Candidate’s Name: Mariana Giraldez

Individualized Language/Educational Plan (ILEAP)

Tutee/Focus Student’s Name: Julia

Age: 9
Gender: Female
Grade level: 4th Grade
Primary Language: Portuguese

1) Tutee’s Background Information:

Julia is a nine-year-old girl in 4th grade. She is from Brazil and her primary language is
Portuguese. In my first interaction with Julia, I told her I wanted to get to know her a bit more
and if I could ask her some questions. She seemed initially a little quiet when I first introduced
myself, but when I started asking her about where she was from and what she liked, she was very
talkative and was engaged in our conversation. She seemed happy and willing to talk about
herself and her likes. In our conversation, she told me that she has been in school in the United
States since 3rd grade and was in Brazil for 2nd grade. She came to the US and started school on
February 21st, 2017, half way through 3rd grade. Julia also told me that she did learn reading in her
native language while living in Brazil. She currently lives with her mother, father, and her 14-
year-old brother, and her parents take her to school. The school language specialist did not have
any information on the family or their reasons for immigration. She told me that she does her
homework by herself, without help from her parents. When I asked about her household chores,
after explaining what chores were, Julia told me that she cleans her room and really enjoys
cleaning the floor. She had several interests that she mentioned throughout the conversation. She
really likes Moana, Minions, her scooter, reading books, writing, and the monkey bars. Julia also
stated that she likes all foods, but that her favorite fruit was tomatoes. She also told me that she
likes to help people, and in the future, she wants to help animals. She remained positive and
upbeat throughout our conversation, even when she stumbled over words or had to pause to think
about what she wanted to say. She seems to like school and when I asked her about friends, she
listed a whole group of classmates. In addition, she was given the CELDT test when she first
came to school on February 21st, 2017. In the exam, she scored a zero in speaking and writing, a
one in reading, and a three out of 20 in listening. According to the language specialist at the
school, she had no English when she arrived at the school. She will be tested using the ELPAC in
the Spring of 2018.

Classroom/Context Information:
 Julia is in a mainstream classroom. She does not have an IEP but does get pulled out by
the special education teacher for extra phonics lessons. According to her teacher, Ms. Volpone,
there are 28 students in the classroom. Within the classroom, there are four English learners
(Ells), six students have IEPs, one student has a 504 plan, and eight students have been identified
for GATE. The classroom does have access to laptops. From my observation of the classroom,
the seating is set up in rows, with the teacher in the front of the classroom near the
projector/white board. I am not currently placed in Ms. Volpone’s classroom, and thus have not
had many opportunities to observe the daily interactions in the classroom.

Candidate’s Name: Mariana Giraldez

PART 2: Assessments and Evaluations – ORAL PROFICIENCY

1. Oral – Listening and Speaking – Assessments:

Listening and Speaking – SOLOM Teacher Observation (10/18/17):

For my first assessment, I chose to use the SOLOM- Student Oral Language
Observation Matrix that was provided on Blackboard. This assessment provided a series of
sample interview questions that assessed oral proficiency in listening and speaking. For this
assessment, I decided to focus on comprehension and vocabulary. There were ten
categories of questions, and I asked Julia at least one question from each category. I began
the assessment, by introducing myself and explaining that I was going to ask her some
questions to get to know her better. I started by asking her name and how many people
were in her family. She responded “Julia” and “I have so much.” For the next category of
questions, I asked her where she lived and what her friends’ names were. She responded
“here” and listed a long list of names of friends. I continued asking her a series of questions
about what she liked about school, her favorite thing to do in her free time, her favorite
sport, and what she wanted to be when she grew up. She was able to respond to all of the
questions appropriately. The only time I had to ask for clarification was when she
responded “race” for her favorite sport. I had to clarify that she meant running. She was
generally able to respond in full sentences, for example, she stated “I like all of it” when
asked about school. She at times responded with one word answers, when asked about her
favorite things, but the questions did not require full sentences, nor did I specify that I
needed her to respond as such.
I also asked her about her favorite game, and she responded, “too many.” I had to
prompt for more information and specified games outside. She said she liked monkey bars
and needed prompting for the word jump rope. I asked her what her favorite store was and
she said the game store, and mentioned a specific game. When I asked her why she liked
that game, she said “because funny. Fun.” I also asked her to tell me a story or fairytale. She
 said she did not know any. I prompted her by asking if she had a favorite movie. She said
she liked Moana. I asked her to tell me what the movie was about. She was able to answer
in complete sentences when talking about the movie. She said phrases like “girl loves
ocean” and “he became super-powered,” and “I watch all the time.” She was able to
communicate the general gist of the movie using short simple sentences. There were
pauses as she struggled for words. She also drew pictures when she could not recall a
certain word, such as fish hook and stingray, when talking about the movie. There were
some incorrect tenses or word omissions that would have made her sentences more
grammatically correct, however she was able to get meaning across. The final question I
asked her was what her favorite food was. She said liked all foods, and then said she liked
tomatoes, after explaining to me that they were a fruit.

Listening and Speaking – Informal Exam – Listening Comprehension (11/1/17)

For my second assessment, I used an informal exam that focused on listening

comprehension that was provided to me by the school. Before starting the exam, I asked
Julia if she dressed up for Halloween to help her get comfortable before starting. She said
“Yes. Vampire.” I asked her what her costume was. She was unable to describe cape and
was using hand gestures. I supplied her the word, and she added that she had “teeth and
blood.” The listening comprehension portion of the exam consisted of 9 questions. Each
question was a classroom scenario. I read each scenario to her and had her fill in her
response on her answer sheet. Out of the 9 questions, she answered 6 correctly and 3
incorrectly. In the scenarios she answered incorrectly, she was asked to understand
vocabulary such as shape angles and changes in time. The other scenario she had difficulty
with was where she had to identify a pie chart. Julia was able to answer correctly the
scenarios that had the class following simple directions and were not content related. Julia
maintained a positive attitude during the assessment.

2. Evaluations/Observations for Oral Assessments:

Listening and Speaking – SOLOM Teacher Observation (10/18/17):

For this assessment, I used the Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM).
Following the SOLOM matrix, Julia was able to understand nearly everything of what was
said with a slower-than-normal speed, with occasional repetitions needed for
comprehension. She was able to answer my questions from all ten categories, and only
needed prompting when the questions were broad and was able to answer after I provided
more specific questions. According to the SOLOM, she scored a 3 for listening
comprehension. In the area of fluency, she scored a 4 since she was able to converse with
me using speech that was generally fluent, with only occasional lapses while she searched
for the correct expression. For vocabulary, I would also categorize her as a 4 according to
the SOLOM matrix. She occasionally struggled for words, but it did not severely disrupt the
flow of communication or understanding. There were only a few words she did not know
and needed prompting for. In regard to, pronunciation, she was understandable the whole
conversation, and I was aware of an accent when she spoke. For the last category of
grammar, she only made occasional grammatical errors, such dropping the definitive. Her
overall score according to the SOLOM would be a 19. For certain questions, she did respond
with one or two word answers, however I did not specify that she had to speak in full
sentences, and when she was asked to tell me the story of Moana, she was able to use full
sentences, if limited sentence frames. She was a withdrawn at the initial start of the
assessment. She did not look up and was looking at her paper. However, as I asked more
questions about her she became much more animated and was easily answering my
questions. If she did not know something, she said “I don’t know” or drew a picture. She did
not seem to get flustered or frustrated by her pauses or not knowing. From this assessment,
I feel that she has a good grasp of conversational or social English. For future assessments, I
would like to look at her academic English.

Listening and Speaking – Informal Exam – Listening Comprehension (11/1/17)

For this assessment, I used the Stages of Second Language Acquisition rubric from
the Language Proficiency Handbook. From the Listening Comprehension section of the
rubric, I would place Julia in the beginning stages of the Speech Emergence category. She
was able to understand most of what was said in general conversation, as seen in her
successfully answering the scenarios that were about simple directions in the classroom.
Furthermore, before the assessment, she was able to understand what was said when I
asked her about Halloween, and understood the directions given for the assessment. Also,
she is continuing to develop her lexicon, and is maintaining a larger receptive than
productive vocabulary. When I talked with her about Halloween, Julia was able to
understand what I asked, but struggled to find the words to explain, demonstrating a larger
receptive vocabulary than expressive. In addition, according to the rubric, she struggles with
abstract concepts and academically demanding tasks. This was seen in her difficultly with
the scenarios that required a knowledge of academic language. However, I would state that
she is in the beginning stages of speech emergence since she displayed some behaviors that
were in early production. From the rubric, she continued to focus on key words. In the
academic scenarios, Julia focused on the key words she heard rather than the scenario as a
whole. For example, for the pie chart scenario, Julia only focused on the word pie and as a
result selected the wrong answer. From the previous assessment, it indicated that Julia had
 a fairly solid grasp of conversational English. However, in the questions that required her to
understand academic vocabulary or use some basic computational skills, she was unable to
understand. This is an important area to address because her misinterpretation of the
scenarios led to large lack of understanding of what the scenario was trying to convey. It
would be important for the teacher to work with Julia in learning and mastering the
academic vocabulary used in the classroom to aid with comprehension and success across
the subject matters.

3. Instruction Activity to Address Needs:

a. The student has a limited vocabulary in academic English.
b. Activity: Use word walls and vocabulary journal. Before each content lesson,
academic vocabulary would be previewed by the class. Cognates would be
highlighted, and visuals provided if possible. The words would also be added on to
the word wall. Students would also be required to create an entry in their
vocabulary journals. Students would write the word down and the meaning.
Throughout the lesson, use of the academic vocabulary will be encouraged. After
the lesson, students would be asked to then use the word in a sentence in context to
the lesson, and record it in their journals.
c. This allows the academic vocabulary to be taught in context of the lesson. Students
are then also able to keep a record of their words in a journal and can refer to their
journals for reference. In addition, having them use the words in a sentence
contextually, allows for multiple uses and will assist in vocabulary learning.

PART 3: Assessments and Evaluations – READING PROFICIENCY

1. Reading Assessments:

Reading Assessment – Informal Exam – Two short stories – (11/1/17):

For my first assessment, I chose to use two passages from an informal exam
provided to me by the school and have Julia answer the corresponding follow up
questions. The first passage she read was about the steps for washing a dog. Julia read
this paragraph independently and then was asked to answer a question about the
paragraph, which asked what the first step in washing the dog was. Julia did not select
the correct answer, and instead chose the last step mentioned in the story. The second
passage she was asked to read was in the format of a letter from a class to a firefighter.
Julia was asked to answer four questions pertaining to this passage. She was able to
answer three out of four questions correctly. The questions in this assessment were
mainly text-based, with the answers directly stated in the text. The text asked her to
 recall specific details mentioned in the letter and she was able to refer back to the text if
needed. She was also asked to identify the main purpose of the passage, which was to
thank the firefighters. The three questions Julia was able to answer correctly had
answers that were easily identifiable in the text and usually stated in a single sentence.
The question Julia answered incorrectly asked what the students did after visiting the
fire station. The answer was not explicitly stated, but was implied following the
sequencing of the text.

Reading Assessment – “Henry and Mudge” and “Get in the Game Fly Guy!” (11/8/17)
For the second assessment, I decided to have Julia read “Henry and Mudge: Get
the Cold Shivers.” This book was provided to me by the education specialist when I
asked for a text that was appropriate. For this assessment, I would be focusing on
comprehension after reading the text. I had her read aloud the text, and monitored to
see if the text would be too challenging. She was able to read the entire first chapter,
with only some pauses as she read. She required no assistance and was able to
accurately read all of the words in the text. This indicates that this text was at an
independent level for her to read. The story also included pictures. When she finished
with the story, I asked her to retell the story. She was able to give me a very simple
summary of the story. She said, “Henry was sick and Mudge loved it. Then Mudge got
sick.” I asked her several follow up questions, such as “Why did Mudge like it when
Henry was sick?” She responded to the question with “crackers” and I had to prompt
her to expand her answer. I asked her how she knew that Mudge was sick, and she said,
“because the dog was like not moving. Not feel good.” She struggled slightly to
communicate that Mudge was able to eat crackers when Henry was sick. I also showed
her the title of the next chapter, and asked her what she thought they would do next.
She said she did not know what the Vet was, and after I explained that it was an animal
doctor she was able to answer that they’d take the dog to the vet. Julia then asked if she
could read another story, and choose “Get in the Game Fly Guy!” She read the story
aloud independently without need for assistance. I asked her several questions as she
read the text to check for comprehension. I asked her to recall the story and she was
able to show a good grasp of the story. I also asked her why the story was funny. She
was able to show that she understood that the story was funny because fly guy was
small and was able to win the game, while the big player was unable to despite his size.
She also pointed to the pictures in the story to explain.

2. Evaluations/Observations for Reading Assessments:

Reading Assessment – Informal test – Two short stories – (11/1/17):

 For this assessment, I used the Reading Rubric from the Language Proficiency
Rubric. In regard to knowledge of the text, Julia was able to identify information found
explicitly in the text. She was able to demonstrate adequate awareness of the key ideas
presented explicitly. She was able to use relevant references to the text, but there were
some gaps in regard to concepts that were implicitly stated in the text. Julia was able to
answer all of the questions that had explicit answers stated in the text, but had difficulty
with the questions that had implied answers. Her performance in this category gives her
a score of 3. In the section of making connections, Julia had difficultly using the
information in the text to make connections through analysis or inference. She
demonstrated limited critical thinking in making connections with the text. She was
unable to follow the order of events to infer what the students did next in the letter.
From this assessment, it appears that Julia is able to answer questions that are explicitly
found in the text, but requires further instruction in critical thinking and answering
inferential questions.

Reading Assessment – “Henry and Mudge” and “Get in the Game Fly Guy!” (11/8/17)
For this assessment, I used the ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language
Learners – interpretive. According to this rubric, Julia places in the Intermediate range.
In regard to Functions, Julia was able to comprehend the main ideas and some of the
supporting details. She was able to summarize the story in one to two short sentences.
She was able to demonstrate emerging evidence to make inferences by identifying key
details from the text when asked follow-up questions from the story. In regard to text
type, she was able to comprehend a simple story since she was able to read the entire
story without help and was able to answer basic comprehension questions. In addition,
in communication strategies, she was able to use the visual support and context clues to
answer comprehension questions. The two stories she read had pictures and she was
able to look at them and use them to aid comprehension. Since the text was easy for her
to read and she provided very basic answers I would place her at the beginning of this
range. She was able to easily respond to basic questions and was able to infer meaning
that was not directly stated in the text. However, her answers often lacked in depth
responses and critical thinking. Further assessments should be done to assess how she
performs with more difficult academic text. Further instruction should focus on working
with Julia to formulate more complex and drawn out answers. In addition, work on
having her make inferences and derive meaning from the text and context.

3. Instructional Activity:
 Julia is able to use the text and visuals to respond to explicit questions. It is likely
she is able to use key vocabulary in the text to answer the questions. Further instruction
in reading comprehension should be done using instructional level text. An area of need
for Julia is expanding reading comprehension to being able to think critically and make
inferences. She needs to work on being able to make connections in the story using
inferential and critical thinking, without having to rely solely on key vocabulary. An
instructional activity that could assist her would be a guided reading either in small
group or with the instructor. I would start with a text that was easy for her to read
independently to work on comprehension strategies. If it was a text at a higher level,
then I may read the text to her orally and then have her read the text. During the guided
reading, I would ask her several interpretive and applied level questions. I would then
use these questions to teach close reading strategies of how to find the answers in the
text and being able to recognize that these questions require higher levels of thinking
and may not be directly found in the text. In addition, after having her master one or
two reading strategies for interpretive and applied level questions, I may introduce her
to graphic organizers, which would assist her with comprehension and vocabulary found
in instructional level texts.

PART 4: Assessments and Evaluations – WRITING PROFICIENCY

1. Writing Assessments:
Writing Assessment – Favorite Place Writing Prompt (11/14/17):
For this assessment, I collected a sample of the Julia’s work that she completed
in class. This writing sample was a first draft and unedited. The prompt given to her was
to write what her favorite place was and why that place was her favorite. This allowed
Julia to write about somewhere she was familiar with and with no need to introduce or
use new vocabulary. Julia was able to respond to the prompt in one run-on sentence.
She was able to state that her favorite place was Toys R Us because she is able to buy all
the toys she wants. Julia used appropriate capitalization and punctuation at the
beginning and the end of the one sentence. She also correctly used a comma when
listing the different toys she wanted to buy. Her writing was initially hard to understand
because she did not place a period between the two independent clauses. She wrote
that Toys R Us is her favorite place “because its all toys I can buy a bear, bird,
hamster...” Julia was missing a period between “toys” and “I.” In regard to spelling, Julia
was able to spell the majority of the words correctly. She only incorrectly spelled place
as “pleace” and End as “And.” Despite a few grammatical and spelling errors, Julia was
able to answer the question using very simple sentence structure and vocabulary.
 Writing Assessment – Describing a Picture (11/29/17):
For the second writing assessment, I gave Julia a book and asked her to select a
picture she wanted to write about. She chose the cover picture of “The Mystery at
Mary’s House.” The illustration was a girl in her room looking for something under her
dresser. The prompt given was to describe what you see and what you think is
happening in the picture. Julia responded in three sentences and used appropriate
punctuation and capitalization. She was able to use an apostrophe for contractions, such
as in “she’s” and incorrectly used it in “her’s brother.” Julia also used commas when
listing where the girl was looking in the picture, but did not include “and” for the last
item on the list. She was able to respond to each of the questions in the prompt. She
stated that “the girl miss her cat and she’s looking for him in all the house” and was able
to state the other places the girl looked for the cat. The last sentence in her writing did
not follow the flow of the writing as she stated that she liked the unicorn poster in the
girl’s room.

2. Evaluations/Observations for Writing Assessments:

Writing Assessment – Favorite Place Writing Prompt (11/14/17):

For this assessment, I used IMAGE writing summary rubric from the Language
Proficiency Handbook provided on Blackboard to assess Julia’s writing sample. In regard
to support and elaboration, Julia scored a 4. She was able to provide some elaboration
of why she liked Toys R Us, and was general in her reasons why it was her favorite. She
did not go in depth in her support. Further, she had a mix of general and specific
elaboration. She stated generally that she was able to buy toys there, and was able to
list specifically a few of the toys she would buy. Looking at organization, Julia was
cohesive in her writing, and her writing related to the topic of her favorite place. In
addition, she was able to structure her writing into what her favorite place was and then
listing a few reasons why. However, since her response to this prompt was very short it
is difficult to determine evidence of appropriate paragraphing and narrative structure.
For future assessments, Julia’s longer writing samples should be assessed. From the
information available from this writing sample, Julia scored a 4 in organization. In
addition, looking at mechanics and use of conventions, she displayed only a few minor
errors in spelling and grammar. There was no more than one major error in punctuation
with the run-on sentence. Her errors did not interfere with the meaning of the
sentence. Julia scored a 2 in regard to mechanics. Overall, Julia was able to respond to
the prompt, but used very simple sentences and vocabulary. She did not expand on her
thinking or provide additional sentences describing her favorite place or further details
why it is her favorite.
 Writing Assessment – Describing a Picture (11/29/17):
For this assessment, I used the Six Traits Writing Rubric. Julia was proficient in
regard to ideas and content area, as she was able to provide an evident main idea with
some general support. Julia was able to describe that the girl was looking for something
and where she looked. In regard to organization, Julia is proficient and was able to
demonstrate appropriate but conventional organization of writing. She had an
appropriate introduction stating what the girl in the picture was doing, but the ending
where she talked about the unicorn poster was not fully developed since it did not tie
into the story she was describing. Based on this writing sample, Julia demonstrated a
proficient voice in her writing. She displayed an evident commitment to the topic about
the girl looking for her cat, and was able to describe the picture and what she believed
the girl to be doing. Further, Julia displayed proficient word choice. The language in her
writing sample was functional and appropriate in describing the illustration. She
described very functionally where the girl was looking for her cat and what she was
doing, but did not provide many additional descriptors. Additionally, Julia showed strong
sentence fluency and conventions. There were very few errors in her writing and they
did not interfere with comprehension for the reader. Her writing had an easy flow and
her sentences had some variety in structure. She was able to describe the picture in one
sentence, and also use lists to describe where the girl was looking for her cat. Overall,
this writing sample places Julia as a proficient writer.

3. Particular Strengths:
One of Julia’s main strengths is that she is able to communicate meaning in her writing
that is understandable, even though she uses limited word choice. She is able to answer
the basics of the questions and needs to mainly focus on adding and expanding her
supporting details. In addition, she is able to write in simple sentences with only a few
errors in verb tenses. She generally includes proper capitalization and punctuation in
her sentences with only a few errors. Furthermore, in regard to organization, she is able
to answer a prompt using an adequate lead sentence. Julia understands the structure of
writing the main idea and following up with supporting details as seen in her first writing
assessment about her favorite place.

4. Particular Needs:
One particular need is being more descriptive in her writing. Although she is able to
communicate meaning, she has little description and limited figurative language. She
does not expand on her thinking and uses limited word choice to respond to the
different prompts. There were also some occasional errors in use of periods and
 apostrophes that disrupted the general flow of her writing. Julia would benefit from
additional instruction in increasing her vocabulary and with additional practice using
spelling conventions.

5. Two short range objectives:

Julia would benefit from working on developing her vocabulary. This would benefit Julia
in creating more descriptive writing, and with expanding her thinking through writing
and orally. Academic vocabulary instruction would also aid in this goal. In addition,
another short-range objective is for further practice in spelling conventions. Julia has a
fairly good grasp of periods, commas, and apostrophes. However, there are some
overgeneralizations and omissions in her writing that disrupt the flow for the reader.
Additional practice with these conventions would be a good first step in helping Julia
develop as a writer.