1

EDUC 6410
Assessment and Evaluation Case Study

Date of report: 12/6/18 Student name: Lucy

Report author: Belle Raim Grade: 1st
Time period of assessments: 9/19 – 11/26 Age: 6
 2

Table of Contents

1. Background Information ………………………………………………………………….3

2. Assessments Administered ……………………………………………………………….5

3. Assessment Reflection and Analysis ……………………………………………………..5

4. Summary and Recommendations ……………………………………………………….12

5. Implications for the Use of Literacy Assessments……………………………………….14

6. Appendix ………………………………………………………………………………...16
 3

1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The School and Classroom Context

Hayes Elementary is a public elementary school located in the MNPS district, serving
students kindergarten through fourth grade. The student body is made up of 440 students.
Approximately 60% of students are White and around 39% are African American. About 40% of
students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, and less than 2% of students are English
Learners. Hayes Elementary is a Paideia design school, meaning it employs the Paideia teaching
philosophy. This method of instruction includes Socratic seminars, in which students drive
discussion and learn through listening and responding to others. Hayes Elementary uses seminars
as a way for students to explore new texts. The school’s literacy program is based on the
Tennessee States Standards, which are taught through a rich collection of anchor texts selected
by the district. These anchor texts are arranged around grade-level standards and essential
questions for each unit. Each quarter of the school year is divided into three units with
accompanying texts and target skills. All grade levels receive between one and a half to two
hours of ELA instruction each morning. Screener data for literacy is collected through FAST for
kindergarten and first grade, and through MAP assessments for second, third, and fourth grade.
Second through fourth graders who are flagged by the MAP assessment go on to take the FAST
assessment as well, in order to gather more skills-based information. In addition to these
standardized assessments, Hayes Elementary also conducts benchmarking text-level assessments
three times throughout the year.
The student I worked with this semester, Lucy, is in the first grade. Her class has 18
students, a lead teacher, and a para-professional who supports one of the students in the class.
The majority of direct instruction during the literacy block takes place on the carpet in the front
of the classroom, right after morning meeting ends. This first part of literacy instruction often
includes a mini-lesson or a read aloud. The carpet, where ELA lessons are taught, is positioned
directly in front of the white board, and students have choice seating on the carpet. I noticed that
Lucy generally chooses a seat close to the front of the carpet, near the teacher. I believe it’s
beneficial for Lucy to sit near the teacher during instruction and during read alouds to help with
her engagement. Generally, after the read aloud or mini-lesson, students complete independent
reading. Recently, the teacher has transitioned to using a Reader’s Workshop model in her class.
This means that at some point during the block, students read independently for around 20
minutes, while the teacher confers with individual students. Students have assigned independent
reading spots across the classroom, that range from sitting in the classroom library, to on the
floor, and at various tables around the room. Lucy’s reading spot is on the floor by the classroom
door. She seems to enjoy this reading spot and does not have too many classmates around that
might serve as a distraction. The small library at the back of the classroom, with two shelves of
books, is where students “book shop” for texts to read during their independent reading time.
The books in the library are arranged by genre, not by text level. I noticed that Lucy has
difficulty choosing “just right” texts that she is able to read independently. The majority of books
she typically has chosen for her book bin are significantly above her reading level. When looking
at these books, Lucy tends to focus on the pictures and attempts to generate text that matches the
illustrations. However, she rarely attempts to decode without prompting. After independent
reading, students often complete independent work at their desks. This work typically involves
either word-work or writing. Most of the work completed at the desks is individual and most
partner work or discussion takes place on the carpet. The desks are arranged in rows of three or
four, and students keep their materials in their desks. Lucy’s desk is in a row towards the front of
the room, and her desk is positioned so that it directly faces the board. Having Lucy face the
 4

board is helpful, particularly when work requires her to reference something from the mini-
lesson or when a text is projected up front. Please see Appendix A (p. 16) for a visual of Lucy’s
classroom.

The child
For kindergarten, Lucy attended a school outside of the MNPS district, so her first grade
teacher had little data on her at the start of the year. However, through informal observations,
Lucy’s teacher noticed that she was struggling during the literacy block. FAST screener data
collected at the beginning of the year confirmed this observation. Lucy scored below the 5th
percentile for sight words, at the 20th percentile for sentence reading, at the 25th percentile for
nonsense word reading, and at the 85th percentile for word segmenting. Overall, Lucy’s
composite FAST score placed her at the 14th percentile. Later in the fall, text-level assessments
also revealed that Lucy was below grade level. First graders are expected to start the year reading
around a level D or E, yet levels A and B were instructional for Lucy.
During my observations of Lucy during ELA instruction, she generally seemed engaged
in the lesson. Particularly during read alouds, Lucy’s attention was almost always focused on the
teacher and the story. However, I noticed that despite this interest in the lesson, Lucy seldom
raised her hand to answer questions posed by the teacher. She was more or less a silent
participant in lessons, therefore it was hard to gauge how much she actually understood
throughout the lessons. When I would observe Lucy during independent work, I noticed the same
pattern. During independent work, Lucy would attempt to focus on what was in front of her. She
is an energetic child who would sometimes get distracted by her peers. But for the most part,
Lucy tried to complete the work in front of her. However, her responses on these worksheets and
assignments suggested that she was not comprehending the material from the lesson. Because
Lucy appeared engaged and attempted to complete her work, I can see how it would be easy for
her to be overlooked by a teacher. From my interactions with Lucy, it seems that she has an
overall positive attitude towards learning. While she struggles with reading and classwork, she
does not seem to get frustrated quickly or give up. In talking with Lucy’s teacher, I learned that
she sometimes falls asleep during class. While I have not yet observed this myself, the teacher
shared that this was a pattern she noticed with Lucy early in the year. Lucy explained to the
teacher that she often goes to bed late, which seems to affect her ability to concentrate during the
day. The teacher shared that she has tried to meet with Lucy’s guardian, her uncle, but so far,
they have been unable to find a time to sit down together.

Initial goals and questions

Because so little was known about Lucy at the beginning of the school year, I had many
questions at the start of this project. First, I wanted to know what strengths Lucy had in literacy. I
also wanted to know more about her areas for growth. In particular, I wanted to learn more about
Lucy’s existing foundational skills – where there were strengths and where there were gaps.
Given Lucy’s seemingly positive attitude towards school, I wanted to evaluate her attitudes
towards reading more in depth, and I also wanted to learn more about what interests she has in
reading. My ultimate goals were to gain a deep understanding of Lucy as a reader and writer,
provide her teacher with information that would be useful in instruction, and communicate this
information to her family in a way that would be helpful to them. Ultimately, what I have learned
about Lucy as a reader this semester will inform how I support her next semester.
 5

2. ASSESSMENTS ADMINISTERED

Date Source Assessment Overall Appendix

Score Location

9/19 QRI Pre-Primer I Word List 29% B, p. 17

9/24 McKenna & Letter Recognition - Uppercase & 96% C, p. 18

Stahl (2015) Lowercase

9/26- McKenna & Phonological Awareness: Rhymes; 75% D, p. 19

11/7 Stahl (2015) Phoneme Isolation; Phoneme Identity;
Phoneme Categorization; Blending;
Phoneme Addition; Phoneme Deletion;
Phoneme Substitution; Phoneme
Segmentation

10/24 McKenna & Elementary Reading Attitude Survey Mixed or J, p. 29

Stahl (2015) indifferent
attitude

11/7 TNCore Phonics and Word Reading Survey: Letter- 81%

Sound Correspondences (Single Consonants E, p. 22
and Digraphs); Letter-Sound
Correspondences (Short and Long Vowels);
Closed-Syllable Words with Short Vowels
and Single Consonants

11/14 McKenna & Informal Phonics Inventory: Blends 0% F, p. 25

Stahl (2015)

11/14 Fry Sight Word Sight Words 68% G, p. 26

Inventory

11/14 N/A Informal Writing Sample Alphabetic K, p. 35

spelling

11/14 N/A Running Record – “Summer” 92% H, p. 27

11/26 N/A Running Record – “The Fat Cat” 95% I, p. 28

3. ASSESSMENTS REFLECTIONS AND ANALYSIS

Pre-Primer I Word List (Appendix B)

The first assessment I administered to Lucy was the Pre-Primer I Word List from the
QRI. Because so little was known about Lucy’s literacy skills at the start of the year, I began
with this general assessment in order to find a place to start getting to know Lucy as a reader. Of
the 17 words on the Pre-Primer I list, Lucy identified 4 words automatically – can, in, at, and on.
 6

She identified one additional word, with, after sounding it out and blending the sounds. In total,
Lucy correctly identified 5 words, which equates to 29% accuracy. This word list was firmly at
Lucy’s frustration level. The words on the Pre-Primer I word list were all high-frequency words,
an area she struggled with on FAST. In attempting to read each word that she did not recognize
automatically, Lucy said each sound in the word individually. She rarely blended the sounds,
unless it was a word that followed regular spelling patterns, such as with. However, most words
on this list were ones that did not follow regular spelling patterns and therefore must be known
by sight. For words such as he, the, do, and was, Lucy said the individual sounds in the word,
and then did not blend the sounds to make a word. For example, when Lucy came to the word he,
she said “/h/ /ĕ/,” and then moved on to the next word in the list without blending. It’s possible
that Lucy decided not to blend the sounds out loud, because when she blended them in her head,
they did not produce a word she recognized. In reading the words on the list, Lucy only
attempted short vowel sounds for each vowel she came across. I also noticed that she tended to
make the short a sound when she came across the letter o. Another misconception was that Lucy
thought the word I was the lowercase letter L in the word list. She was also not able to recognize
the letter G in the word go, because of the typeface used for the lowercase letter (g vs. g). After
seeing that Lucy scored at a frustration level on this first word list, we did not move on to the
Pre-Primer I passage. Instead, I decided it was important to assess Lucy’s foundational skills,
starting with letter recognition.

Letter Recognition (Appendix C)

Using the alphabet recognition chart from McKenna & Stahl (2015), I assessed Lucy’s
knowledge of both upper and lowercase letters. Letter recognition was an area of strength for
Lucy, and her overall accuracy was 96%. Lucy accurately identified 25 of 26 uppercase letters.
Similar to on the QRI Word List, she misidentified the uppercase letter I as the lowercase letter
L. Other than this misconception, Lucy automatically identified the rest of the capital letters
correctly. For lowercase letters, Lucy accurately identified 25 of 26 letters. It is interesting to
note that on this assessment, unlike on the QRI, she was able to identify lowercase g, written as
both g and g. Lucy’s one error in lowercase letters was incorrectly identifying the letter q as p.
Additionally, she self-corrected after identifying the letter c as the letter k. I wanted to get more
information surrounding Lucy’s knowledge of the lowercase letter q, so after her initial
identification of lowercase letters, I prompted her to find the lowercase q, which she could not
do. I then asked her to write a lowercase q, and she wrote an uppercase Q. Following this
assessment, I determined that Lucy has a strong grasp of almost all upper and lowercase letters,
aside from lowercase q and capital I. With this information gained, the next area I decided to
assess was phonological awareness.

Phonological Awareness (Appendix D)

In order to assess the multiple aspects of phonological awareness, I used the inventory
from McKenna & Stahl (2015). This inventory contained 9 different tasks, all assessing a
different component of phonological awareness. While Lucy’s overall score on this inventory
was 75%, her scores on each individual task ranged. For each task, reaching 80% was considered
“mastery” of the skill.

Rhymes: On the first task, identifying and producing rhymes, Lucy scored 90% overall. When
given a list of three words, two of which rhymed and one that did not, Lucy was able to identify
 7

the rhyming words 4 of 5 times. For example, given the words lit, bun, and run, Lucy stated that
bun and run rhymed. Next, when Lucy was given a word and had to generate a rhyming word,
she was able to do so 5 of 5 times. However, it was interesting to note that Lucy simply replaced
the first sound in each word with the /l/ sound to create rhymes, so some words produced were
nonsense words. For example, she rhymed say with lay, and then can with lan. While some of
the rhyming words Lucy produced were not real, she clearly understood the concept of rhyming.
Overall, Lucy seemed to have a strong grasp of rhymes and scored at “mastery” for this subskill.

Phoneme Isolation: In this task, Lucy was told a word and then had to identify either the first or
last sound in the word. Overall, she scored 90% on this task, correctly identifying 5 of 5 initial
sounds in words. These initial sounds were all consonants, as no diagraphs or vowels were
included at the beginning of words in this task. For example, Lucy correctly stated that dime
began with the /d/ sound. For final sounds, Lucy correctly identified 4 of 5 sounds. This task
included words that ended in both consonants and vowels, but no blends or diagraphs. Lucy
correctly identified both consonant and vowel ending sounds, in words such as go and beef. The
one error Lucy made was in identifying the last sound in rag. For this word, she said the initial
sound /r/, instead of the final sound /g/. This word was in the middle of the list, so it was
interesting that halfway through identifying final sounds, Lucy switched back to initial sounds.
Overall, Lucy reached “mastery” of this subskill, and she seemed to have a strong understanding
of beginning and ending sounds in words.

Phoneme Identity: In this task, Lucy was given three words with the same beginning sound and
asked, “what is the same about the three words that I say?” The first time I said a group of three
words to Lucy (lamp, list, ladder), she said she didn’t know what was the same about them. I
proceeded through the list, which contained 5 sets of words, and Lucy gave the same response of
“I don’t know,” each time. The prompt for this task was not entirely clear, so I decided to go
through the word lists again, but this time I asked, “what sound do you hear at the beginning of
these three words?” With this prompt, Lucy easily identified the initial sound that all three words
had in common. For example, for vase, vote, and visit, Lucy said that all three words had the /v/
sound at the beginning. Technically, Lucy was not able to reach “mastery” on this task, as she
was not able to complete this task with the original prompt. However, she was 100% accurate
after being provided with an adapted prompt. It seemed to me that the actual skill being assessed,
identifying phonemes, is one that Lucy has a strong grasp of.

Phoneme Categorization: For this next task, Lucy was told three different words – two of which
had the same beginning sound and one that was different. For example, Lucy was asked to listen
to the beginning sounds in sing, Suzie, and shut. She then had to identify which word in the set
did not belong. Lucy’s overall accuracy on this task was 40%, and she struggled quite a bit. She
was only able to identify the word that did not belong in 2 of 5 sets. For most sets of words, Lucy
simply gave the last word in the list as her answer. It seemed to me that Lucy’s main issue with
this task was working memory. She appeared to have difficulty trying to hold all three words in
her head, repeat the initial sounds to herself, and distinguish the one that was different. When I
slowed the task down and went through each word in the set individually, she had more success.
For example, in the set of wink, wagon, and yellow, I said each word individually and asked her
what sound she heard at the beginning. The process sounded like the following:

Belle: “Wink. What sound do you hear at the beginning?”

Lucy: “/w/”
 8

Belle: “Wagon. What sound do you hear at the beginning?”

Lucy: “/w/”
Belle: “Yellow. What sound do you hear at the beginning?”
Lucy: “/y/”
Belle: “So which one was different?”
Lucy: “Yellow”

It seemed like Lucy’s issue was not identifying initial sounds and distinguishing them from one
another. Rather, she had difficulty holding all the words in her head at one time and manipulating
them. Again, Lucy was not able to reach “mastery” on this task, however, she found more
success with a modified prompt.

Blending: In this task, Lucy was given sounds and asked to blend them together. These ranged
from 2 to 4 sounds that were to be blended into words. Lucy had 100% accuracy on this task,
correctly blending 5 of 5 words, and it seemed to be an area of strength. Lucy successfully
blended two sounds, such as making the word pie from /p/ /ī/. She also had no issue blending
consonant blends, such as the word flag from /f/ /l/ /a/ /g/. Overall, Lucy scored firmly at
“mastery” in this subskill. It is interesting to note that Lucy failed to blend many irregularly
spelled words in the QRI after generating the sounds, but she demonstrated complete mastery of
blending in this assessment. This suggests to me that Lucy does not have an issue with the actual
skill of blending. Rather, it seems that she is making conscious decisions about when to blend
out loud, depending on if the sounds she hears form a word she recognizes or not.

Phoneme Addition: For the next task, Lucy was given a chunk of a word and then had to add a
phoneme to the beginning. For example, adding /k/ at the beginning of -oat. The goal was for
Lucy to say the word that was created once the phoneme was added. Lucy’s overall accuracy
was 80%, meaning she reached “mastery” on this task. Lucy struggled a bit at the start of this
task and initially tried to replace the sound at the end, instead of adding the phoneme to the
beginning. For example, in the /k/ -oat pairing described above, Lucy said oak. However, after I
explained the task again, she was able to accurately add phonemes to the beginnings of 4 of 5
words. This task included adding both consonants (/k/, /m/, /d/, /j/) and consonant blends (/st/) to
the beginning of words.

Phoneme Deletion: In the next task, Lucy was required to delete phonemes from the beginnings
of words. For example, she was instructed to say the word pant without the /p/, which would
result in ant. Lucy was able to accurately remove phonemes from 4 of 6 words, which equates to
around 67% accuracy. Lucy was able to successfully delete both consonants (/p/, /k/) and
diagraphs (/sh/) from the beginnings of words. She had more difficulty when asked to remove a
part of a consonant blend from the beginning of a word, such as “say crow without the /k/. While
Lucy did not achieve “mastery” on this subskill, she was able to successfully delete phonemes
from over half of the words she was presented with.

Phoneme Substitution: For this task, Lucy was asked to substitute phonemes that appeared at the
beginning, middle, and ends of words. This task was difficult for Lucy, as she was only able to
accurately substitute phonemes in 2 of 6 words. Her accuracy on this task was 33%. She
successfully substituted /t/ for /p/ at the end of heap to make heat, and she substituted /k/ for /p/
at the beginning of couch to make pouch. Aside from these two, Lucy incorrectly substituted
initial and final phonemes in the rest of words she was given. Also, Lucy was not able to
 9

accurately substitute phonemes in the middle of words, such as vowels. This task proved to be
difficult for Lucy. I think she had difficulty with this task because phoneme substitution is a
complicated task in and of itself, and also because the task requires much working memory.

Phoneme Segmentation: In the last task, Lucy was asked to segment words. She correctly
segmented 7 of 9 words, which put her accuracy at 78%. While Lucy did not technically reach
“mastery” of this skill, it seemed to be a strength of hers. FAST data suggested this as well, as
Lucy scored extremely well on word segmenting. In this task, she successfully segmented words
with 2, 3, 4, and 5 sounds in them. I noticed that when Lucy segmented words, she used hand
motions and moved her hand down her arm with every sound. This led me to believe that Lucy
was familiar with segmenting from kindergarten. Lucy was able to successfully segment words
that began with consonant blends, such as grub, step, and flake. It was interesting to note that
Lucy was able to break apart consonant blends in this assessment, but she struggled with
separating consonant blends in the deletion task. The two words Lucy struggled to segment were
mask and soft. In both words, she mixed up the order of the two letters at the end. Overall,
segmenting was an area of strength for Lucy.

While Lucy’s scores ranged across the different measures of phonological awareness, she
seemed to have a strong grasp of fundamentals skill such as blending, segmenting, rhyming,
phoneme isolation, and phoneme addition. She struggled a bit more with phoneme substitution,
categorization, and deletion. After assessing Lucy’s phonological awareness and letter
knowledge, I wanted to gain a better understanding of her phonics skills.

Phonics and Word Reading Survey (Appendix E)

Letter-Sound Correspondences: Single Consonants and Diagraphs: Lucy correctly identified 22

of 24 single consonant/diagraph sounds. This put her accuracy at 92%. It was interesting to note
that while Lucy could not identify the lowercase letter q in an earlier assessment, on this task she
accurately produced the sound for qu. She also correctly produced sounds for all the single
consonants and for the diagraphs th, sh, and wh. The only letter-sound correspondences Lucy
struggled with were ch and ng. She made the /k/ sound for ch, and she did not attempt ng.
Overall, Lucy has a strong grasp of consonant and diagraph sounds.

Letter-Sound Correspondences: Short and Long Vowels: In this assessment, Lucy had 100%
accuracy in identifying short vowel sounds. She was able to both produce short vowel sounds
independently and also identify them when I made the sounds. It was interesting to see Lucy’s
strength in short vowel sounds, because she seemed to mix up short a and short o in the first QRI
word list. Her accuracy with long vowel sounds was 0%. This assessment suggests that Lucy has
a strong understanding of short vowel sounds, and it seems she has not yet been introduced to
long vowels. However, Lucy not yet knowing long vowel sounds is not surprising for this early
in first grade.

Closed Syllable Words with Short Vowels and Single Consonants: Lucy accurately read 5 of 6
real CVC words, putting her accuracy at 83%. Again, Lucy demonstrated her mastery of
consonant sounds, short vowel sounds, and blending in this task. She successfully read CVC
words with all 5 short vowel sounds. The word that Lucy misread was rot, which she read as rut.
It seems that while Lucy has a strong understanding of short vowel sounds in isolation, she
occasionally mixes them up when reading them in a word (as seen in the QRI as well). Lucy
 10

accurately read 6 of 6 nonsense words, and again, these words contained all 5 short vowel
sounds. When reading combined CVC two-syllable words, Lucy had more difficulty. Her
accuracy was 33%, as she was only able to read 2 of 6 words. I noticed that Lucy wasn’t able to
recognize the syllable break, so she independently said all six sounds in the word. After saying
all six sounds Lucy then attempted to blend the word. This pattern suggested to me that Lucy had
not yet learned strategies for breaking apart “big” words.

Informal Phonics Inventory: Blends (Appendix F)

In addition to the letter-sound correspondences I assessed using the Phonics and Word
Reading Survey, I wanted to know more about Lucy’s knowledge of consonant blends, because
she seemed to have a mixed knowledge of these throughout prior assessments. Using the
Informal Phonics Inventory, I asked Lucy to read 20 beginning consonant blends. Lucy was
unable to accurately read any of the initial consonant blends. Her overall accuracy was 0%, and I
noted that she attempted to put a vowel sound between the two consonants. For example, she
read fl and full, and sn as sun. After we finished, she said “all of those sounded the same,” which
is likely because she put the short u sound in the middle of each consonant blend. We did not
move on to final consonant blends. This assessment suggests that Lucy has not yet received
much instruction in consonant blends and is an area in which she can grow.

Fry Sight Words Inventory (Appendix G)

Having a solid understanding of Lucy’s phonological awareness and letter-sound

correspondence knowledge, I decided to assess her sight word knowledge. I noticed through
informal observations, her performance on the QRI word list, and her FAST data, that Lucy did
not seem to have a large bank of high-frequency words. I used the Fry Sight Words Inventory
and we began with the first 25 words. Lucy’s overall accuracy on this first section of words was
68%. She automatically identified 12 words and was able to decode an additional 5. The high-
frequency words Lucy correctly read were the, of, and, a, to, in, is, you, that, it, on, with, his,
they, at, this, and from. These accurately read words included 4 words that she was unable to
identify in the QRI Word List – the, of, a, and to. However, just as in the QRI Word List and the
Letter Recognition tasks, Lucy misread the uppercase letter I as L. By the end of the 25 words,
Lucy’s attention was somewhat lost, so we stopped there. Given that Lucy automatically
identified less than half of the sight words she read, this seems to be an area where she could
continue to grow.

Running Record – “Summer” (Appendix H)

Given all the information I had gathered about Lucy’s phonological awareness, letter
recognition, letter-sound correspondence, and word-reading abilities, I wanted to see how she
performed when reading connected text. I decided to do an informal running record as Lucy read
during Reader’s Workshop. The book Lucy read was called Summer, and it was a level B book.
This text was one that Lucy and I had read through once together a week prior, making this a
“warm” read of the decodable text. Lucy’s overall accuracy on this text was 92%, falling at her
instructional level. This aligned with her TLA data. When attempting unknown words, Lucy
largely relied on meaning derived from context and pictures, and on initial letter sounds. For
example, Lucy substituted walked for went, on a page that showed the characters going to the
pond. This substitution made sense in context, but it revealed that Lucy was not reading beyond
 11

the first letter in unknown words. For shorter unknown words, particularly CVC words with
regular spelling patterns, Lucy was able to successfully decode, by saying individual letter
sounds and blending. Lucy self-corrected for a little less than half of her miscues. She seemed to
self-monitor based on meaning. For example, a sentence that read “The sun was hot, but the pond
was not,” Lucy initially began the sentence by saying “They shouted.” However, as Lucy read
through the sentence and checked the picture, she realized that this did not make sense. She then
repeated the line from the beginning and corrected her miscues. When she wasn’t slowed down
by trying to solve for unknown words, Lucy’s reading sounded relatively fluent. She used
appropriate phrasing for sentences and also included expression when it made sense in the text.

Running Record – “The Fat Cat” (Appendix I)

Because the first running record was conducted with a text Lucy had read before, I
wanted to do another running record with Lucy, using a new text. I gave Lucy a text that she had
not seen before called The Fat Cat. While this text was not leveled, it was a simple decodable
text that focused on CVC words with the short a vowel sound. The sight words in this book were
ones that Lucy had correctly identified in prior assessments, such as and, the, a, and, of. This
book would likely fall somewhere between reading levels A and B. Lucy’s overall accuracy on
this text was 95%, placing it at her independent reading level. For unknown CVC words, Lucy
sounded out and blended these words. However, for longer unknown words, Lucy did not
attempt to read through these words and guessed based on the initial letter. Again, Lucy self-
corrected for half of her miscues. Her self-corrections suggested that she was monitoring for
meaning as she read, as Lucy went back and reread to correct only when she said something that
didn’t make sense. For miscues that did make sense in the context of the story, Lucy did not self-
correct. This same pattern observed in both of her running records suggests that Lucy is only
monitoring for meaning as she reads. She does not seem to be attending to more than the initial
letter sounds in unknown words, and she requires prompting to read all the way through a word,
particularly longer words. Again, Lucy demonstrated relative fluency in her reading, and
appropriately phrased words when she wasn’t slowed down by a lack of automaticity.

Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (Appendix J)

Because Lucy seemed to have a generally positive attitude during my classroom

observations of her and when we worked together, I was interested in gaining a deeper
understanding of her attitudes towards reading. In order to do so, I used the Garfield Elementary
Reading Attitudes Survey. Before I read Lucy the questions on the survey, we went through the
different Garfield faces together to ensure we had the same understanding of what each face
meant. We established that the face on the far left was “happy, excited,” the next was “kind of
happy,” the following was “kind of unhappy,” and the last on the far right was “upset, not happy
at all.” The highest score one could get on this survey, indicating an overwhelmingly positive
attitude towards reading, was 80 points. Lucy fell somewhere in the middle, with a score of 42
points, suggesting she has a mixed attitude towards reading. In general, her responses indicated
that she slightly prefers recreational reading over academic reading. Specifically, Lucy views
reading different types of books and reading during free time in school as enjoyable activities. In
my observations, I noticed that Lucy seems to get excited about independent reading time, so
these responses aligned with what I had noticed. Lucy also indicated on the survey that she has a
positive attitude towards listening to stories read in class. Again, in my observations Lucy almost
always seemed to be engaged during read-alouds. Her responses also indicated that she does not
 12

view being called on to answer questions, read aloud, or take reading tests in class favorably.
This aligned with my observations, in which Lucy rarely volunteered to read or answer questions
for the class. While Lucy does not seem to enjoy reading when it is associated with assessment
and likely would not choose a book over playing, there are some aspects of reading that she
enjoys. This information will be helpful in moving forward in my work with Lucy. Knowing that
Lucy enjoys independent reading time and likes when she can learn things from books can help
to inform my future instruction with her.

Writing (Appendix K)

I also wanted to get an informal sense of Lucy’s writing. In order to do so, I had Lucy
create sentences using the sight words we were practicing together. First, I showed Lucy a sight
word. She then identified the word and verbally used it in a sentence. After generating a sentence
verbally, I asked Lucy to write her sentence down. This writing sample, while informal, provided
me with useful information about Lucy as a writer. One thing I noted was that Lucy had 1:1
correspondence between the words she spoke and the words she wrote on her paper. While she
did not spell all of her words correctly, Lucy wrote a distinct word for each word that she spoke,
and she placed a clear space between most words. This seemed to be a strength, and it suggested
that Lucy did not have difficulty in translating her ideas to writing. Another strength was that
Lucy spelled her sight words correctly – specifically, the, is, I, a, and you. She also wrote the
correct initial sound for most of her words. For words with three sounds, Lucy attempted a letter
for each sound. She seemed to be in the alphabetic stage of spelling, including both consonants
and largely attempting to identify the vowel sounds as she wrote. Although not always spelled
correctly, these invented spellings were, for the most part, logical. While these were strengths in
Lucy’s writing, there are areas for improvement as well. For multisyllabic words, Lucy was
inconsistent in her attempts at spelling. For some words, she attempted sounds for only the first
syllable, while for others she attempted sounds for multiple syllables. Additionally, Lucy
reversed many of her letters, specifically s and y. In general, she struggled with handwriting, and
her letters range both in size and where they fall on the line. She also used capital letters in the
middle of her writing and used lowercase letters at the beginning of sentences. Her writing also
lacked punctuation. This short sample suggests to me that although Lucy’s writing likely falls
behind that of most first graders, she does have foundational skills that can be built upon.

4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
Through administering these various assessments, I developed a better understanding of
Lucy as a learner, reader, and writer. As a learner, Lucy demonstrates a largely positive attitude
towards school in general. While the reading attitudes survey confirmed that Lucy does not enjoy
academic reading or literacy assessment, she does find joy in her own independent reading. She
also enjoys read-alouds, both when listening to her teacher read to the class and when she and I
read books together. Lucy does not seem to get frustrated easily and always makes an attempt at
her work, even if it is difficult for her. Although Lucy is often quiet during whole group lessons,
she is engaged and eager to participate in both small group and one-on-one settings. Through our
interactions, it seems that Lucy has a bit of difficulty with tasks that require more working
memory. This is an area that I would like to assess moving forward, as I continue working with
Lucy next semester.
 13

In thinking about her foundational skills as a reader, Lucy has mixed proficiency with
phonological awareness. Overall, she seems to have a strong grasp of many basic skills, such as
blending, segmenting, rhyming, phoneme isolation, and phoneme addition. However, Lucy
struggles a bit with more complicated skills such as phoneme substitution, categorization, and
deletion. In terms of letter identification and letter-sound correspondence, Lucy also
demonstrates varying levels of proficiency. One of Lucy’s strengths as a reader includes letter
identification, both of upper and lowercase letters. She demonstrates a strong grasp of most
letters, except capital I, which Lucy frequently confuses with lowercase L. She is also unable to
recognize or write lowercase q. In terms of letter-sound correspondence, Lucy demonstrates
strength in producing consonant, diagraph, and short vowel sounds. She repeatedly produces
these sounds correctly both in isolation and within words. The few diagraphs that Lucy does
struggle with are ch, ng, and ph. In terms of more advanced letter-sound relationships, Lucy
demonstrates limited knowledge of long vowels and consonant blends. Lucy is unable to produce
long vowel sounds and cannot read blends in isolation.
In terms of word reading, Lucy has a somewhat limited knowledge of high-frequency
words. While I only formally assessed Lucy’s knowledge of the first 25 words on the Fry Sight
Word Inventory, moving forward, I would like to complete the first 100 words with Lucy so that
I can identify which ones she needs to learn. Because this was an area of high concern identified
by FAST, it will be important to continue monitoring Lucy’s progress with sight words. Lucy
successfully decodes CVC words, both in isolated word reading tasks and in connected text. In
terms of her overall reading levels, Lucy’s TLA did not determine an official independent level
for her. My informal running records suggest that Lucy reads independently somewhere around a
level A, but the TLA determined that this was an instructional level for Lucy, largely due to
errors in reading sight words. Both formal TLAs and informal running records determined that a
level B is instructional for Lucy. When Lucy reads, she relies heavily on initial letters and
context to solve for unknown words that are either longer words, non-CVC words, or irregularly
spelled words. She rarely attempts to read all the way through unknown words that are not CVC
words, unless she is prompted to do so. However, as Lucy reads, she monitors based on meaning,
and she appears to be building an ongoing understanding of text as she reads. When Lucy makes
a miscue that does not make sense in the context of the story, she often rereads and self-corrects.
While I did not formally assess Lucy’s fluency, she tends to read with proper phrasing and also
includes expression when appropriate. However, because she is often slowed by decoding and a
lack of automaticity, fluency is an area that I will continue to monitor.
As a writer, one area of strength for Lucy is translating her ideas onto paper. While her
spelling might not be accurate, Lucy can successfully generate complete thoughts and sentences
in her writing. Lucy is also able to spell some sight words correctly in her writing. She generally
writes initial sounds correctly, and she includes vowels in her writing. Lucy demonstrates an
attempt to sound out shorter words, and she tries to isolate the individual sounds in a word when
writing. However, Lucy reverses many letters and struggles with her attempts at writing
multisyllabic words. She does not have an understanding of when to use capital and lowercase
letters, and she does not include punctuation. Writing also seems to be a laborious and
cognitively demanding task for Lucy, so her written samples are generally short.

Recommendations
The information I have learned about Lucy will inform both the literacy work I do with
her next semester and the recommendations I make to her teacher. In terms of foundational
skills, phonological awareness is not an area in which Lucy requires extensive instruction.
Rather, I would recommend that instruction in phonological awareness for Lucy focus
 14

specifically on phoneme substitution. This skill is one that Lucy is lacking and is one that will
translate directly into helping Lucy with her word-reading skills. The skill of phoneme
substitution can help Lucy to recognize patterns and use words she knows to read unknown
words that are similar. In terms of letter recognition, Lucy requires little instruction. The only
thing I would recommend is providing Lucy with instruction in how to identify the uppercase
letter I and how to identify and write lowercase q. In terms of phonics skills, Lucy could use
additional support in learning long vowel sounds, consonant blends, and the diagraphs of ch, ng,
and ph. These are all skills that are currently being introduced by Lucy’s teacher during the ELA
block, however, Lucy would benefit from extra targeted support in these areas.
In terms of word-reading skills, instruction for Lucy should target automaticity with high-
frequency words. Lucy does not have a large bank of sight words, and this slows down her
reading. Having automaticity with more high-frequency words would decrease Lucy’s cognitive
load when reading, which would allow her to dedicate more effort towards decoding unknown
words. In terms of word reading skills, instruction for Lucy should target specific decoding
strategies. Teaching Lucy to sound out words in her head and then blend is a skill that will be
important moving forward. Also, Lucy needs targeted support in decoding longer, non-CVC
words, because she tends to rely on initial letter sounds and pictures when reading these words.
For example, teaching Lucy how to find familiar parts in words, break apart longer words, and
try different sounds for letters that have more than one sound, would all be useful skills to teach.
It would also be helpful to show Lucy how to reread a sentence once she has successfully
decoded its words, in order to encourage fluency in her reading. In her writing, Lucy would
benefit from basic practice in handwriting and forming her letters appropriately, particularly for
letters she reverses. Additionally, instruction that shows Lucy strategies for breaking apart and
spelling longer words would be useful.
Moving forward, because I did not gather much information about Lucy’s
comprehension, this would be an area that is important to assess. Although Lucy clearly monitors
for meaning as she reads, this information provides a very limited window into her
comprehension of texts. Gaining a deeper understanding of Lucy’s reading comprehension will
be important as her decoding and automaticity improve. Additionally, it might be useful to
conduct a more formal writing assessment moving forward. In particular, I would recommend
that Lucy be administered a spelling inventory. Overall, Lucy tends to find success in small
group settings, so as much as possible, I would recommend that Lucy’s teacher put her in small
groups. Additionally, it is important to make sure that the books Lucy reads are not only ones
that she is interested in, but also ones at her “just right” level, so that she can find success during
independent reading time. I would recommend that Lucy’s teacher periodically monitors the
texts that Lucy is reading during Reader’s Workshop.

5. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE USE OF LITERACY ASSESSMENTS

This process has shown me just how much can be learned from targeted literacy
assessment. Prior to working with my puzzle child, the only literacy assessments I had been
exposed to as a first-grade classroom teacher were basic screeners, word reading assessments,
text-level assessments, and sight word inventories. While I knew that other assessments existed, I
largely gathered literacy data on my students through TLAs and formative assessments.
Although these were useful to my instruction, they did not provide me with the same level of
detailed data that I was able to gather about my puzzle student. Moving forward, in my practice
as both a teacher and eventually in a literacy leadership role, my deepened knowledge of literacy
assessment will be immensely valuable. Particularly when working with struggling readers, my
 15

knowledge of these assessments will allow me to identify the specific skills with which students
require support, rather than giving me an overall reading level. Not only can literacy assessment
be used to diagnose areas of strength and weakness in order to inform targeted instruction, it can
also be used as a progress monitoring tool and to measure outcomes. Throughout this experience,
I have learned that different assessments lend themselves to different purposes. I have also
realized that certain tools make more sense for classroom teachers to use, while others lend
themselves to being used by a reading specialist or an interventionist. I have also realized that
not all students require all assessments, and that assessment should be individualized based on
student needs.
Specifically, screeners such as MAP and FAST, are assessments that should be given to
all students, in order to identify those at-risk for reading difficulties. These assessments, which
can be administered by the classroom teacher, are used to determine which students require
further in-depth testing. For students who are identified as “at-risk” or as having reading
difficulties, the assessment process will continue in a diagnostic manner, and it will look
different for each individual. Each diagnostic assessment leaves a teacher with both useful
information about a student’s strengths and areas for growth, and also leaves them with further
questions, just as I was left with questions about Lucy. These questions guide which assessments
should come next and help to create a fuller picture of a student as a reader, writer, and learner.
Throughout this experience, I recognized that some assessments are more realistic for classroom
teachers to administer than others. Individual testing is time consuming, and in a classroom with
so many students, teachers need to know which assessments will provide them with meaningful
and actionable information, but also can be completed in a reasonable amount of time.
Meanwhile, reading specialists or interventionists might have more time to administer longer
assessments.
For example, when working with Lucy, I was able to administer the complete
phonological awareness inventory, assessing nine individual skills. This assessment provided me
with useful information, and as someone working one-on-one with Lucy, I had the time to
administer the entire thing. However, for a classroom teacher, administering this whole inventory
might not be realistic, given time restraints. However, there are many diagnostic assessments that
I administered which would be very useful for classroom teachers. The sight word inventory,
phonics and word reading survey, and informal phonics inventory are all assessments that can be
administered in a relatively short period of time, but provide useful, specific information. They
are also student-driven, as these assessments end when students can no longer continue.
Additionally, the Elementary Reading Attitudes Survey is a helpful tool that can be administered
either individually or to a group. Assessments such as informal running records are tools that can
be used by teachers to gain diagnostic information, and they also can be used for progress
monitoring. Conducting a running record is an efficient way to gather ongoing reading data on
students, and it requires little preparation or time on the part of the teacher. Teachers can also use
informal writing samples to gather both diagnostic and progress monitoring information on
students. By making use of and analyzing activities that students are already engaging in, such as
reading and writing, teachers can incorporate meaningful progress monitoring into their existing
practice.
Overall, this experience has helped me to realize the multiple uses of assessments. I have
also learned that different assessments will be used depending on the student, the setting, the
person administering the assessment, and the purpose for assessing. Moving forward, I will use
this knowledge both in my work with students and will share this information with colleagues.
When used correctly and regularly, assessment is a powerful tool that can drive instruction and
improve academic outcomes for students.
 16

6. APPENDIX

Appendix A – Lucy’s Classroom Environment

Lucy’s desk:

The carpet:

The classroom library:

 17

Appendix B – Pre-Primer I Word List (QRI)

; ql$ltg
s
n
o
; 1C
<1
,
6'
o ldnnJied ldentiJied
; tsl
9 Automatically ldentiJied Automatically ldent{ied
!
T
;
o
o 1. can / I. make
o
l
m
(L 2.1 2. same
s c
o
df+
6 3. of 3. like
il4-
l
)
; a
v 4. me 1. all

,
oG
a
o
c
5. the /-rhlldL- 5- were
n.
o
) 6. in / 6.my
G'
? - o(b
7- at / 7. work
3
-i
, o
@
8. with / B. best
e
o"
a
9.a t^la-
__*JtL_
6- 9. plry
; o
a
,o nHng\tr" 10. just

t
3
c
o 11. go 11. some
^nd
l\t_
o
a
=- 12. to t+ 12. they
, 13. see said 13. people

t 14. do
on
lFt- 14. look

15. too
15.
:, _
16. was trllbllsl 16. other
I 17. she /sh ltiL- 17. place

18. where
) *{1tdqht'?"in Xo vtdt "d" 19. under
; 20. help

t
,
Totel Correct Automeric \ ,r, = Lt * Total Correct Automatic t20- 96

1D Toral Correct ldcntificd il o, : e-* Total Correct ldentified

- 2'A- %
5
t Toral Number correct ,r, = L4 v" Total Number Correct -
-
DA - - %

t Independent Instructional
-
Indcpendent
LEYEUS
Instructional Frustration

.t 15-17 l2-t+ 18-20 14-17 below 14

t 90-100% 70-85.,: 90-100% 7G85clo below 70%

t Exarr eerWord Lists

?
 18

Appendix C – Letter Recognition

E
ffi
qlB+ltg

FSRM 4.3
ys jlt*'"'i.'
i. rnabet Recognition Chart

K S, D, F, C, B, E,
R dT'Y'l)-H'/J'
M Z P K V o W
L

N o I X L
ulzv

a s d f C"{e
/
"/
_,/ _"/
,srtmftrud fi
&ind n1" -

rsif,f
"/ "/
hj /' ,/
she cau{tol,h't
+iltrt il'
. astqtd hcf ko
ulrl+C UNerntL
q - dav't 4

{rf qw ,t'
?
/ ,/" ?
MZ p

no
r,

og\r'./,
/tn
YJr I
-/
I x I

ri*.::: I{t1.1 b.r The Cuillixd Press, Permission to plrrr{rxopr this lbmr is grantetl to prrrr.h.rsers of this book for lrrsonll ure on\'

101
 19

Appendix D – Phonological Awareness

lltJolt$ -t

FOBM r["4
Tests
-rs*,s ci Phonological Awareness

Administration

::" two examples with feedback to be certain that the task is clear
ea,-? subtest, provide one or
: - if € {nild. Then assess the student
using five items without feedback. Mastery is indicated if the
;:,ieni is able to correctly complete four of the five items" All tasks are performed orally without the
-se of printed letters or words.

Mastery
Task description 4/5 or 80o/o
Rhymes a. ldentifies teacher-generated words that rhyme or don't rhyme. u.*l$
b. Generates words that rhyme with a teacher prompt. b sla
iPhoneme lsolates particular sounds from the remainder of the word. The child
I
lisolation can identify lk/ as lhe first sound in the word cake. tlro
Phoneme Given three words, the child can identify a common sound in all thre[ als v{ilt irrit4
identity words. I 5lb wt+? madgrt
Phoneme Say three words to the child, two of which have a common phoneme|
categorization such as an initial sound (e.9., dog, horse, duck). Ask the child to tell Ll5
which of the three words does not belong with the other two.
Blending Tell the child that you are going to say a word in your own "secret
code." Then pronounce the word by saying each phoneme in
succession. For example, say "lk/ /a/ /t/." The child must blend these
b lt,
sounds to forrn the worci cat-

Phoneme Provide the child with a common rime. Ask the child to make a word
addition by adding a sound (e.9., add lshl to the beginning of -ake).
4ls Phone
,denti
Phoneme Say a common one-syllabie word, such as cake. Ask the child to
deletion remove the beginning sound, so that the child says ake.
4tb
Ask the child to substitute one phoneme for another to make a new
Phoneme
alto
substitution word. The word is shake. Change /k/ to /dl to make a new word.

Phoneme a. Segments a word beginning and ending with single consonant into a.
segmentation its individual sounds. (9/11) :ione
b. Segments a word beginning with a consonant cluster into its b 7lq :ateg(
individual sounds. (10/12)
c. Segments a word ending with a consonant cluster into its c.
individual sounds. (11 /13)

* ovg'all,
tbfn *yi|

+ nd+moMdhS ?hdnofie tdu/t+1\

 20

Appendix D – Phonological Awareness (cont.)

 21

Appendix D – Phonological Awareness (cont.)

 22

Appendix E – Phonics and Word Reading Survey

Administration and Scorng Rxord

r*"* Vinl$rnSiff Grade/class---L- oaeJilff!8

Letter Naming
*y,I'm going a show you some letbrc in mixed-up orderTell me the nane of each letter as yan point to it.
Remembeitell me the name, not the sound.

t26

Letter-Sound Correspondences: Single Consonants and Digraphs

Say, ,'m going b slnw you some ,etels in mixed-up orderWhen you see the letter or letler tean (dignph),
ay the sound that it represenb. Do nd say the leller names. fur emmple, if you see"miyou would say lml.
Point to the letter as you say the sound.
,/,/,/,/,//
mftsbw
/,/,/,/,,//
kdrvni
//"/,t"/,,/
lgphzy
{ { { 6l i @ -L,,0 ?

1", IllCore
*Tht
O20l{ Soprir Lemiog All Righr Rcsnrd. This pege mv bc phocopicd lirr chrmom m-
. naing
of cowlf wd d*sfrdrs or othcr nsurcs cind in rtc woials k by no woas ar eiluustip
lisr ol aamplct. Thc Tatcwc Depamrat of Eduuian dxs no, adow il pwtc s1wific tadm-
 23

Appendix E – Phonics and Word Reading Survey (cont.)

 24

Appendix E – Phonics and Word Reading Survey (cont.)

 25

Appendix F – Informal Phonics Inventory (Blends/Diagraphs)

H

lnformal Phonics lnventory (page 5 of 7)

lnformal Phonics lnventory

/
Name Date

_J20 Consonant Sounds

SD F G H )
K L Z P C V
B N M Qu W R

T Y

iLs -- -- - , r'-r"7
Consonant Dioraohs
K ,/
th sh ch wh ph
Beginning Consonant Blends
-0-Jzo
bl fl fr ql
br gr pl pr
added a
cl

cr
sk
5n
sl

sp
sm
tr
-'' ' ,{dv,lil EdAnd
\vt itrQ niddrc
dr st
t fut +df I )
str sw (;.<,.
112 Final Consonant Blends and ng
bank apt limp
band pact lilt
bang lift lisp
bask lint list

_J10 Short Vowels in CVC Words

fit led sup lap hug
rot tin rag wet job

*J4 The Rule of Silent e

cap tot cub kit
cape tote cube kite

_J10 Long-Vowel Digraphs

loaf heat aim weed ray
gain fee coal leaf due

_j6 Diphthongs
town loud joy law

_J6 r-Controlled Vowels and -al

tar hall sir port fern

_Je3 Total

134
 26

Appendix G – Fry Sight Word Inventory

Ir/l4ltg
*{#m&, n&t avthynahcd u 13

':"y, Sight-Word Inventory (page 3 of 7)

First 100 Words

the / or will number
of / one up no
and / had other way
a / by about could
to ,/ word out people
/
in
is

you
Z
1_
but
not
what
many
then
them
my
than
first
that
it
-7 all
were
these
so
water
been
he tuyl WE some call
was f
wllrlf cf when her who
for t!r_ your would oil
on I- can make now
are b!,Jlrl said like find
as there him long
with ; use into down
his an time day
they
N each has did
L
Z
I which look get
at she two come
be tylll do more made
this / how write may
have their go part
frorn if see over
q^r+dd66 = tzlLi
ttta\ * t1lL7" 6g'1,
152
 27

Appendix H – Running Record – “Summer”

sumrner - utvcl ts
il /r+ llts

vraZ
t./ffi,/
rsG
Z "rq r/,// / fii
/
---

,l ,/

3J '/ '/ '/ '/'/

/,/ft/ weuad 6
4/llffi,/ffi'/
5 ,/ ,/ ,/ /'/
./,/ i,/ /

1///
g //,/
q '/ / '/'/
,///

,0 tii
 28

Appendix I – Running Record – “The Fat Cat”

 29

Appendix J – Elementary Reading Attitude Survey

ro/zLlltg
./
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (page 3 of 9)

Student name
Teacher
Grade Administration date

Scoring guide
4 poirrts Happiest Garfield
3 points Slightly smiling Garfield
2 points Mildly upset Garfield
i point Very upset Garfield

Recreational reading Academic reading

A
1. L_ 11. I
2. _k_ 12 t
3. 1 13 I
4. 2- 14. 2-
-
s. .3_ 1s. t
6 __L_ 16. 2
-l.L
t. I 17. Lt
8.\ 18. t
ql- a
-^' 1s. 2_
10 5 20. t
Raw
,?
score: t' \) Raw score: 19-

Full-scale raw score (Recreational + Acaciemic):

qL
Percentile ranks

(continuedl

754
 30

Appendix J – Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (cont.)

 31

Appendix J – Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (cont.)

 32

Appendix J – Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (cont.)

 33

Appendix J – Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (cont.)

34
35

OO
J
o c/
+
$ O
E
$
J
3
d
*)
;
Appendix K – Informal Writing Sample

.9
c)
TJ
.6
")3
ie* *J
*\
q)(
I
€ --t-
 36

References

Leslie, L. & Caldwell, J. (2017). Qualitative Reading Inventory, 6th edition. Allyn & Bacon.

McKenna, M. C., & Stahl, K.D. (2015). Assessment for reading instruction, 3rd edition. NY:
Guilford Press.

Tennessee Department of Education. (2014). Phonics and Word Reading Survey. TN: Scorpis
Learning.