DR - cindycupp.com€¦ · Web viewEach year enhancements have been added to strengthen the...

2006-2007 Research Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers September, 2007

DR. CUPP READERS® AND JOURNAL WRITERSTEN MINUTE PHONICS®

A SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTED RESULTS

Including summary of product strengths, research findings specific to the program, and

connections to scientifically based reading research

September, 2007

Prepared for Cupp Publishing, Inc. by Cathy Puett Miller, Independent Literacy Consultant

Huntsville AL

1


INTRODUCTION

Seven years since Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers was introduced to the first classroom, its impact on student learning remains strong. Through multiple changes in state standards, federal requirements, teaching methodologies and classroom fads, this efficient, sequentially structured program for teaching reading, writing, listening, observing and communicating continues to serve kindergarten and first grade students in Georgia and beyond. In fact, several of the schools that served as pilots continue to use the program. Twenty-two schools that now use Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers in their classrooms participated in this research by contributing data representing pre and post assessment results from a variety of norm-referenced and criterion-based tests. The data represents just over 2,300 students (149 classrooms).

Schools and school districts continue to be drawn to this program because of its value in effectively teaching a wide variety of kindergarten and first grade students (gifted, average, and at-risk). Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers also has been useful as a tool with at-risk students in higher grade levels (in early intervention programs and Special Education classes). Achievement within such a wide range of learners is possible because this program’s design allows students to move at their own pace, obtaining a level of mastery before the next building block is addressed. Evidence from the data collected suggests that this approach does not compromise students’ abilities to perform well on standardized tests and, in fact, Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers correlates quite strongly to the Georgia Quality Core Curriculum. It stands in sharp contrast to “two-week-unit and move on” curriculum which is designed primarily to correlate to standards, with less regard for individual student needs.

Each year enhancements have been added to strengthen the program. Initially released as Jack and Jilly Readers, Dr. Cupp Readers® was expanded to include journal writing in 2003. In 2004, a more extensive readiness portion was added to serve kindergarten students not yet ready to begin Book 1. Thinker Box books, chapter versions combining the stories from several single student books, have also been introduced to allow the use of a chapter book format with students, and to encourage thinking and observation to enhance comprehension skills.

Extensive staff development, and ongoing support from the publisher are available for schools actively using Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers. Schools committed to the program in core or supplemental implementation can also choose to participate in a free monthly update program (see separate section later in this narrative). The monthly tracking module supplies a summary of progress whose data can then be used by both teachers and administrators to improve instruction. These added resources offer an unprecedented amount of personal support in teaching this beginning reading program.

2


A COMBINATION OF RESEARCH-BASED APPROACHES AND PROVEN CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

Successfully implemented in urban, suburban and rural environments, Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers offers explicit, systematic instruction, paced to assure skill mastery at critical junctures of learning. The sixty-book program addresses the key elements identified by the National Reading Panel as critical in the teaching of reading (see comparative chart below).

Basis for Six Dimensions of Reading Dr. Cupp Readers® and

Journal K-3 Writers and

Ten Minute Phonics®

Phonemic awareness Phonemic awarenessPhonics PhonicsFluency Oral fluencyVocabulary Spelling & vocabularyComprehension ComprehensionMotivation Writing & communication

Homework & parent interaction

Assessment & study skills

While addressing these core components of effective reading instruction, Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers additionally provides research-based lessons in spelling, character education, writing, and observation. A parent-involvement-in-learning element completes the package.

3


UNIQUE APPROACH HELPS CHILDREN BECOME EXCITED, ENGAGED READERS

National organizations including The National Reading Panel (NRP), the National Research Council, the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA), the National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (NCAC), and the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) advocate systematic, explicit instruction in beginning reading. They consider it an essential instructional design for teaching children to read. Systematic methods teach skills and concepts in a planned, organized and logically progressive sequence.

Dr. Dean Aarasmith, Chief Learning Officer of StudyDog and former researcher for the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory defines explicit instruction as:

the unambiguous, clear and direct teaching of reading skills and strategies.

He also defines seven characteristics of explicit reading instruction that facilitate such plainness and distinctness that there is, for the student, no need for inference and no difficulty understanding instruction:

1. Clear Instructional Targets

2. Clear Purpose for Learning

3. Clear and Understandable Direction and Explanations

4. Adequate Modeling

5. Guided and Independent Practice with Corrective Feedback

6. Instructionally Embedded Assessments

7. Summative Assessments

A review of the Teacher’s Guide for Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers reveals a strong correlation between these concepts and Cupp’s instructional approach.

4


Components of explicit instruction, as defined by NCAC, include similar fundamentals:

Big Ideas,

Conspicuous Strategies,

Mediated Scaffolding,

Strategic Integration,

Judicious Review, and

Primed Background Knowledge

Dr. Cupp Readers ® and Journal Writers addresses each of these design compo-nents through its carefully planned lessons and teacher’s guide. The methods in which this instruction is delivered also shadows delivery components endorsed by NCAC such as:

Delivery Components Dr. Cupp Readers® & Journal Writers ReferenceFrequent Opportunities for Student Responses

Oral Language LessonsWhole group and small group instruction in Readers

Appropriate Pacing Students may move at the pace they need through Books 1-60 and Ten Minute Phonics® lessons. Dr. Cupp’s Teacher’s Guide emphasizes: “Pacing is the key to success.”

Adequate Processing Time

Newer lessons build on skill base from previous lessons so students have time to internalize the concept (see layering/multiple book references reflected in Correlation of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers to Georgia Quality Core Curriculum)

Monitoring of Responses

Games such as the Hop N Pop sight word practice and Beat the Tiger self-correction and fluency practice as well as various teacher prompts for informal monitoring, and recording charts, are imbedded in the Readers themselves for accessibility.

Feedback Games, personal and small group interaction, and informal and formal assessments give teachers opportunities to communicate with students about their performance and give them the support they need to succeed.

5


Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, through the instructional books themselves, Ten Minute Phonics® component, and the extensive Teacher’s Guide incorporates these elements into its sequence of instruction, allowing for individual learning styles and abilities. Specific details are referenced throughout this document.

OVERVIEW OF INSTRUCTION DESIGN AND STRENGTHS OF PROGRAM

Instruction in Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers centers around sixty stories containing both decodable words and sight words. Each initial story is included in a student book with cumulative elements, using previously introduced phonics concepts and sight words as well as several new words. Each 16-page reader also contains Ten Minute Phonics® lessons plus additional stories and activities to reinforce sight words, comprehension, self-correction, vocabulary, fluency and motivation.

Strengths:

A comprehensive teacher’s manual that provides simple explanations and integrated strategies for regular (often daily) assessment at each level. Beneficial recommendations from Dr. Cupp, a 19-year veteran of the classroom, also appear frequently in the manual.

Sight words in Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers are introduced four at a time. Practice with these words is encouraged through exposure in imbedded text, and in isolation through sight word lists. These words (and the phonics concepts) are repeated from subsequent lessons and the sight word list expands by four new words in each lesson (except the five review readers). This approach aids children in beginning to read successfully by allowing them to read at close to their optimal reading level (instructional, as identified by Clay, Hiebert and other prominent researchers). It also helps students develop strong automaticity (an essential element of fluency).

At least ninety-five percent (95%) of the text contains words already introduced in previous lessons. This not only allows the stories to become more complex in terms of vocabulary, comprehension and interest, but also greatly increases the chances a child will succeed and begin a real reading experience within the first few lessons.

6


The remaining five percent (5%) of the text are newly introduced decodable words children see when they begin the book.

Clear labels identify “tricky words” that do not follow phonics rules. These are explicitly taught.

Games and fun activities feed motivation in each lesson (Hop N Pop sight word practice continues to be a favorite among students).

Each student moves to the next level only when they have mastered the key ingredients of a particular book. Instilling confidence and skills early in the process avoids the “layering” of reading difficulties that occurs when a curriculum moves too fast for student abilities.

Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers targets comprehension -- a critical area not addressed explicitly by many beginning reading series. The program treats comprehension as an integral part of the learning-to-read process. Daily response to questions (both verbal and written) builds understanding and increases oral language abilities. In the first grade component (Books 31-60), precise oral language lessons move compre-hension to a more advanced level. Open-ended, thought-provoking inquiries (reflecting higher order thinking skills as recommended in theories associated with Bloom’s Taxonomy) take priority over questions that require a simple regurgitation of facts.

Unlike many comprehensive beginning-reading curricula, Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers allows flexibility and simplicity in individualizing instruction within its scope and sequence without introducing different materials. Each reader contains convenient space for notations and single student test results. Although most students will move through each reader in 3-5 days, exceptional students may progress more quickly. If they finish all of the readers before the end of the school year, teachers have extensions such as the “After Dr. Cupp Readers®” reading list to move them into real literature and higher-level activities. The Teacher’s Guide also contains thorough lists of trade books that can be used for read alouds or even guided reading. Each trade book is correlated to common classroom themes or reading skills (such as short “a” sounds) and genres of literature.

Instruction in self-monitoring and self-correction, often reserved in reading programs for later reading instruction, is imbedded in the lessons of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers from the initial kindergarten books. Such self-monitoring is an aspect of meta-cogni-tion, making the "language of thinking available to the students.” Magaly Lavadenz, of Loyola Marymount University, found in a study of bilingual first through third graders that “early elementary students can be

7


taught to explicitly employ metacognitive and metalinguistic strategies to comprehend texts”. This approach is a regular part of instruction in Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, not only in the student-teacher discussions but also in the “Beat the Tiger” activity which appears in each book.

Within small group instruction, individual participation and small group activities create chances for more intensive, individualized teaching. This is especially important for struggling, at-risk readers who may move at a slower pace and may be “left behind” with more conventional curriculum.

8


DETAILS OF THE STUDY

This research is descriptive in nature and combines elements of both qualitative and quantitative study. Student populations involved in this research (just over 2,300 students) include kindergarten and first grade classes with gifted and special needs children, students in the regular school population receiving no special services, English Language Learners (ELL), and Early Intervention Program (EIP) classes serving children up to eight years of age. There were also a few exclusive EIP or Special Education classes. The majority of students are from public schools in Georgia, although several schools from other Southeastern states also contributed data. One hundred forty-nine classrooms in 22 schools contributed data. The percentage of students on free and reduced lunch (often used as an indicator of risk) at these schools ranged from 9.5% to 82%, with the average being 43%.

The limited approach of this study is to evaluate test scores from a variety of independent sources in order to summarize and weigh the effectiveness of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers in teaching kindergarten and first graders to read. The managing consultant reviewed scores for over 2,300 students on criterion-based, diagnotistic, norm-referenced and informal assessments including:

BLT (Basic Literacy Test),CRT (Computerized Reading Test from Lexia) and,DIBELS (Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills) DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment), GCRCT (the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test), GKAP (the Georgia Kindergarten Assessment), andITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills), STAR (a Renaissance Learning tool),

The majority of these scores represent students from schools using Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers as a primary curriculum for K-1 reading. Those using the materials as a supplement to basals or other core curriculum were considered separately.

A review of literature to highlight multiple research studies and reports has also been conducted. These reports document the effectiveness of strategies, methods and approaches evident in Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers.

9


THE MONTHLY UPDATE PROGRAM

In the course of the 2006-2007 school year, Independent Literacy Consulting (the researcher for this report) tracked progress of approximately 5,020 students using Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers on a monthly basis through the Monthly Update Program. Details on each child’s and each class’s progress as well as overall grade level progress in book levels and sight word mastery were recorded monthly and distributed to the schools to include in their on-going assessment of students and instruction. A summary report, identifying schools by code, included such critical data as free and reduced lunch percentage, number of students participating and each school’s summary averages. This add-on service also gave schools the option of requesting on-site in-service staff training to enhance effectiveness. This training was provided directly by the creator of the program, Dr. Cindy Cupp or, in a few cases, by model schools. Thirty-five schools participated, many of who utilized the recommended three-group rotation method for small group instruction, focusing on 15-20-minute increments of time. This allowed for more individualized instruction for students with similar needs.

The following chart shows average progress in number of sight words mastered among entire group of students followed in the monthly update program:

Beginning Average Number Ending Average NumberGrade Level of Sight Words Mastered (9/06) of Sight Words Mastered (5/07)Kindergarten 8 731st Grade 95 190

The Monthly Update Program tracked not only those schools using Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers as an integral part of their reading curriculum in K and 1st grade but also those using these materials as a supplementary part of reading instruction. Although the improvement of students certainly points out the positive role Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers may play in the latter schools, it is not stand-alone evidence of the material’s effectiveness. Focusing on those who use the materials as their core curriculum, the volume of data collected over the past five years from those schools as part of this ongoing study, and the associated success it reflects, is much stronger evidence. Regardless of the level of implementation, the evidence of the vast majority of students meeting or exceeding standards set for their classrooms and their grade levels is apparent when Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers is used in those classrooms.

10


GENERAL STATISTICS – Overall Accomplishments

In the evaluation of approximately 5,020 students being taught with Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers:

Nearly sixteen and a quarter percent (16.22%) of kindergarteners finished Book 30 of the Readers (ended the year knowing over 100 sight words).

On the first grade level, nearly 22% finished their 60th book in Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers at or before the end of the school year. Attaining that level meant that those students reached a reading level of 2.1 and knew over 220 sight words. In many cases, those students were ready to move forward into guided reading and more advanced curriculum before leaving first grade.

The vast majority of students made adequate to exceptional progress in their reading abilities. Only about 2% of the tracked population showed little progress and none were without some degree of improvement.

ASSESSMENT RESULTS DOCUMENT PROGRESS

As has been the case historically, independent test scores from a variety of sources reflect the effectiveness of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers as an early reading curriculum.

Reporting schools using Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers most frequently assessed students with:

DIBELS (The Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy), STAR (from Renaissance Learning) and DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment).

Several schools also provided documentation of results from:

BLT (Basic Literacy Test) Lexia, andCriterion Referenced Tests including the Georgia Criterion Referenced Compentence Test (GCRCT-the Georgia state assessment).

11


KINDERGARTEN:

This year schools provided more data from multiple sources, reflecting the importance of evaluating children from multiple assessment used in many of Georgia’s public schools. Kindergarten students’ progress is reflected in the following summaries:

BLT

Although the Basic Literacy Test (developed by the Georgia Department of Education as part of their original Reading First initiative) is not a standardized assessment, it is a solid evaluation tool to determine basic literacy levels. 427 kindergarten students’ assessments were examined with the following results:

Measurement Pre Assessment Post Assessment* ImprovementAverages 11.09 39.55 28.46 points

Mean 12 38 26 points

* BLT score of 100 is equivalent to 5th grade reading level.

One school with 75% of their students qualified for free and reduced lunch reported particularly strong progress. Of 131 students assessed, all students showed progress (all but two students’ improvement appeared in double digits). Among the entire kindergarten grade level, they saw a 29-point improvement with their ending grade level average reaching 36.29%. Several students improved more than 50 points from their fall pre-assessment until their late spring post-assessment.

DIBELS

Results from DIBELS testing of 361 kindergarteners learning with Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers:

Average Average Average Beginning Ending Improvement

Score Score

K DIBELS – Letter Naming Fluency 19.7(fall)

57.20 (spring)

37.5 (annual)

K DIBELS – Phonemic Segmentation Fluency 27.11 (winter)

46.22 (spring)

19.11(1/2 yr.)

K DIBELS-Nonsense Word Fluency 26.59 (winter)

44.46 (spring)

17.87 (1/2 yr.)

K DIBELS-Initial Sound Fluency 14.75 (fall)

34.60 (winter)

19.85 (1/2 yr.)

* K = Kindergarten

12


When reviewing the 260 kindergarten students whose schools tested in DIBELS three times during the year, 89% of them began with at-risk levels of letter naming fluency. By the end of the school year, that was reduced to 34%. Greater reductions were observed in phonemic segmentation and nonsense word fluency, which were tested at mid-year and year end (60% reduced to 14% and 41% reduced to 12%, respectively).

Since letter naming fluency is most often a precursor to the more advanced phonological awareness skills of phonemic segmentation and nonsense word fluency (and those scores improved more dramatically), these results were somewhat confusing. It may be reasonable to consider that at least a portion of the 34% still at risk for letter naming fluency fell into that category for factors other than their letter knowledge (processing speed, visual challenges, etc.). With the data collected, and no direct input from the teachers, the exact explanation for this statistic is difficult to clarify.

There were also 98 students whose schools only provided the post assessments (spring, 2007). Among those students, we saw similar results in terms of end-of-instruction accomplishments. The number of students at risk of failure in letter naming fluency was reduced to 24%; in phonemic segmentation, 15% and in nonsense word fluency, 18%.

DRA

A number of classes used DRA as an end of the year Kindergarten assessment. In those cases, each class average reached benchmark and 88% of the 428 students assessed individually did so. In fact, the average post-test result appeared in midrange first grade (Level F of Guided Reading).

GKAP

321 kindergarten students’ GKAP pre and post scores were individually reported. Only seven students (2%) scored below the Georgia Department of Education bench-mark. The Georgia Department of Education indicates a student is ready for first grade when they score at least a 161. The average among this group of students was 190.

In addition, 13 classes (approximately 185 children) provided classroom summary reports, from two middle-Georgia schools with 37% and 31% free and reduced lunch percentages respectively. At both of those locations, 100% of students were identified as ready for first grade.

13


STAR

Although most kindergarteners are not assessed with the STAR inventory, one out-of-state school provided that opportunity to a gifted kindergarten class who used Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers as a supplemental to their regular curriculum. In that class of 14, 12 were reading at least at a 1.1 grade level and many had moved well into first grade reading levels. One student was reading at a 1.9 at year’s end.

Stronger evidence is apparent in two schools who reported STAR scaled scores for their kindergarten classes (149 students) who used Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers as their primary curriculum. Forty-five percent (45%) of those students in pre-assessments were at preschool levels; that number was reduced to 25% by post-assessment (meaning those students were at-risk). Although the number of students at age-appropriate levels remained fairly constant, by the end of kindergarten 14 students were reading at higher than a 2.0 grade level. Sixty-six percentage of students were on target grade level and 9% were above.

FIRST GRADE:

The following pages provide a summary of average first grade outcomes:

DIBELS

Average Average Beginning Ending

Score Score

1st Grade DIBELS – Phonemic Segmentation

Not AvailableIn sufficient qualities to compare

81.37* (Spring)

1st Grade DIBELS – Nonsense Word Fluency

Not AvailableIn sufficient quantities to

compare

78.43* (Spring)

First Grade DIBELS – Oral Reading Fluency

Not Available in sufficient

quantities to compare

70.59 (spring)

*Established level

14


The students assessed with DIBELS represent gifted, average, at-risk, and learning disabled students in a variety of classrooms including inclusion groups. At the end of a full year of first grade instruction with Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, less than 2% were deficient in phonemic segmentation, none were identified as at risk in the area of nonsense word fluency, and less than 6% were deficient in Oral Reading Fluency.

GEORGIA CRCT

The Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test is a yardstick to evaluate how well students are learning the Quality Core (State) Curriculum established by the Georgia Department of Education. In an overview of nearly 300 students’ scores among schools using Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, 95% of students met or exceeded standards. Nearly half that number (43%) fell into the “exceeds standards” category.

DRA

Schools provided first grade DRA test scores less frequently. However, among 118 students whose pre and posttests were reported, a increase from 18% of students at benchmark at the beginning of the year to 64% of students at benchmark by year’s end was reported. Of the remaining 36%, 9% of those were only one point below benchmark at year’s end and another 4% were within two points of benchmark. Since the average of all classrooms reporting was at benchmark, it is evident that there are many additional students close (within 3-5 points) of meeting benchmark. Of the 9 classes reporting, five were already averaging second grade reading levels by the end of the year. The remaining four classes’ averages were within 4 points (one guided reading level of benchmark).

15


STAR/BLT Average

Average Average Improvement Fall Score Spring Score Fall to Spring

1st Grade STAR- GradeEquivalency

1.10 2.39 1 school year, 3 months

1st Grade STAR – PR*

53.83 75.81 21.98 percentage points

1st Grade STAR – Scaled Score 702.78 763.37 60.59 points

1st Grade BLT 49.87 66.80 31 points**

* Percentile Ranking is the percentage of students at same grade level who score below given student.**Accounts for the fact that three students were assessed initially but transferred out of the school before the post assessment.

STAR

Scores for 346 students were reported for STAR. On average, they improved more than one school year. Perhaps more importantly, their average score was already into the second grade in the spring of their first grade year. The mean score was slightly higher at a 2.6 grade level.

Although the majority of the students represented in this score attended schools with between 15-27% free and reduced lunch, even a school with a higher risk population (76% free and reduced lunch) faired well. Their students’ STAR scores reflected a 25-percentage point change in their students’ percentile rankings (the average moved 26 points, from 47 to 73).

BLT

In the same high-risk population school highlighted in the Kindergarten portion of this report (over 75% free and reduced lunch), first grade BLT results were similar. Their post score was 66.46 with an over 27-point improvement. Only two children were without progress and all but one of the remaining students showed double-digit growth.

Observing the impact in a smaller subgroup (in this case students performing at grade level at the beginning of the testing versus students performing below expectations at that same time) reveals even more meaningful details. Of the first grade students assessed with STAR, 39% began at less than a 1.0 level, indicating a significant number of at-risk students. In contrast, at the end of the school year’s teaching from Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, that percentage been reduced to 13%. When

16


examining the students that initially did not meet grade level, 85 students moved to grade level and above (25%). Of special note is the fact that, of the nineteen students who began with a STAR score of zero (indicating that they were unable to test successfully even at a 0.1 level at the beginning of first grade), twelve of them completed the school year with a score of 2.0 or higher. Less than 1% of those students who began at the lower levels made little progress.

Two schools using Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers as their primary curriculum reported end-of-the-year STAR scale scores instead of percentile rankings or grade equivalency. For those students, only three of 129 were below grade level and eighty percent (80%) were reading at or above third grade level. Many of these students had finished the 60th book of Dr. Cupp Readers and Journal Writers in February or March of 2007 and moved into more complex reading materials because of their readiness. These schools represented a 27% and 39% free and reduced lunch population.

ITBS

Only one school (reporting 55% free and reduced lunch and using Dr. Cupp’s materials as a supplemental tool for first grade) reported results from this instrument. They speci-fically provided percentile-ranking comparisons that show the percentage of students in the national standardization group that received lower scores than this particular school. The data was broken into classrooms (representing 78 children). All students scored in at least the 50th percentile in comprehension and only two classes scored below that in vocabulary. Word analysis appeared weaker with only two of six classes average-ing above the 50th percentile. This data is not particularly meaningful in isolation since the researcher did not have the information necessary to compare scores of students who were assessed last year to those who were assessed and used Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers in the current school year.

A footnote: Although none of the schools using Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers in second grade or higher EIP or special education classes reported their tests results on standardized assessments, their growth in sight word knowledge and progression through Dr. Cupp’s materials indicates good improvement. For example, those who continued to use the program throughout the school year saw only two students fall short of completing book 60 (mastering 270 sight words). Several other schools stopped tracking results for their EIP students in the early spring because they were ready to move on to more complex material.

17


NEWEST RESEARCH CONTINUES TO CONFIRM THE EFFECTIVENESS OF METHODS USED IN DR. CUPP READERS® AND JOURNAL WRITERS

Multiple connections to scientifically based reading research are important considerations when evaluating a core reading and writing curriculum (Miller, 2004). Details of numerous research connections have been documented extensively in previous years’ reports and are available upon request from Cupp Publishing, Inc. or the independent researcher, Cathy Puett Miller (via email at [email protected]). Most recent conclusions from scientifically based reading research continue to support the approach of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers in all five dimensions identified by the National Reading Panel. A few additional, more recent research findings are referenced here for your information:

PHONEMIC AWARENESS:

Research indicates that, without direct instructional support, phonemic awareness eludes roughly 25 percent of middle-class kindergarten and first graders and substantially more of those who come from less literacy-rich backgrounds. Furthermore, these children evidence serious difficulty in learning to read and write (Adams, 1994). Specific, sequential introduction of the concept of phonemic awareness to students in the kindergarten segment of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers (and in the Readiness Lessons for those who are not yet ready to begin the Reader Books) concentrates on giving students a strong phonemic awareness foundation through both direct instruction, and fun games and activities.

Dr. Stephen Stahl, in a 2001 presentation entitled, “The Concurrent Development of Phonological Awareness, Word Recognition and Spelling” reviews his research with a number of Georgia kindergarten children. His study suggests that children “need some instruction in rudimentary phonological and phonemic awareness but phonological awareness beyond that point needs to be taught in conjunction with word recognition and spelling.” Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers quickly involves children in using what they know about phonological awareness in real reading and writing experiences.

Also, well-known researcher Dr. Michael Pressley, emphasizes the importance of systematic, sequential instruction for primary-grades children, especially those who areknown to be at risk for early reading difficulties (e.g., second language students, students from lower socioeconomic settings, students with biological differences that may affect the impact of reading and writing experiences). In his 1994 article for Educational Psychologist entitled “State of the Science: Reading Instruction or Whole Language?” Pressley says students are “better off in reading programs that are more explicit in their instructional emphasis”. A review of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers’ scope and sequence reveals just that sort of clear, targeted instruction.

18


PHONICS:

The key to teaching phonics within a balanced approach to literacy is: “the teacher’s understanding of how children acquire phonics knowledge, and the ability to read for meaning at the same time” according to Beverly Hathaway in her master’s research project. Dr. Marilyn Adams endorses that approach as well in her research. According to Adams, we must help students “combine phonics and other word identification skills into an effective word identification strategy (Adams, 1994). They must also have many opportunities to apply the knowledge they are developing about phonics to functional reading and writing.” As has already been established, Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers applies this teaching strategy beginning in the first reader.

The comprehensive design of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers reflects the concept that phonics is only a part of teaching children to read. Researchers such as Patricia and James Cunningham (creators of the Four Block framework) advocate that balanced method as well, recommending no more than one quarter of language arts time be devoted to phonics instruction. In each lesson of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, a consistent but limited timeframe is designated for phonics instruction through Ten Minute Phonics®. Students are also able to move forward in either the phonics lesson or book when they are ready. The fact that students may need more time in one or the other of these components does not hold a student back from progressing in the other.

FLUENCY:

The controlled vocabulary and duplication of words in each Dr. Cupp Reader® and Journal Writers story set the stage for students to practice a variation of repeated reading either aloud or silently. Dr. Tim Rasinski, a leading authority on fluency acquisition, documents in his research that quick and accurate processing of text leads to improved comprehension (Rasinski, 2001). What Dr. Cupp refers to as “reading like you’re talking”, Dr. Rasinski calls “making meaning with your voice.” Because students begin to read in Book 1 of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, they have early and frequent opportunities to read and reread text. Students have asked to repeat their reading on the “Beat the Tiger” page for a better score. The teacher’s guide also gives ample prompts for the teacher to reread to model fluency and expression.

VOCABULARY:

Conversations about words build word consciousness, individual word knowledge, and word strategies -- effective vocabulary skills advocated by professor of literacy education, Michael Graves. “Students connect new words to their schema (background knowledge) and grasp more than just an expert's definition.” Ample opportunity for students to engage in such conversations are outlined in the Teacher’s Guide for Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers.

19


Students learn new vocabulary (including character education terms) early in Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers. The Teacher’s Guide serves as a resource for making connections between not only vocabulary in the text but higher level “oral vocabulary” introduced when talking about ideas such as perseverance, cooperation and supporting your position after reading a story. Even in the Readiness (pre Book 1) materials, teachers have a model and suggested vocabulary to talk with their students about such complex concepts as a summary, retelling, and basic punctuation marks.

COMPREHENSION:

Pat Johnson, literacy consultant and former teacher, reflects on years of research and practical classroom experience in her 2006 book, One Child At A Time: Making the Most of Your Time with Struggling Readers: “I can't stress enough the fact that self-monitoring needs to begin right at the very beginning, right from the start. Many of us only think about self-monitoring in relation to comprehen-sion, which is one very important aspect. Children need to always be monitoring whether or not what they are reading makes sense . . .When children are learning to read, comprehension --- meaning-making, making text make sense, understanding what you read --- all should be part of the teaching of beginning reading.”

In Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, children are often prompted to ask, “does this make sense?” In the very first lesson, the “Beat the Tiger” game is introduced with the following guidelines (as a means of encouraging self-correction):

If the student makes an error that affects the comprehension of the sentence and he or she does not correct the error before moving to the next sentence, the tiger gets a point. If the student does correct his or her error, or if no errors are made, the kids’ team gets a point. If an error is made that does not affect the comprehension of the sentence, neither side gets a point.

In that same first reader, children are engaged in making connections to background knowledge (a strong comprehension strategy) when the teacher uses prompts like:

Do you like to play ball and jump rope?Tell me about the games you play.Do you think this is a story about real turtles? Why or why not?

Along the same lines, F. David Pearson points out in his research that high quality talk about text is essential to reading comprehension. “This should involve teacher to student and student to student talk. It should also include discussions of text processing at a number of levels, from clarifying basic material stated in the text to drawing

20


interpretations of text material to relating the text to other text, experiences and reading goals.”

Throughout the Teacher’s Guide for Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, the Oral Language Lessons supply specific character education terms and other vocabulary to use in conversation with students as well as models of a variety of questioning and predicting strategies. Note the questioning and think aloud occurring in these examples:

In sentence six, the cat said that the bear must be bad. Why do you think the cat thought the bear was bad? I will tell you what I think. I think . . .

. . . Reader 35, Teacher’s Guide

“The author tells you Farmer Blue is getting ready to have more problems. Predict the problems the farmer might have. Let’s discuss together what might happen when Duck takes Gargle Pop back to Blue Farm.” . . . Reader 56, Teacher’s Guide

“Balanced approach to literacy” is a phrase originally introduced in the 1990’s by Dr. Michael Pressley, a researcher from Michigan State University. Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers mirrors Dr. Pressley‘s definition

deliberate and planful, delivered by a teacher who can stick to his or her plan, covering the entire scope and sequence expected in primary grade literacy instruction, while responding to needs of individual children

through its thorough teacher’s manuals, specific scope and sequence, and adaptability for needs of individual children.

Part of a balanced approach to literacy is sensitivity to students’ needs. The design of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers allows teachers to plan quickly and simply, based on what their students need to know. Guidance for less experienced teachers includes fill-in-the-blank charts and tables for lesson planning. Once a teacher learns to teach Book 1, they are equipped to teach the entire series. The design of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers also guides teachers to differentiate instruction and move students at different paces in each skill area when necessary, a good practice in any balanced literacy approach. The result is that each student receives the instruction and support they need to become a successful reader.

21


CLOSING REMARKS

In seven years of use in the classroom, Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers has proven to be an effective means of creating strong readers. Evidence of these consistent results has been represented in this and previous research documents. With a compre-hensive, balanced progression of meaningful instruction, such as Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, students acquire the tools they need to be strong decoders and sight word readers. The instruction doesn’t stop there, for unlike many beginning reading programs with a narrower focus or an unnecessary weight to phonics instruction, Dr. Cupp Readers® and Writers shows students that phonics and sight word acquisition are only a part of what it means to be a reader. The program also exposes them, early and frequently, to strategies that develop a robust understanding of text and an interest in reading as a tool for life. Its specific, step-by-step approach to instruction gives plenty of opportunities for students to experience success and build upon what they are learning.

With the student in the forefront, and the focus of instruction where it belongs, teachers can use the sequential design of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers to assess student progress and move each individual forward in the complex process of learning to read. The playful activities and opportunities for discussion and sharing help create a class-room environment in which children are excited about learning and celebrate one another’s successes, gifts that go beyond the important task of learning to read.

22


REFERENCES

Aarasmith, D. (unknown). White Paper: Definition of Explicit Instruction and Systematic Curriculum, available at http://www.studydog.com/SDsystematic.asp.

Adams, M.J. (1994). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cunningham, A. E., and Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.

Graves, M.F. (2005) The Vocabulary Book: Learning and Instruction, New York: New York: Teachers College Press

Hall, T. (2002). Explicit instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved [insert date] from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_explicit.html

Hiebert, E.H. (19999). Text matters in learning to read. The Reading Teacher, 52, 552-566.

Jacobson, R. (1998). Teachers improving learning using metacognition with self-monitoring learning strategies. Education. Summer 1998. Available online at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_199807/ai_n8796097

Jonassen, D., W. Hannum, and M. Tessmer. (1989). "Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives." Chapt. 12 of Handbook of Task Analysis Procedures. New York: Praeger.

Lavadenz, M. (2003). Think Aloud Protocol: Teaching Reading Processes to Young Bilingual Students. Center for Applied Linguistics Database. EDOFL –03-14. http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/0314lavandez.html

Miller, C.P. (2004). Beginning to Read Curriculum: A Look into the Selection Process and the Classroom”, Georgia Journal of Reading, Volume 27

Pearson, F. D. (2001). Facilitating Comprehension, Presentation at the 2001 MRA/CIERA Conference, available online at http://www.ciera.org/library/presos/2001/2001MRACIERA/pdp/01mrapdp.pdf

23

http://www.ciera.org/library/presos/2001/2001MRACIERA/pdp/01mrapdp.pdf

http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/0314lavandez.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_199807/ai_n8796097

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_199807/ai_n8796097/pg_11

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_199807/ai_n8796097/pg_11

http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_explicit.html

http://www.studydog.com/SDsystematic.asp


(References continued)

Pressley, M. (1994). State of the Science: Reading Instruction or Whole Language? EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 1994 , 29(4), 211-215

Rasinski, T.V. & Padak, N.D. (2001). From Phonics to Fluency: Effective Teaching of Decoding and Reading Fluency in the Elementary School. New York: Longman.

Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. Elementary School Journal, 104, 3 28.

This research summary has been prepared by Cathy Puett Miller, Independent Literacy Consultant, September, 2007.

Cathy Puett Miller, Independent Literacy Consultant770-365-4733 or 256-883-7005 [email protected]

@2007 Cindy Cupp and Associates. All rights reserved. Schools and school districts are able to make single copies of this document for the purpose of grant applications and documentation. Any other duplication of a part or the whole of this report is prohibited without written permission from Cindy Cupp and Associates.

For additional information about the Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, The Readiness Program, or Ten Minute Phonics® see www.cindycupp.com

Cindy Cupp and Associates, Inc.Savannah, Georgia 31406

Office phone 912 691-2434Fax 912 [email protected]

24

mailto:[email protected]

DR - cindycupp.com€¦ · Web viewEach year enhancements have been added to strengthen the...

Documents

Transcript of DR - cindycupp.com€¦ · Web viewEach year enhancements have been added to strengthen the...