1

Teaching to the Test

: The Road to Effective Intervention and Classroom Instruction

Michael S. Castleberry, Ed.D., Professor of Special Education, George Washington University

2

There are four ingredients in a teacher:

the learner

the teacher

the content (the ‘ to be learned…’)the strategies for teaching the content

How do we know where to begin?

 

The presenting self is but the self that most protects us from fear and hurt.

Look for the child underneath.

Erving Goffman,

The

Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

Teaching is a function of attitudinal set and perceptual style.

Teaching is a function of raising self-concepts.

What a teacher is is more important than what a teacher teaches. From the dicta of Rita Klein Ives

3

The Diagnostic Frame of Reference for School Use of Data

Cognitive AssessmentAchievement Testing

Skills Testing

Language Tests

• W-J Cognitive

• TONI

• WISC-IV

• Beery Test of Visual Perception• Goldman Fristoe• Bender – Gestalt• Non-Motor Test of Visual Perception

• CTOPP• CELF - IV• PPVT IV• LAC III• Test of Word

Retrieval

The Whole Child

(Additional tests given by a neuropsychologist may be included.)

Memory

Fluency/Processing Speed

• Gray Oral • W-J III Reading, Math, Written Language

• TOWL• WIAT• Woodcock Reading Mastery• Key Math

• WRAML-2

• Subtests of W-J III Cognitive

• Subtests of WISC IV

• California Verbal Learning Test

• Academic Fluency of W-J III (Reading, Math, Written Language)

• Oral Language Fluency• WJ-III Tests of Cognitive Ability,

Retrieval Fluency subtest

• CELF IV, subtest of Word Associations

• Controlled Oral Word Association Test

4

The Need to Utilize Diagnostic Data

Cognitive Tests• Memory, short-term and long-term

- memory for detail- memory for meaningful information- memory for nonessentional detail- auditory memory- visual memory- working memory

• Language - vocabulary knowledge - word retrieval - oral expression• Concept formation - reasoning, visual and auditory

- ability to synthesize - ability to analyze

• Attention - auditory and visual

- sustaining focus over time- insight into cueing need

Our job is to integrate patterns and processes that become clear as we study the evaluation. A comprehensive battery offers expansive clues to lead us to best practices for the child.

5

Achievement TestsAchievement Tests• core academic skills• sight word reading (revised and III)• decoding/word attack (revised and III)• passage comprehension – cloze (revised and III) and reading vocab

(rev. and III)• written language at the sentence level• calculation (revised and III)• math problem solving (revised and III)• spelling, punctuation, capitalization (combined on revised, separated on III)• editing (revised and III)• oral language knowledge subtests (III)• story recall and following directions (III)• reading rate• reading accuracy• reading comprehension for passages longer than those in WJRach or WJ-III• reading comprehension skills like main idea, details and inferences• written language mechanics• spontaneous paragraph writing• spelling in written expression (loosely)• listening comprehension

6

Skills Tests

• visual-motor integration• non-motor visual perception• auditory perception• auditory discrimination• visual and auditory closure• pencil grip• fine motor/gross motor efficiency• speed• attention to detail

7

• receptive vocabulary

• flexibility of word knowledge

• immediate auditory memory

• auditory working memory

• verbal reasoning

• listening skills at the paragraph level for main idea, inferences, details

• following oral directions

• language organization

• knowledge of inflectional endings

• phoneme discrimination, phoneme counting, phoneme manipulation

• expressive vocabulary/language

Language Tests

8

Fluency TestsFluency is defined as the speed with which one can perform a task.

Fluency tests are a timed administration.

Achievement fluency must be compared to the Processing Speed and Working Memory clusters of the WISC-IV.

Examples: Test of Written Language – Story

Woodcock-Johnson III Academic Tests – Reading, Math, Written Language Fluency

Gray Oral – rate score

9

Tests of Memory• Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning – 2 (9+ age)

Verbal Scale Visual Scale Learning ScaleSentence MemoryStory Memory

Design MemoryPicture Memory

Composites of Verbal,

Visual, Sound-Symbol

• Subtests of WISC-IV

• Subtests of Woodcock-Johnson III Cognitive

• California Verbal Learning Test

10

Cognitive AssessmentWechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition

WISC-IV

WISC-IV Profile: Barrett

11

The WISC-IV is an individually administered test for assessing the intelligence of children ages 6.0 to 16.11. It has ten core subtests and five supplemental subtests. It provides scores that representintellectual functioning in specified domains.

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition

Verbal Comprehension Index

SimilaritiesVocabulary

ComprehensionInformation

Word Reasoning

Working Memory Index

Digit SpanLetter-Number Sequencing

Arithmetic

Perceptual Reasoning Index

Block DesignPicture ConceptsMatrix ReasoningPicture Completion

Processing Speed

CodingSymbol SearchCancellation

(Note: Supplemental subtests are in italics and are not included in the index scores.)

12

Cognitive, Language, and Academic Evaluation Name: Barrett Smith Date of Birth: 12/9/2000 Evaluation dates: August/September, 2014

Chronological Age: 13.8 Grade: 8.0 School: Westwood School Examiner: Michael S. Castleberry, Ed.D.

 Tests administered: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV)Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition, Form A (WJ-III)Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT), Fifth Edition, Form AGray Oral Reading Test, 5th Edition, (GORT-5), Form ATest of Visual-Perception (non-motor), Third Edition (TVP-III)Test of Written Language, Fourth Edition (TOWL-4) 

13

Background and Reason for Referral: Barrett Smith was referred for testing by his parents. He is completing the eighth grade at the Westwood School and his parents requested a cognitive and academic evaluation to assist in the evaluation of his current performance and assist in the selection of a high school program.

Barrett was evaluated by Jane Jones, Ph.D. of the Antonelli Group at age 7.1 in February, 2008. Dr. Jones obtained WISC-IV scores of 102 Verbal, 119 Perceptual Reasoning, 77 Working Memory, and 94 Processing Speed, and a Full Scale score of 101 at the 53 rd percentile. Dr. Jones’s work resulted in diagnoses of: a Language Disorder (articulation, expression, retrieval, and phonological processing), language-based Learning Disabilities in reading, writing, and mathematics, and an Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (predominantly inattentive type). Achievement test scores in reading, math, and written language from the WJ-III were in the Deficiency range with almost all of them below the 10th percentile level. Dorothy Evans completed an academic update in 2011 when he was 10 years, 4 months and obtained achievement scores from the 1st through beginning third grade level. A subsequent evaluation in 2012 when Barrett was 11.3 yield slightly higher math scores but similarly low reading scores, mostly at the first and second grade level.

His parents requested an updated evaluation to address specific areas of concern: basic writing skills, issues related decoding and reading abilities, and broader issues related to academic planning and organization, short-term memory, and processing speed. Barrett was seen in two diagnostic sessions for three and one-half hours with a follow-up session of thirty additional minutes. All of the necessary test work was completed.

14

Behavior During Testing: Barrett entered the testing setting cautiously. He was sincere in attempting to do everything he was asked to do. On tasks with which he had particular difficulty, e.g. memory work, language expressions tasks, etc., he persevered in a very mature way. There were times when errors were more accurately situations where he did not comprehend the direction or the stimulus word or words correctly. At times it was permissible to repeat directions and in those instances he improved his performance significantly. On other tasks, particularly on memory testing, such repetitions were not permissible, resulting in lower scores that were not weaknesses of memory per se as much as a difficulty with auditory discrimination. Because of the uniqueness of his learning profile, these scores should be taken as estimations of his abilities as opposed to finite measurements of his skill sets.

15

Interpretation of Cognitive Test Scores: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition(WISC-IV):  The WISC-IV was administered to Barrett in an effort to establish his level of mental functioning. The Wechsler Scales are comprised of ten mandatory and five optional subtests. Each subtest measures a unique aspect of mental ability. The tests are divided into four categories: Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. The Verbal Comprehension subtests require verbal answers to auditory stimuli; the Perceptual Reasoning subtests require a visual/fine-motor response to visual material in a timed format; Working Memory requires short-term recall of verbally presented information; and processing Speed requires a visual-motor (paper and pencil) response in a timed format. The Full Scale score is the total of the ten required subtests. Thirteen of the fifteen subtests were administered to Barrett. His Full Scale Score placed him at the 4 th percentile, the Significantly Below Average range, when compared to other children his age in the standardization group. His score on the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) of the WISC-IV was at the 4th percentile, the Significantly Below Average range; his score on the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) placed him at the 34th percentile, the Average range; his Working Memory Index (WMI) score places him at the 0.3 percentile, the Deficiency range; and his Processing Speed Index (PSI) score places him at the 16th percentile, the Below Average range.

16

This performance profile is consistent with the February, 2008 WISC-IV (VCI=102, 55%; PRI=119, 90%; WMI=77, 6%; PSI=94, 34%, Full Scale Score-101, 53%). Aptitude scores are considered to be consistent over time. What is revealed in the scoring profile of both administrations of the test are elevated abilities in most areas of Verbal and Visual Reasoning but weaker abilities on Working Memory and Processing Speed tasks. Further, his score on the Working Memory section, 74 of the test is statistically different from the test mean, 108, or Full Scale Score, a difference of more than two Standard Deviations (M=100, 1 SD=+/-15). While his performance is generally consistent with the 2008 scores, it is notable that the discrepancy between his Full Scale Score and Working Memory Index Score is actually greater (2008=24, 2014=34). While his capacity as compared to his peer group has improved in the areas of Verbal and Perceptual Reasoning and is identical to the earlier score in the area of Perceptual Reasoning, his Working Memory score is actually lower. This is an cognitive ability area that will continue to require monitoring and he will continue to need compensatory academic strategies. Barrett’s current WISC profile does not to justice to the complexities of his aptitude profile. Therefore, individual subtests will be interpreted for a deeper understanding of Barrett’s unique pattern of strengths, weaknesses and his overall learning style as measured on the WISC-IV.

17

Subtest Scaled Score Functioning Level Percentile Verbal Comprehension: Similarities 13* Above Average 84% Vocabulary 14 Superior 92% Comprehension 13 Above Average 84% (Information) 11** Below Average 63% Perceptual Reasoning:

Block Design 17 Very Superior 99% Picture Concepts 13 Above Average 84%

Matrix Reasoning 12 Above Average 75% (Picture Completion) 10 Average 50%

Working Memory:

Digit Span 7 Deficiency 16% Letter-Number Sequencing 4 Deficiency 4% (Arithmetic) 10 Average 50% Processing Speed: Coding 5 Deficiency 5%

Symbol Search 13 Above Average 84% Verbal Comprehension 119*** Very High Average 90% Perceptual Organization 125 Superior 95% Working Memory 74 Deficiency 4% Processing Speed 94 Average 34% Full Scale Score 108**** Average 70%

*(Individual subtests are reported in Scaled Scores with a Mean =10 and a Standard Deviation of +/-3) **(Subtests in parentheses are considered supplementary subtests and are not included in the Index

Score summaries) ***(Index scores are presented as Standard Scores with a Mean=100 and a Standard Deviation of +/-15)

****(The Full Scale Score is the aggregate of the ten required subtests)

*(Individual subtests are reported in Scaled Scores with a Mean =10 and a Standard Deviation of +/-3)**(Subtests in parentheses are considered supplementary subtests and are not included in the Index Score summaries)***(Index scores are presented as Standard Scores with a Mean=100 and a Standard Deviation of +/-15)****(The Full Scale Score is the aggregate of the ten required subtests)

18

Verbal Comprehension Index:

The Verbal Comprehension section is composed of four subtests: Similarities, Vocabulary and Comprehension (which comprise the VC Cluster Scores) and the supplemental subtest Information. On the VCI section of the WISC-IV Barrett earned one score in the Superior range (Vocabulary, 91%), and two scores in the Above Average range (Similarities, 84%; Comprehension, 84%). He also scored in the Average range, the 63rd percentile, on Information, a supplementary subtest not included in the VCI score. Barrett's strength was on the Vocabulary subtest which measures word meanings. On Vocabulary he was consistent on all of the basic and mid-level items and, on subsequent items, his point total varied depending on the precision of his responses. Prompts are permitted on this subtest but Barrett did not benefit from the opportunity to expand his original response. On Comprehension and Similarities, which measures social intelligence or social reasoning and word comparisons, he scored at the 84 th percentile, the Above Average range. His work was similarly performed on both subtests: rapid performance and success on the basic and mid-level items, then a slower work rate and less precision on higher-level items. Comprehension asked increasingly complex questions and required precision and detail in his responses. On the final items he needed to have the original inquiry several times and it was unclear as to whether he understood the exact nature of the question. His responses were correct on the most basic items of both of the subtests. On Similarities, where he was given two words and asked to describe how the words were alike, he was successful on all but the final subtest items before obtaining his test ceiling. He appeared to lose confidence in his ability to perform on this subtest and responded ‘I don’t know’ for the final items. 

19

On the supplemental subtest, Information, a measure of recall of what he has learned in school, was at the 63rd percentile, the Average range. He was successful on twenty-two of the thirty items of the subtest before obtaining his subtest ceiling. The subtest measures the ability to remember and respond to questions in science, history, and social science content areas. At the upper-level of the subtest there was more variability in responses, with more success on history and social science items than in the area of science. His work on these four verbal reasoning subtests suggests both the level of ability as well as indications of how weak some of his language reasoning abilities are and how dependent he is on the exact nature of the language demand on a verbal reasoning task.

Verbal Comprehension Index cont’d:

Perceptual Reasoning On the Perceptual Reasoning section of the WISC-IV the tasks differ from those of the verbal reasoning section in that the subject is dealing with visual material. The subject performs a task and some tasks are timed. The PRI tasks measure one’s ability to organize data quickly and to deal with various aspects of visual reasoning, visual discrimination, and visual-motor integration. On the three required subtests of the PRI section, Barrett earned one score in the Very Superior range (Block Design, 99%), two scores in the Above Average range (Matrix Reasoning, 75%; Picture Concepts, 84%). On the supplemental subtest, Picture Completion, which is not included in the PRI score, he earned a score in the Average range, the 50th percentile. His performance on these subtests is at a similar level but with more variability when compared with his Verbal Comprehension Index work.  

20

His strongest performance was on Block Design, a subtest measuring visual-perceptual-motor abilities in a timed format. He worked in a very focused manner but he was quite cautious in the manipulation of the blocks on the initial, untimed items, but appeared to gain confidence on subsequent items. He was successful at advanced levels for performance rate on all fourteen items of the subtest. His work rate varied only on the next-to-last problem where he initially completed the item, then commented ‘Whoa, okay, that’s not right’ and then completed the task very quickly and precisely. With that one exception his performance rate was consistently at the upper levels.

Perceptual Reasoning cont’d:

On Picture Concepts and Matrix Reasoning he was successful on the basic items but there was greater inconsistency in his work from the mid-level of the subtests through the higher-level items. While he was successful at the very highest level on some items, this inconsistency had less to do with the nature of visual processing task than with his ability to maintain his attention and focus on the task. On Picture Concepts his first error was on item eleven. He was correct on the subsequent ten items and then on four of the final eight most difficult items, including the very last item. His response pattern suggested that his difficulty was not in the conceptual nature of the visual association task but in the careful attention to visual detail. Similarly, on Matrix Reasoning his scores were slightly lower but with the very same pattern: success on the first seventeen items and then wide scatter in the remaining eighteen items, again with success on the third most difficult item on the subtest. The pattern that emerges from his work on these two subtests substantiates his talent in the skill area but also his lack of consistency and careful attention to task.

21

He performed at a lower level on the supplemental subtest, Picture Completion, at the 50 th percentile. Picture Completion measures visual attention to detail and visual closure. On this subtest there was even greater variability in his work related to time and overall level of accuracy. He attempted all thirty-eight items of the subtest and was successful on twenty-seven. All of his errors occurred within the final seventeen items of the subtest. This variability on a very basic task of visual closure suggests that, while his visual processing abilities are among his stronger skills, they are not his most dependable skills. Further, he does not always know whether he is correct or not on a task. His scores on visual reasoning tasks suggest a high level of visual reasoning capacity but only a basic level of competency as the work task approaches his age level. His responses also suggest that his work may be quite variable depending on the exact nature of the visual demand and/or the restrictions of time permitted to complete the visual task. But there is no doubt that his visual processing weaknesses have the potential to impact his academic work in all areas.

Perceptual Reasoning cont’d:

22

Working Memory There was a statistically significant discrepancy in Barrett’s work on this section of the WISC-IV as compared with his work on the other Indexes. His WMI score was at the 4 th percentile, the Deficiency range. Barrett received one score in the Below Average range (Digit Span, 16%) and one score in the Deficiency range (Letter-Number Sequencing, 4%). He scored in the Average range on the supplementary subtest, Arithmetic, at the 50th percentile.  On the Digits Forward and Backward sections of Digit Span he was successful only on very basic items of Digits Forward, with difficulty beginning on items with four digits. He was successful on one of two passes with four, five, and six digits before obtaining his subtest ceiling. He listened carefully to the directions for Digits Backward and successfully completed the first two-digit items but missed the second one; however, he was successful with three and four digits on two passes before obtaining his test ceiling. His errors included number sequencing omissions and insertions.

23

He had even greater difficulties understanding the directions on Letter-Number Sequencing, which measures the ability to recall and organize letter-number data. After listening to the directions of this subtest he was able to complete only three sets of two and three letter/numbers. This subtest required that he listen to a letter-number sequence and reorganize the information in his response, the numbers first, in order, the letters next, in alphabetical order. He confused the sequence, forgot letter/numbers and inserted other letter/numbers. His work on this subtest revealed how dependent he is on instructional tasks where there is no visual or language support.  On the timed supplementary subtest, Arithmetic, where the problems were read to him and he had to solve the problem with mental calculation, he was successful on twenty-five items before obtaining his subtest ceiling, scoring at the 50 th percentile, the Average range. His work rate was quite slow though within the time constraints of the subtest and he needed to have six of the final problems repeated before he could begin work. It is clear from his work on these three subtests that there is wide variability in his working memory abilities and that his short-term recall is among his weakest skills and will require significant academic support.

Working Memory cont’d:

24

Processing Speed: Barrett’s work on the two subtests of Processing Speed was at the 34 th percentile but this score is complicated by the divergent nature of his work on the two subtests: e.g. a score at the Deficiency range (Coding, 5%) and then a score in the Above Average range (Symbol Search, 84%). With such discrepant scores the 34th percentile PSI score is virtually meaningless. On Coding, where he had to copy visual designs from a pattern presented at the top of the page, his work was very slowly and carefully performed. He was successful on all but four of the final five items he attempted. He had to work very slowly in order to perform with accuracy and even this tactic failed him at the end of the subtest. On Symbol Search, a paper/pencil subtest of visual matching, he had no errors. The paper/pencil demand on Symbol Search is very basic, marking a box ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and he was quite focused on the task. The difference in his performance on the two subtests suggests that Barrett is highly dependent on the exact nature of a timed visual-motor processing speed task in terms of the success or rate at which he can perform  

25

 Summary of Cognitive Assessment: The profile that emerges from the WISC-IV is one in which there is a higher level of performance on Verbal Comprehension and Visual Reasoning tasks and greater inconsistency on Working Memory and timed visual processing work. His performance on memory tasks was a significant weakness in comparison with his work on the other indexes. His work on simple visual-motor speed tasks was in the Average range but his more complex visual-motor work was in the Deficiency range, the 5th percentile. The Full Scale score, at the 70th percentile, the Average range, does not reflect the significant complexity of Barrett’s cognitive learning profile.

There is remarkable consistency with Barrett’s learning profile at 13 and the profile he presented with Dr. Jones at seven. While tests of aptitude like the WISC and the Stanford-Binet have proven that cognitive profiles are constant over time, the similarity in Barrett’s diagnostic profile is more than striking in the consistency of his patterns of strengths and weaknesses. With such consistency in his cognitive profile it would be expected that his academic profile would also be similarly affected since his particular pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses would continue to impact academic performance, particularly in areas of skills weaknesses, e.g. visual closure, memory from a verbal stimulus, and timed visual-motor performance. To study these patterns further a complete set of educational assessments were administered.

26

Barrett was administered four subtests of the WJ-III to assess his level of reading abilities. His score on Letter-Word Identification, a measure of letter recognition, sight vocabulary, and/or phonetic word analysis abilities, was at the 2.9 grade level, the 1st percentile, the Deficiency range. His work was inconsistently performed and his work was characterized by significant hesitations in his reading work, suggesting that he does not ‘own’ sight vocabulary information. His reading pattern was to look at a word and offer his nearest approximation of pronunciation, e.g., scientist-since, distance/distant, usually-usual, bounties-bounty. His errors were often visual-perceptual in nature, e.g., adding or omitting syllables or endings. This subtest requires that you ‘read’ the word so words he ‘decoded’ or ‘sounded out’ were counted as errors. His errors included letter and syllable insertions and omissions. On multi-syllable words it appeared, from an analysis of his reading errors, that he employed visual skills, e.g., a sight vocabulary approach, rather than any familiarity or willingness to decode with phonetic analysis skills.  

27

His work on the Word Attack subtest was at the 2.7 grade level, the <1st percentile. Word Attack required him to read nonsense words to assess his decoding skills. His work included errors even on the most basic subtest items. On subsequent items he attempted he turned nonsense words into real words and evidenced confusion with medial and/or final sounds. On the passages measuring his reading comprehension abilities, Barrett scored at the 4.3 grade level, the 14th percentile. His work on Passage Comprehension was quite consistent, e.g., success through the end of third grade level but few correct responses on subsequent items. This subtest employs the ‘cloze’ technique where he had to read a passage with a missing word and, based upon his understanding of the meaning of the passage, supply a word to complete the sentence. Some of his responses were somewhat removed from the narrative which he chose; at least partially, to read aloud. Listening to Barrett read aloud, by his choice, it was evident that he can accurately read some words in a passage and still not have understood exactly what the passage is about. He can also misread one word and totally lose the meaning of the passage. When he doesn’t know, he truly does not know; further, he appears unsure what to do in order to find out the answer (e.g., re-read the passage, decode difficult words more carefully, etc.). It is evident from observing him that having his passage comprehension work scrutinized so carefully was difficult for him.

Academic Testing Results cont’d:

28

Academic Testing Results cont’d:

On the timed Reading Fluency subtest he scored at the 5 th percentile, the Deficiency range. This subtest required him to read simple, basic sentences and indicate whether they were ‘True’ or ‘False’. He was successful on all of the thirty items he attempted and his score is a measure of his reading rate as opposed to his reading accuracy. The subtest reveals that independent reading rate at which he can perform and do so successfully. These scores present a consistently very below average skill set in reading; at the same time, they do not reflect the actual difficulty Barrett had in assessing and completing the various reading tasks. In other words, Barrett can read some words and yet fail to remember what he has read. He can read some items at a slightly higher level while misreading items at a much more basic level. These gaps in his reading abilities are highly significant and are likely to impact him in all instructional areas

29

To assess his reading abilities further Barrett was administered the GSRT, a series of graded reading passages with comprehension questions following each passage. Barrett read silently and then answered five multiple-choice questions. He was able to read three of the graded passages successfully with no errors on the primary level, but had errors on the second and third grade levels. He scored at the minimum level on two more passages before obtaining his test ceiling at the 3.8 grade level. A silent reading test, with multiple choice items, is likely to be Barrett’s least likely task to do. When he read aloud, as on the previous reading test, he self-corrected. Based on an analysis of his responses, he lost the meaning of the narrative or misread the multiple-choice questions beginning at the second grade level. His performance suggested that it would be almost impossible for him to navigate text without content support before and during a reading task and still obtain meaning even as basic grade levels

30

The GORT-5 was administered to measure Barrett’s oral reading and reading comprehension abilities. He was asked to read graded passages orally and then asked questions about what he had read. His reading rate and accuracy were both in the Deficiency range, the 4 th and 5th percentiles. He was successful on the very most basic passages of the test but had four errors on the third passage. He was also successful on all of the content questions. On higher level passages his work rate decreased and his errors increased but his passage comprehension, e.g. his answers to the content questions, were correct. By the sixth and seventh passages, the 5.6 grade levels, his reading errors were so numerous that he began to lose the meaning of the passages and could not respond to the inquiries correctly. It is notable that Barrett can read passages with a significant number of errors and still acquire the information presented in the narrative. At the same time, watching him struggle with oral reading tasks revealed just how challenging reading work with no support is for him.

31

To assess his visual processing abilities he was administered the TVP-NM, a non-motor test of visual perception. His work was highly variable on this visual test with no memory or writing component. While much of his work was in the Average range, the inconsistency of his performance even in areas of strength suggested that he might not be able to count on his visual processing abilities on any particular school task. On three specific visual tasks he had significant difficulty or very broad inconsistency of performance: Visual Memory, Visual Sequential Memory, and Visual Form Constancy, all critical skill areas, were at the bottom of the Average range or below.

On Visual Memory, his lowest score, he was correct on the first eight items and then obtained his subtest ceiling. His score indicates very basic short-term memory for visually presented information. On Visual Sequential-Memory he scored at a higher level, the 25th percentile, but his work was inconsistently performed beginning with the middle of the subtest though with a success on the next-to-last item. Inconsistent performance over a broad range meant that Barrett could not depend on this skill set. He performed similarly on Visual Form Constancy, where he had to recognize draws presented in different positions-in-space. He was successful only on the first two items before obtaining his first error; subsequently, he was successful on eight of the final fifteen items. This visual processing weakness over a broad skill range meant that Barrett could not be confident that what he ‘saw’ was accurate. Since visual-perceptual processing skills are critical for accurate performance in reading and mathematics, such weak skills hamper his ability to present a more meaningful presentation of his skills on tasks with high visual, low language support.

32

To assess his mathematical abilities Barrett was administered the untimed written math subtests Calculation and the timed Math Fluency of the WJ-III. He scored at the 32nd percentile, the Average range, on Calculation but he only attempted two-digit addition and subtraction problems when strongly encouraged to do so. He avoided division problems and evidenced confusion on all of the problems with fractions that he attempted. His work was consistently performed in that he only attempted problems on which he was successful, e.g. basic addition problems and some subtraction problems. He carefully used marks that corresponded to the numbers, then counted up the total number of marks he had made on the paper. His work suggested that he understands basic addition but that he has no memory of basic number operations and his work displayed no math automaticity. Barrett’s ability to solve simple addition, subtraction, and multiplication problems quickly was measured using the Math Fluency subtest of the WJ-III. He completed thirty four single-digit addition or subtraction problems in the three minute trial. He had one error (4-4=4), omitted one problem, erased and corrected four problems. His work rate as well as his poor retention of math facts places him at the 2nd percentile for his age.

On the Applied Problems subtest problems were read to him while he read along from the test. He was also allowed to use paper and pencil to solve the problems. He needed almost forty minutes to complete twenty-six basic word problems and obtained a grade level score of 3.6. He worked very slowly and often worked for several minutes and asked to have a problem repeated for the second or third time. In problem solving he avoided multiplication, preferring to add a number multiple times, requiring extensive time. While he gave evidence of understanding math concepts, his lack of basic math computational facts for basic use made all math work laborious and fatiguing.

33

Barrett’s spelling work was at a very basic level. He had difficulty on basic two-syllable words (table-tadl, cooked-cuct, floor-flore, second-secnd, early-ely, rewards-rewords) and missed one item because he did not listen carefully to the stimulus sentence (plain-plane). Some of his errors indicated that he either did not hear the word correctly or did not remember it as presented.

On the Writing Fluency subtest he was given three stimulus words and was required to use them in a sentence in a timed subtest lasting seven minutes. He completed eighteen basic sentences successfully of the twenty-four he attempted, resulting in a score at the fifth-grade level. He was required to have a complete sentence and spelling and punctuation were not a factor in his score. On one item (milk-like-cold) he wrote ‘milk like the cold’. On a subsequent item (happy-rabbit-boy) he wrote boy a rabbit of his birthday happy birthday. It’s possible to infer that he intended to write ‘The boy got a rabbit for his birthday. Happy birthday! On another item (cat-plays-with) he apparently forgot what he was doing and wrote ‘cat plays with’. On another with the stimulus words a-jumping-boy he wrote ‘The boy is jumping’. These errors yield a score at the 18th percentile, the 5.2 grade level but these are not actually ‘writing’ errors. The pattern of his responses suggested that a precise memory of the task requirement and visual-perceptual-motor processing weaknesses impacted his performance.

34

The TOWL-4 presented Barrett with a visual drawing and asked that he write a short story about what was happening in the drawing. It was suggested that he spend five minutes thinking about and planning his story and ten minutes writing it. Barrett looked at the picture and began writing. He wrote twelve declarative sentences in a single paragraph without indentation or any other textual conventions (paragraphs, questions, labeling, etc) and obtained a contextual conventions score at the 9 th percentile, the Below Average range On the Story Construction component, while he wrote a very basic, descriptive narrative, there was sufficient use of language, expression, description, and detail to merit a score at the 25th percentile, the Low Average range. Spelling was not a consideration in scoring although it is probable that Barrett has many words in his oral vocabulary that he would not choose to use in a paragraph because he cannot spell them. In discussing the drawing and the incident depicted his oral language was much more precise and detailed than anything he wrote down on paper.

He read his story aloud with some difficulty but was pleased with what he had produced. It was very evident that he would need extended time to complete writing assignments in school and would probably need technology support until his work rate could be improved.

35

Conclusions

 

Barrett Smith has been administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition to assess his level of aptitude. Results indicate that his total test performance level is in the Below Average and Deficiency range but with variability both between sections of the test as well as within specific subtests. Overall, he revealed stronger visual-perceptual reasoning abilities, though with some scatter in his performance. While some visual reasoning abilities were strong, his time on tasks varied significantly and much of his work was very inconsistently performed. He was less strong on his Working Memory work and highly variable on the Processing Speed subtests. These scores are well below the DAS II scores from 2008 but that is not surprising since there is current research that suggest that the DAS II is a less rigorous measure of broad cognitive skills that the WISC-IV.

His academic test performance suggests that Barrett is frequently not able to benefit from learning situations due to inconsistencies in his performance capabilities. He revealed inconsistencies in his reading work, in the Below Average/Deficiency ranges; depending on how a task is presented, he can also demonstrate significant weaknesses on reading comprehension. These weaknesses and inconsistencies are likely to cause Barrett significant difficulty since they are necessary to understand the nature of nearly every academic task. Despite indications of aptitude, Barrett's weaknesses in critical skill areas, e.g. visual-perceptual reasoning, working memory tasks, etc., continue to make him look less competent in an academic setting. Skill assessments suggest that he is inconsistent in reviewing visually presented information to scan, edit, or correct information. This makes schooling frustrating for Barrett in that his skills are at a far more basic level than some of his intellectual reasoning abilities. It also means that his skills are significantly below the mean of his peer group, suggesting that, while he has continued in mainstream and supported classroom instruction, he has not progressed academically. This is strikingly evident in his phonological skills where he continues to have difficulty decoding CVC nonsense words, a task that is routinely mastered in kindergarten and first grade.

36

The profile that emerges is of a complex young learner with significant memory weaknesses but with many basic skills and abilities at lower levels. This profile is consistent with the diagnosis of a Mixed Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder ((DSM-IV 315.31), weaknesses of memory and written expression weaknesses, DSM-IV, 315.2). There is also evidence to support the previous diagnosis of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (DSM-IV 314.00, Inattentive). Considering Barrett’s schooling history and current skill levels in content areas it is evident that he will not find success in a mainstream classroom. He requires a small group instructional program, carefully monitored for developing executive functioning and self-management skills. He will require specific study and task analysis strategies for instructing in reading and mathematics since he ‘owns’ few compensatory strategies. He will require technological aides (Bookshare, Books-on-Tape, etc.) for reading and mathematics until he can build his sight vocabulary and his automaticity with sight words as well as math facts. Currently these are among his weakest skills and they impact both reading and higher mathematical understandings. Given his language deficits he will need the services of a highly enriched oral language support program, both individually and within the classroom, in order to benefit from classroom instruction. While extreme, it is necessary in his present circumstances as he is so far behind in terms of skills that he cannot access content that he has the cognitive abilities to access. He should be in such classrooms for all core academic classes. 

37

He will require small-group or individualized reading instruction in a structured reading program that could enable him to make progress. He needs to make significant gains both because he doubts his own learning capabilities but also because he is critically behind his peer group. He needs a research-based program that has proven successful with learners who have not found success in other reading programs. Supplementing reading instruction he would also need significant vocabulary and word recognition development as well as support with reading comprehension and fluency. The complexity of his learning profile, particularly his slow word-rate on written tasks, are such that he will require note-taking services so that he can concentrate on the oral presentation of a lecture.  It is important to remember that he has made many gains in his last years of schooling despite the low level of some of his basic skills. It will continue to require intense skill-based schooling for him to find success in learning and begin to believe that he is capable of success in school. Despite the basic levels of some of his academic skills Barratt continues to work diligently in school. To find success he will continue to require significant and intense remediation.  

38

It goes without saying that all technological resources should be utilized to speed his skill acquisition, from computer-based instruction to assistive technological resources in reading. He would benefit from a separate evaluation of his readiness for accessing tech services. This is a significantly complex set of recommendations but Barrett’s current status demands a serious and concentrated response. Half-way through his public schooling career he is currently functioning at a very basic level despite evident of average or above capabilities. To summarize, as a result of these diagnoses, Barrett could benefit from: 

- extended time to complete written tasks

- additional wait time when required to give oral responses

- structured reading instruction to improve decoding skills

- visual clues, graphic organizers, outlines to increase retention of facts and vocabulary

- reading comprehension strategies to self-monitor understanding of text

- study strategies to remember information (i.e. visualization, mnemonic devices,

associations, note taking skills)

39

As noted at the beginning of this report, it will be important to remember the difficulty Barrett has in ‘processing’ information in terms of evaluating his performance and understanding the scores presented in this report. In the opinion of this examiner, there is no doubt that this work constitutes a lowered estimation of his true abilities. It would be expected that, as he grows and develops, and with appropriate school support, he will continue to improve in areas that are now scored as deficit areas.

Lastly, it is important to remember how Barrett handles himself in difficult learning situations. Despite difficulties with language expression and auditory processing, he remained engaged throughout the testing sessions, displaying a maturity and perseverance that was remarkable given the level of difficulty he had for almost every single task. Nothing was easy for Barrett, not listening, writing, spelling, reading, nothing. At all times he presented as a young man of considerable substance, no matter how difficult the task facing him, no matter how perplexed he might be initially in terms of understanding what was being requested of him. These are, it must be said, highly admirable qualities in one so young and one with such academic needs.

40

Recommendations: In addition to the information presented above, the following recommendations are made for Barrett’s academic support: 1. Barrett's processing difficulties require that modifications and adjustments be considered that will allow him to access information in a different manner when possible (i.e. use of tape recorders, note-takers, multi-sensory instruction, pre-learning language explanations of the learning task, etc.); further, that he continue to develop his keyboarding and computer-based learning skills. 2. That whenever possible, visual clues be presented with any auditory information to increase the likelihood that Barrett will process and record the information correctly. 3. That Barrett repeat directions for a task to himself and that he use a timer to heighten his awareness of the amount of time he has to complete a task. This increases the likelihood of his attention to the information presented.

4. That Barrett receive extended time (.50) on classroom and standardized tests, that he have a reader during tests to ensure that he understands test instructions and content, and that he be allowed untimed testing on written tasks or be permitted a reader who can record his oral dictation. His teachers should be aware of his slow writing abilities and permit oral responses whenever possible.

41

5. That close contact be maintained between Barrett’s family and the school to support his performance. Close monitoring is helpful in monitoring the requirements of his courses and helping him meet the specific demands of each assignment (i.e. completing individual units each week, etc.). 6. That on homework tasks Barrett place himself in a structured independent work routine with a specified time for work and then a review of the material completed. A timer is a useful tool to help pace and structure work periods. The timer is set for a task; after that time, Barrett checks his work and resets the timer for a second or third period if necessary. This encourages him to remain focused during the specified time and allows him to take short breaks in between periods. 7. That Barrett's family purchase his textbooks to enable him to underline, highlight, and make notes in the margin when studying and for test review. 8. That Barrett learn a system of making notes in the margins of his books as he reads to help him remain focused on the critical information presented.

42

9. That Barrett "overlearn" material that will be covered in any type of testing situation. This will enable him to retrieve information more quickly regardless of the test format. 10. That Barrett use an iPad or a tape recorder or other memory device as a study tool for reading, e.g. recording verbal comments on the narrative, content notes re the plot, etc., as well as taping discussions on a topic in class. This encourages him to attend to the information as well as providing auditory feedback as he reviews the material from the tape. 11. That computer assisted instruction be employed in both his school and home-schooling program to aid attention to tasks as well as provide drill and practice with skill-building in mathematics, developing sight vocabulary skills, and continue to develop his phonological processing capabilities.  12. That Barrett’s parents consider a medical consultation to review supports for his attention-concentration and memory/processing difficulties.

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

“Neurons that fire together, survive

together, and wire together”

(D. Siegel, The Developing Mind, 2000)

63

Contact Information

Michael S. Castleberry, Ed.D.Professor, The George Washington University,

Washington, D.C.castle@gwu.edu

64

References

Adams, Marilyn, Foorman, Barbara, Lundeberg, Ingram and Beeler, Terri . 1988.Phonemic Awareness in Young Children. Baltimore, MD. Paul R. Brookes Publishing.

Alloway, T.P., Gathercole, S.E., & Pickering, S.J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short-term and working memory in children: Are they separable? Child Development, 77(6), 1698-1716.

Archibald, L.M.D., & Gathercole, S.E. (2006). Visuospatial immediate memory in specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 265-277.

Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189-208.

Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G.J. (2000). Development of working memory: Should the Pascual-Leone and the Baddeley and Hitch models be merged? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 128-137.

Birsh, Judith. 2005. Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills, Second Edition. Baltimore, MD. Paul R. Brookes Publishing.

Carreker and Birsh. 2005. The Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills Activity Book. Baltimore, MD. Paul R. Brookes Publishing.

65

ReferencesCowan N. (1996). Short-term memory, working memory, and their importance in language processing.

Topics in Language Disorders, 17(1),, 1-18.

Cowan, N., & Kail, R. (1996). Covert processes and their development in short-term memory. In S.E. Gathercole (Ed.) Models of short-term memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, pp. 29-50.

Ewers, C.A., & Brownson, S.M. (1999). Kindergarteners’ vocabulary acquisition as a function of active vs. passive storybook reading, prior vocabulary, and working memory. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 11-20.

Garnett, Kaye. 1998. LD Online: Math Learning Disabilities.

Gathercole, S.E. (1998). The development of memory. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 3-27.

Gathercole, S.E. (2004). Working memory and learning during the school years. Proceedings of the British Academy, 125, 365-380.

Gathercole, S.E., & Allowy, T.P. (2006). Practitioner review: Short-term and working memory impairments in neurodevelopmental disorders: Diagnosis and remedial support. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 4-15.

66

ReferencesGathercole, S.E., Alloway, T.P., Willis, C., & Adams, A.M. (2006). Working memory in children with

reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 265-281.

Gathercole, S.E., & Hitch, G.J. (1993). Developmental changes in short-term meory: A revised working memory perspective. In A. Collins, S.E. Gathercole, M.A. Conway, & P.E. Morris (Eds.), Theories of memory. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press, pp. 73-100.

Gathercole, S.E., Pickering, S.J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (3004). The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177-190.

Gathercole, S.E., Pickering, S.J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z. (2004). Working memory skills and educational attainment: Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-16.

Gibson, Ken. 2007. Unlock the Einstein Inside: Applying New Brain Science to Wake Up the Smart in Your Child.

Gillam, R.B. (1998). Memory and language impairment in children and adults. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publication.

67

ReferencesHebb,D.O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.

Hitch, J.G., Halliday, M.S., Schaafstal, A.M., & Schragen, J.M.C. (1988). Visual working memory in young children. Memory and Cognition, 16, 120-132.

Hulme, C., Muir, C., Thompson, N., & Lawrence, A. (1984). Speech rate and the development of short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 241-253.

Kail,R., & Park, Y.-S. (1994). Processing time, articulation time, and memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57, 281-291.

Kail, R.V., & Salthouse, S. (1994). Processing time, articulation, SSSSS Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, XXXX

Karatekin, C. (2004). A test of the integrity of the components of Baddeley’s model of working memory in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(5), 912-926.

Klingberg, Torkel. 2006. Interview Cogmed Working Memory Training and Robo Memo. Cogmed.com

68

ReferencesLeonard, L., Weismer, S.E., Miller, C.A., Francis, D.J., Tomblin, J.B., Kail, R.V. (2007). Speed of

processing, working memory and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 408-428.

Levine, M.D. 2002. Educational Care: A System for Understanding and Helping Children with Learning Differences at Home and in School, 2nd Ed. Educators Publishing Service. Cambridge, MA.

Leonard, L.B., Weismer, S.E>, Miller, C.A., Francis, D.J., Tomblin, J.B., & Kail, R.V. (2007). Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50, 408-424>

Levine, M.D. (1993). Developmental variation and learning disorders. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service, Inc.

Luciana, M., Conglin, H.M., Hooper, C.J., & Yarger, R.S. (2005). The development of nonverbal working memory and executive control processes in adolescents. Child Development, 76(3), 697-712.

Lyon, G.R., & Krasnegor, N.A. (1996). Attention, Memory, and Executive Function. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Moats, Louisa. 2000. Speech to Print. Paul R. Brookes Publishing. Baltimore, MD.

69

ReferencesMontgomery, J.W., & Windsor, J. (2007). Examining the language performances of children with and

without specific language impairment: Contributions of phonological short-term memory and speed of processing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 778-797.

Pascual-Leone,J., & Baillargeon, (1994). Developmental measure of mental attention. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 161-200.

Pickering, S.J., & Gathercole, S.E. (2004). Distinctive working memory profiles in children with special educational needs. Educational Psychology, 24(3), 393-408.

Reeves, D., & Wedding, D. (1994). The clinical assessment of memory. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Richards, Regina. 2003. The Source for Learning and Memory Strategies. Lingusystems. East Moline, IL.

Shaywitz, Sally. 2003. Overcoming Dyslexia. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, New York.

Siegel, D. 2000. The Developing Mind. Speech given at the Learning Brain Expo. San Diego, CA.

Squire, L.R. (1987). Memory and brain. New York: Oxford University Press.

70

ReferencesStuss, D.T., & Knight, R.T. (2002). Principals of frontal lobe function. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Torgesen, J.K. (1996). A model of memory from an information processing perspective. In G.R. Lyon and N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, Memory, and Executive Function. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. 157-186l

Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 1-25.

Wagner, R.K. (1996). From simple structure to complex function: Major trends in the development of theories, models, and measurements of memory. In G.R. Lyon and N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, Memory, and Executive Function. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. 139-156.

Weismer, S.E., Evans, J., & Hesketh, L. J. (1999). An examination of verbal working memory capacity in chidlren with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Reseearch, 42, 1249-1260.

71

References

Programs:

Read Naturally www.ReadNaturally.com

Braingym. www.braingym.com

Cogmed. www.cogmed.com

Interactive Metronome. www.interactivemetronome.com

72

Michael S. Castleberry, Ed.D., Professor of Special Education, George Washington University

Dr. Joan A. Mele-McCarthy, Head of SchoolThe Summit School, Edgewater, MD

• The WISC-IV Companion: a Guide to Interpretation and Educational Intervention, by Stephen Truch (ISBN 1416400664)

• WISC-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives by Aurelio Prifitera and Donald Saklofske, Editors (ISBN: 0125649312)

• Essentials of WISC-IV Assessment, Dana Flanagan, Alan Kaufman (ISBN 0471476919)

References

73

BRIEF (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function), (Working Memory Index), Psychological

Assessment Resources, Inc.,16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida, 33549

California Verbal Learning Test-Children’s Version, (Free and Cued Recall subtests), Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.,16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida, 33549

Children’s Memory Scale, Harcourt Assessment, Inc, 19500 Bulverde Road, San Antonio, Texas 78259

Test of Visual-Perceptual Skills, Revised, (Visual Memory and Visual Sequential Memory subtests), Academic Therapy Publications, 20 Commercial Boulevard, Novato, CA 94949-6191

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition, Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Assessment, Inc, 19500 Bulverde Road, San Antonio, Texas 78259

Memory Assessment Instruments

Bibliography

74

Memory Assessment Instruments Bibliography

Weshcler Memory Scale, Third Edition, Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Assessment, Inc,

19500 Bulverde Road, San Antonio, Texas 78259

Woodcock-Robbyson Achievement Battery, Third Edition, (selected subtests: Story Recall, Story Recall Delayed,

Understanding Directions), Riverside Publishing, 3800 Golf Road, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

Woodcock-Robbyson Cognitive Battery, Third Edition, (selected subtests: Visual-Auditory Learning, V-A Learning

Delayed, Retrieval Fluency, Memory for Names, Memory for Names Delayed, Numbers Reversed, Auditory Working

Memory, Memory for Words, Memory for Sentences), Riverside Publishing, 3800 Golf Road, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008

75

Memory Assessment Instruments Bibliography

Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Revised, (Visual-Auditory Learning subtest), NCSC Pearson Inc., PO Box 1416,

Minneapolis, MN, 55440

Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition, Psychological Assessment Resources,

Inc.,16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida, 33549