart paper.

Closure: Students will write observations of what they have noticed about sh and ch digraph words.

Independent work: Students will copy their words from the word hunt onto lined paper into categories sh
and ch. Students will then add other words that fit into the category.

Day 5:

Assessment: Students will complete a spell check of the digraphs sh and ch. Students will be assessed
only for the digraph feature in their words.

Independent work: students will play roll a digraph game.

Lesson Two

Title: Digraph Word Study Ch vs. Tch

Date:November 11th- November 15th

Overview: On days one through four of this lesson, Leo will participate in small group word study in-
struction, partner work, and independent practice throughout our classroom’s daily literacy centers. On
day five, Leo will complete a final sort and be given a spell check assessment.

Objectives:

1. Leo will be able to independently determine the digraph in his reading by

2. Leo will be able to independently determine the appropriate digraph n his writing by
accurately spelling the digraph component of words within his writing.

Daily Formative Assessment: Student independent work and teacher observation of small group. Student
work samples from daily morning journal writing time.

Day 1:

Introduction: I will explain to students that we are going to continue to explore digraphs within our small
group. I will go over the efforts of the students to determine the difference between the sh and ch digraph
in words. I will then explain that we are going to work more on the ch digraph this week. I will not
explicitly teach tch as a digraph since students will be building on the knowledge that they established on
that sound from lesson one’s instruction on digraphs.

Body: Students will be given digraph word cards as a group to sort. I will establish the categories as catch
and reach for the students but will not determine the reasoning behind those categories. Students will each
pick a card. I will support students as needed by providing proper pronunciation of the word. Students
will determine if it is more like catch and reach and sort accordingly.

Closing: Students will discuss the categories and make observations about the sort. I will support by
guiding children to notice the placement of the digraph within the word and by asking questions about
vowel sounds.

Independent work: Students will independently sort the words.

Day 2:

Introduction: I will review the words from day one’s sort and students will repeat the words. We will dis-
cuss the established categories. If needed, I will provide guidance by asking children to focus on the end
of the word and the vowel sounds that are associated with the pattern of using ch or tch.

Body: Students will play a game to practice reading words with digraphs. Students will roll a dice and
read a word associated with the number on the dice. Following the game, students will add the words to
our group word sort from day one. If needed, we will discuss words that provide exceptions to our
categories.

Closing: Students will discuss how these new words fit the established pattern from the introduction.
Independent Work: Students will complete a draw and label activity.

Day 3:

Introduction: Students will share words from their draw and label activity and will add them to our group
sorting chart.

Body: Students will complete a group word hunt. I will read a prepared story and students will circle
words within the story that contain ch or tch. We will then add those words to our group word sort.

Closing: Students will discuss the pattern with a partner. Students will share out what their partner’s
observations were about our words.

Independent Work: Students will complete a word hunt activity independently. Students will read
Journeys decodable reader 68, Pitch and Catch, and highlight ch and tch words.

Day 4:

Introduction: Students will share their words from the word hunt activity. I will record them onto our
group word study paper.

Body: Students will brainstorm additional words using whiteboards. We will add them onto our lists. We
will then review the words by having students take turns reading a word from the categories.

Closing: Students will write their observations about the ch and tch digraps.

Day 5:

Assessment: Students will complete a spell check on tch and ch words.

Independent Work: Students will choose words from our word sort and use them in their own sentences.
Artifact 7: Lesson Two Student Work Sample
Artifact 8: Lesson Two Student Work Sample
Artifact 9: Lesson Two Spell Check