Specific Phonics Assessment Analysis

Morgan Bethke

Colorado Mountain College

October 18, 2016

Dr. Cristin Jensen Lasser

Specific Phonics Assessment Analysis

During the Fall 2016 semester I administered the Specific Phonics Assessment (SPA), to 

a group of three students in ​Molly McGalliard​’s fourth grade, English language arts class at ​June 

Creek ​Elementary School. The Specific Phonics Assessment, SPA, comes from ​Making Sense of 

Phonics:​ The Hows and Whys (Beck & Beck, 2013), and is used to assess, “a student’s 

competence with specific content. In the case at hand, the content is the ability to decode words, 

which are composed of predictable phonics patterns,” (Beck & Beck, 2013, p. 90). The results of 

this assessment can be seen in the table below: 

Scoring Summary 

Table 1 

Specific Phonics Assessment 

Student  List  Real  %  Nonsense  % 

SR  C  2/8  25  5/8  62.5 

BR  C  7/8  87.5  6/8  75 

AP  E  6/8  75  10/16  62.5 

As the data above shows, SR proved to be strong with short ​a​ and ​o​, receiving 100% in 

those particular categories. Her areas of weakness were short ​e​ and ​u​, where she only received 

50%. If I were to retest SR, I would give her another list of short ​i​ words because her 75% was a 

result of only getting one out of the four wrong. When reviewing the ​Nonsense Consonant 

Blends​ ​Recap​, SR seemed to struggle most with the initial consonant blends, only correctly 
 3 
SMALL GROUP SPA 
saying one out of the four. However, she only correctly recited two of the four final consonant 

blends, demonstrating it is also an area of weakness.  

BR demonstrated short ​u​ and ​i​ to be her area of strength, receiving 100%. Her areas of 

weakness were short ​o​ and ​e​, where she only received 50%. If I were to retest BR, I would give 

her another list of short ​a​ words because her 75% was a result of only getting one out of the four 

words wrong. When reviewing the ​Nonsense Consonant Blends​ Recap, SR seemed to struggle 

most with the initial consonant blends, only correctly saying two out of the four. On the contrary, 

she correctly recited all four of the ​Nonsense Final Consonant Blends​.  

AP proved to be strong with both the real word and nonsense word lists. The only error 

made was with consonant digraph ​ch/-tch, ​where AP missed one of the four given words. To 

better confirm this error I would like to retest this specific area. When reviewing the ​Nonsense 

CVCe Long Vowels​ Recap, AP seemed to struggle most with the C​i​Ce words, only correctly 

saying one out of the four. In addition, he only correctly recited two of the four C​u​Ce words, 

demonstrating it is also an area of weakness. AP got three of the four C​o​Ce words correct and all 

four of the C​a​Ce words.  

Observations 

The first student I assessed was SR. SR’s ELA teacher suggested that her instructional 

level was at ​Consonant Blends​, so I began my assessment at the ​Short​ ​Vowels​ stage and then 

moved to ​Consonant Blends​. The S​ hort Vowels ​word list consisted of 10 real words and 20 

nonsense words. Of the 10 ​Short Vowel Reals ​she correctly recited eight; and of the 20, ​Short 

Vowel Nonsense, ​she correctly recited 15. For the ​Consonant Blends​ portion of the assessment, 
 4 
SMALL GROUP SPA 
SR was given a list of eight real words and eight nonsense words. She was able to correctly 

recite two of the eight real words and five of the eight nonsense words.  

BR, like SR, had an instructional level at ​Consonant Blends​, as suggested by her ELA 

teacher. For this reason, I also began my assessment with her at the ​Short​ ​Vowels​ stage and then 

moved to ​Consonant Blends​ so I could make sure she had already mastered simpler CVC words 

before moving onto something a little more advanced. The ​Short Vowels ​word list consisted of 

10 real words and 20 nonsense words. Of the ten ​Short Vowel Reals ​she correctly recited nine, 

and of the 20 ​Short Vowel Nonsense, ​she correctly recited 15. For the ​Consonant Blends​ portion 

of the assessment, I also gave BR a list of eight real words and eight nonsense words. She was 

able to correctly recite seven of the eight real words and six of the eight nonsense words.  

AP was the only student identified by the ELA teacher to have a suggested instructional 

level at ​CVCe Long Vowels​. With AP, I began my assessment at the ​Consonant Digraphs​ stage, 

a stage that is a precursor in the levels of phonics acquisition, to make sure he had reached 

mastery before moving on to a more sophisticated category like the ​CVCe Long Vowels​ list. The 

Consonant Digraphs ​word list consisted of eight real words and 16 nonsense words. Of the eight, 

Consonant Digraphs Real, ​he correctly recited eight, and of the 16, ​Consonant Digraphs 

Nonsense, ​he correctly recited fifteen. For the ​CVCe Long Vowels​ portion of the assessment, AP 

was given a list of eight real words and 16 nonsense words. He was able to correctly recite six of 

the eight real words and 10 of the 16 nonsense words.  

Recommendations 

Based upon my analysis of the results, ​The Consonant Blends​ portion of the assessment 

showed to be the stage SR needed the most intervention. I would begin my next steps with a 
 5 
SMALL GROUP SPA 
focus on initial consonant blends because she seems to be a little bit stronger in this area and then 

move onto the final position of consonant blends. A blending procedure, such as successive 

blending, mentioned in ​Making sense of phonics: The hows and whys​ (Beck & Beck, 2013, p. 

52), would be helpful in teaching SR to isolate each individual sound so that when she goes to 

read the word as a whole, she can blend the sounds properly.  

As for BR, I would focus my intervention specifically on the final position of consonant 

blends. Beck and Beck’s (2013) strategy for word building would help BR with understanding 

the spelling patterns within English orthography by connecting her knowledge of words she may 

know how to decode with those that she may struggle with. Using letter cards to build words and 

asking her to add or delete a letter, will give her the repetition needed to recognize these patterns.  

CVCe Long Vowels​ seem to be the area AP needs most intervention. I would use AP’s 

established proficiency with CVC words to help with mastering CVCe words. Beck and Beck 

(2013, p. 97) suggest, “ providing (the student) with a known CVC word and then contrasting its 

corresponding CVCe,” for example, ​man​ to ​mane​ or ​hop​ to ​hope​. To get more specific, I would 

introduce the strategy with the C​a​Ce pattern, because he correctly recited all of those words. To 

continue building, I would progress from the patterns of highest accuracy to the lowest: C​o​Ce, 

C​u​Ce, and then C​i​Ce. 

 
 6 
SMALL GROUP SPA 
 

References 

SR​. (2016, September). Specific Phonics Assesment [Personal interview]. 

AP​. (2016, September). Specific Phonics Assesment [Personal interview]. 

BR​. (2016, September). Specific Phonics Assesment [Personal interview]. 

Beck, I. L, Beck, M. E. (2013). ​Making sense of phonics: The hows and whys​. (2​nd​ edition). New 
York, NY: Guilford Press.