home.lagrange.eduhome.lagrange.edu/educate/Advanced Programs/M.Ed. D… · Web viewWith the...

KINDERGARTEN READING READINESS: AN INTERVENTION PLAN

A thesis submitted

by

Carrie Chumley Driver

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

July 27, 2011

Kindergarten Reading Readiness ii

Abstract

The purpose of this action research was to determine if a reading intervention plan

would increase the basic kindergarten readiness skills of students in kindergarten.

Exploring effective strategies to build letter and sound recognition, sight word recalling,

and reading comprehension for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds was an

important part of this study. Data collection for this study consisted of mixed-methods.

Quantitative data was used for pre and post scores. A control group that did not receive

the intervention plan was used for comparative data. For the qualitative portion of the

study, a teacher focus group was made. The students participating in the study kept a

pictograph. Through the analysis of multiple sources of data, the kindergarten reading

readiness intervention proved to have gains on students’ scores on the Lexia Reading

Assessment.

Kindergarten Reading Readiness iii

Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...…ii

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………...….iii

List of Tables…...………………………………………………………………………...iv

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………....1Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….1Significance of the Problem…………………………………………………….....3Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks………………………………………....4Focus Questions…………………………………………………………………...7Overview of Methodology……………………………………………………..….8Human as Researcher…………………………………………………………..….9

Chapter 2: Review of Literature…………………………………………………………10Cognitive Development……………………………………………………….…10School Readiness………………………………………………………………...11Reading Readiness……………………………………………………………….11Intervention Plans…………………………………………………………….….15Observation and Assessments…………………………………………………....18Student Success………………………………………………………………….19

Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………21Research Design………………………………………………………………….21Setting……………………………………………………………………………21Subjects and Participants……………………………………………………...…22Procedures and Data Collection Methods……………………………………......23Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias …………………………………..26Analysis of Data…………………………………………………………………27

Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………………..30

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results……………………………………...…..37Analysis of Results...………………………………………………………….....37Discussion………………………………………………………………………..40Implications…………………………………………………………………...….41Impact on Student Learning………………………………………………...……43Recommendations for Future Research…………………………………...……..43

References……………………………………………………………………………..…44

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………….47

Kindergarten Reading Readiness iv

List of Tables

Tables

Table 3.1 Data Shell………………………………………………………………...25

Table 4.1 Pre Test for Intervention Group and Control Group……………….…….31

Table 4.2 Post Test for Intervention Group and Control Group……………………31

Table 4.3 Intervention and Control Group Pre and Post Test Comparison ….….…32

Kindergarten Reading Readiness 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Students entering kindergarten in this day and time are doing so without the basic

prior knowledge for reading development. Students who are most likely to have

difficulty with learning to read in the early grades are those who start school with less

basic prior knowledge and skill in related domains (Gillet, Temple, & Crawford, 2004).

The domains consists of “general verbal abilities, the ability to attend to sounds of

language as distinct from its meaning, familiarity with the basic purposes and

mechanisms of reading, and letter recognition” (Gillet et al., p.208). Kindergarten

students who exhibit a lack of the basic prior knowledge reading development skills are

typically the same students who perform lowest on academic achievement assessments.

Low academic achievement is closely related to lack of resources and many research

studies have documented the correlation between low socioeconomic status and low

academic achievement (Payne, 1996). Low socioeconomic status is defined as “the

extent to which an individual does without resources” (Payne, 1996, p. #7).

Students coming to school from a low socioeconomic way of life face many

academic challenges. The students walk into the classroom with a void of basic

background knowledge as it relates to school. This is due, in part, because low SES

students are exposed to fewer cognitive and academically stimulating activities in the

home (McCartney, Deering, Taylor, & Bub, 2007).

The activities that the students miss out on range from talking to or with parents

and or any type of adult, reading to or with parents and or any type of adult, visiting

museums, libraries, plays, and the list could go on (McCartney et al., 2007).


Low SES students acquire language skills at a slower pace, exhibit delayed

letter/sound recognition and phonological sensitivity, and most are at a high risk for

reading difficulties (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). Research has revealed that oral language

is the base of literacy development associated to this is development in phonemic

awareness, which is a valid predictor of later reading by the end of kindergarten

(MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). Early intervention cannot wait until first grade.

According to MacDonald and Figueredo ( 2010), early detection and intervention is

extremely critical and the window of opportunity closes quickly.

In the State of Georgia, based on the Georgia Kindergarten Inventory of

Developing Skills (G-KIDS), kindergarten students are assessed on the following

Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension standards: a) reads previously taught high

frequency words at 30 words a minute; b) reads previously taught text with expression; c)

listens to and reads a variety of literature and informational texts, d)makes predictions

from pictures and titles; e) tell meaning from narrative using prior knowledge, graphics,

and questions; f) begins to distinguish fact from fiction in read-aloud text; and g) retells

familiar events and important facts. I have seen in my years of teaching that the low

SES students do not master the standards for each of the nine week testing periods. This

is due in part to their lack of basic prior knowledge of reading development. Therefore,

the purpose of this study is to determine if a weekly intervention plan for low achieving

students will improve test scores. This study will focus on the reading development

aspect of low SES Kindergarten students.


Significance of the Problem

Kindergarten students enter school without the basic prior knowledge for several

reasons. Family environment has most often been a reason because it is thought to be the

principle contributor to differences in early language and literacy development associated

with low SES (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). Research is abundant with studies looking at

the relation between student academic achievement and family climates of low SES.

Students with low SES have less exposure to books at home and are less likely to be read

to by parents (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). An analysis completed by the U.S.

Department of Education’s Early Childhood Longitudinal Study saw great differences in

the cognitive abilities of children just starting kindergarten (Books, 2004). As reported in

the USDOE’s study, students from wealthy families scored sixty percent (60%) higher

than students from poorer families. Strong evidence indicates that socioeconomic status

“accounts for more of the unique variation in cognitive scores than any other factor by

far” (Books, 2004, p. 102).

Kindergarten children no longer get to color, paint, play, and nap all day long.

Kindergarten classes today have a curriculum that is packed with standards each nine

weeks related to reading. Kindergarten reading standards are of higher expectations than

in years past. Kindergarten teachers like to see students entering the doors in August

having the majority of prior basic reading development skills already learned. For these

students, most have a smooth sailing into letter/sound recognition, phonics, word recall,

and sentence reading. The low SES students who do not have the prior basic reading

development skills spend at least the first nine weeks being exposed to the basic

developmental skills. By this time these students are further behind in the reading


development skills area. With differentiated instruction, teachers can meet with the

delayed students one-on-one or in a small group setting with reading development

instruction based solely on the student’s individual need(s).

Theoretical and Conception Frameworks

Basic prior knowledge reading development can be traced back to Vygotsky’s

view of cognitive development. Vygotsky believed that cognitive development is highly

linked to input from others (Slavin, 2003). His most noted contribution is an emphasis on

the sociocultural nature of learning. Vygotsky concluded that learning takes place when

children are working in their zone of proximal development. Functions within the zone

of proximal development are ones that children cannot yet do independently but could do

with the assistance of a higher order thinking peer or teacher. Vygotsky’s theories have

two main implications. One is the outcome of setting up cooperative learning sets among

groups of students with differing levels of ability. Tutoring by teachers would be most

effective in achieving growth within the zone of proximal development. Second, teachers

need to put an emphasis on scaffolding, with students taking on more and more

responsibility for their own learning (Slavin, 2003). This action research thesis will

incorporate Vygotsky’s theories by implementing small group and individual tutor time

as well as allowing students to make gains in their learning development at their own

pace.

This thesis relates to LaGrange College Education Department’s (2010)

Conceptual Framework, under Tenet 1 and Tenet 2. Tenet 1: Enthusiastic Engagement

in Learning, Competency Cluster 1.3: Knowledge of Learners, states that teachers

understand their students and how they learn. The teachers understand how to give


differentiated learning opportunities based on students stages of development and that

teachers understand that factors inside and outside effect students’ lives and learning.

Knowing that students are made up differently and that the students learn differently is

vital to this research thesis as students will be grouped to target low achieving students.

LaGrange College Educational Department’s (2010) Conceptual Framework

Tenet 2: Exemplary Professional Teaching Practices, Competency Cluster 2: Assessment

Skills, states that teachers involve the students in self-assessment to help them become

aware of their own strengths and needs. This allows the students to set personal goals for

their learning achievement. Students like to physically see how they are achieving.

Throughout this research study, intervention assessments and student made assessments

will be posted as to where the student can mark and see their achievement goals

This thesis relates to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

[NBPTS] (2010) under Proposition 1 and Proposition 3. Proposition 1 states “Teachers

are committed to Students and Their Learning.” Under Proposition 1 are statements that

are related to this thesis:

NBCT [National Board Certified Teachers] are dedicated to making

knowledge accessible to all students. They believe all students can learn.

They treat students equitably. They recognize the individual differences

that distinguish their students from one another and they take account for

these differences in their practice.

NBCT understand how students develop and learn.

They respect the cultural and family differences students bring to their

classroom. (para. # 1).


Proposition 3 states “Teachers are Responsible for Managing and Monitoring Student

Learning.” Under Proposition 3 are statements that are related to this thesis:

NBCT know how to assess the progress of individual students as well as

the class as a whole.

They use multiple methods for measuring student growth and

understanding, and they can clearly explain student performance to parents

(para. # 3).

This thesis relates to the Georgia Framework for Teaching (Georgia Professional

Standards Commission, n.d.) under Domain 2 and Domain 4. Domain 2: Knowledge of

Students and Their Learning states that” Teachers support the intellectual, social,

physical, and personal development of all students.” Under Domain 2 are statements that

are related to this thesis:

2.1 believe that all children can learn at high levels and hold high expectations for

all.

2.2 understand how learning occurs in general and in the content areas

2.3 are sensitive, alert, and responsive to all aspects of a child’s well-being

2.4 understand how factors in environments inside and outside of school may

influence students’ lives and learning

2.5 are informed about and adapt their work based on students’ stages of

development, assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous

development of all learners (para. # 2).


Under Domain 4 are statements that are related to this thesis:

4.4 involve learners in self-assessment, helping them become aware of their

strengths and needs and encouraging them to set personal goals for learning

4.6 use assessment data to communicate student progress knowledgeably and

responsibly to students, parents, and other school personnel (para. #4).

Focus Questions

As previously stated, low SES kindergarten students enter school with an absence

of basic prior knowledge of reading skills. With the purpose of the study being to

improve the basic reading and language skills for kindergarten students, the overarching

research question of how the extra tutor time benefits low SES kindergarten students is

broken down into three specific focus questions.

1. What is the most effective way to implement an intervention for kindergarten

reading readiness?

2. What effects will an intervention have on kindergarten students’ academic

achievement?

3. How will the teacher and kindergarten students feel about the intervention?

Kindergarten school years are a critical period of growth for students’ emergent

literacy skills (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). Oral language interventions completed

during kindergarten give students an additional source of support at a critical time in their

emergent literacy development. Studies that assess the effect of tutoring program

interventions characteristically reported success. In most cases the lowest achieving

students at the start of the intervention had the largest gains in language development.


An intervention tutor program needs to be skill(s) specific and focused, not just more of

the same thing over a longer time frame (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010).

Overview of Methodology

This is an action research study conducted in a kindergarten classroom of a local

Title I school. The subjects of this study were three kindergarten students. They were

selected because of their low scores from the Lexia Reading Assessment. The

intervention was specific to each student’s needs of reading and oral language

development skills. The intervention time frame was from March 2011 to May 2011.

Both qualitative and quantitative data were used for measuring student outcomes of the

reading and oral language development skills. The method of collecting data was a

daily/weekly data checklist of the skills needed. As each student mastered a skill, he/she

moved on to the next skill needed. G-KIDS assessment was performed four times

throughout the year (each nine week period) to measure student gains and Lexia

assessment was administered three times throughout the year (August, December, and

May) to measure student gains. I kept a journal regarding the intervention process to

record the research process and how students react to intervention time. Students were

given a survey to assess their feelings on the intervention time.


Human as a Researcher

I am a Kindergarten teacher in a local Title I elementary school in Troup County.

I have been teaching for nine years; teaching first grade for four years and teaching

Kindergarten for the past five years. I feel that I am qualified to complete this thesis

study because I see firsthand how Kindergarten students enter the classroom with a void

of basic background knowledge of reading skills. This negatively affects their reading

ability in Kindergarten. I feel that interventions to include interventions with

Kindergarten Readiness and Phonics and Decoding Skills, Dolch Sight Words, and

Reading Informal will greatly help the students suffering with reading and oral language

skills. I want success in my classroom for all students and all students deserve to be

successful.


CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this action research is to determine if a differentiated intervention

will strengthen the scores of Kindergarten Readiness and Phonics and Decoding Skills of

students in kindergarten. This research will also determine which strategies are most

effective and how the teacher and students feel about the intervention time. This chapter

will reflect upon research that has been performed by others on this topic.

Cognitive Development

Vygotsky believed that students are active seekers of their own knowledge. He

did not view them as solitary agents (Papadopoulos, Charalambous, Kanari, & Loiziu

2004). In his theory, rich social and cultural contexts greatly affected students’ cognitive

development. Therefore, mental activity is considered uniquely human. It is the result of

social learning, of the internalization of social signs and of culture and social

relationships. Vygotskian educational and psychological applications offer opportunities

for active participation and acceptance of individual differences. These applications also

promote assisted discovery as well. Teachers may guide students learning, tailoring their

interventions to each student’s zone of proximal development in order for highest

learning to take place (Papadopoulos et al., 2004). The functions of the zone of proximal

development are ones that children cannot yet do alone but could do with help of a peer

or teacher (Slavin, 2003). Within the Vygotskian theory lies two implications. One is

the outcome of setting up cooperative learning groups with students of differing levels of

ability. The other is teachers putting an emphasis on scaffolding and allowing students to

take on more awareness of their responsibility of learning (Slavin, 2003).


School Readiness

School readiness is not just measured by student proficiency on academic or

cognitive skills (Children Now, 2009). According to Children Now, the National

Education Goals Panel (1990) determined that children’s school readiness includes five

areas: (1) physical well-being and motor development, (2) social and emotional

development, (3) approaches toward learning, (4) communication and language usage,

and (5) cognition and general knowledge (page 2). The panel also emphasized that

school readiness involves families, schools and communities. Without their collective

preparation and involvement children have a difficult time being ready for school. In

order to help struggling students in key development and skill areas, some states have

enacted policies to help ensure children arrive in kindergarten prepared and that schools

provide them the supports they need to transition successfully. Collecting and sharing of

meaningful school readiness data is essential to successful kindergarten transition.

School readiness data also help provide families, schools, and communities’ information

to determine how to best help young students succeed (Children Now 2009).

Reading Readiness

Children from all walks of life suffer significant difficulties in learning to read.

Countless young students begin kindergarten lacking readiness skills necessary for

successful adjustment to school (Cooke, Kretlow, & Helf, 2010). According to

Tankersley (2003), The National Reading Panel Report states that “the level of phonemic

awareness that children possess when first beginning reading instruction and their

knowledge of letters are the two best predictors of how they will learn to read during the

first two years of formal reading instruction,” (Tankersley, 2003, p. 6).


Oral language is the foundation of literacy development and linked to phonemic

awareness which is a valid predictor of later reading in kindergarten (MacDonald, &

Figueredo, 2010). Student interventions must occur early because kindergarten students

cannot afford to wait until first grade for intervention. The kindergarten years are a

critical period of growth for emergent-literacy and oral language interventions. This

gives the students an additional support line at a critical time when reading readiness

takes place (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). Reading readiness skills are the important

prerequisite skills students need to master to succeed academically in later grades. These

skills include a.) physical health and motor development, b.) socioemotional

development, c.) approaches to learning, d.) language and communication development,

e.) early literacy skills, and f.) cognition and general knowledge (Cooke et al., 2010,

p. #137). Six essential threads for reading are: reading/phonics awareness, phonics and

decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and word recognition. “Without having each thread

present in the tapestry of a student’s reading abilities becomes holes and the weave will

not hold tight and will not function for lifelong use” (Tankersley, 2003, p. 2). Most states

expect kindergarten teachers to emphasize readiness skills by incorporating them into

their content standards (Cooke et al., 2010). School readiness matters in the long run and

addressing children’s developmental needs before and during their first year of school

will boost their chances of success. Sadly, most children do not attend a high-quality

preschool and many do not enter kindergarten fully prepared. These students fall behind

in the knowledge of skills that will facilitate their ability to succeed in kindergarten and

beyond (Children Now, 2009). Scanlon, Vellutina, Small, Fanuele, and Sweeney (2005)

provide abundant evidence to support the premise that children who are severely


impaired in reading in the elementary grades will continue to be impaired throughout

their educational career if they do not receive appropriate remediation. However, there is

also evidence to show that the majority of the students who encounter early learning

difficulties can be brought up to grade level if they are provided with early,

individualized, and intensive intervention. There is evidence to support that interventions

given in a small group format can substantially reduce the number of students who

experience long term reading problems (Daily, Chafouleas, & Skinner, 2005).

The overall effects of interventions are certainly positive and promising. When

the outcomes for individual children are analyzed it is typically found that there are a

substantial amount of children who continue to be severely impaired in reading, despite

intensive interventions. These students are ultimately identified as learning disabled and

require special educational services (Scanlon et al., 2005). Students who struggle with

early reading lack facility with the phonological structure of the English language

(Simmons et al., 2007). These students lack sensitivity to the phonemes in words, and

they struggle with the alphabetic principle and or the ability to decode unfamiliar words.

Students who suffer from early reading difficulties cannot make the connection between

the sounds of our language and the printed counterparts that represent speech. As a

result, they face mountains of obstacles in translating print to speech and fail to develop

ease and facility with word recognition. This, in hand, limits their hold for higher level

cognitive processes related to comprehension and, ultimately, the word and word

knowledge they gain from reading (Simmons et al., 2007).

Students below pre-primer instructional level suffer from many academic issues

(Caldwell & Leslie, 2005). The issues include but are not limited to:


May not recognize the purpose for reading

Lack basic print concepts

May not know how to hold a book upright

May not know letter/sounds

Are logographic readers who do not understand that letters stand for

sounds and that words represent meaning

May not know that letters put together make a word

Not understand that reading is left to right

Sentences have words with spaces in between (Caldwell and Leslie, 2005,

p. 14)

Student interventions need to be exactly what the student does or does not know and

needs to provide experiences to move on to the next stage of the reading process

(Caldwell & Leslie, 2005). Good intervention is one that includes explicit approach to

instruction in which letters are taught in isolation and then blended to form words (Daily

et al., 2005).

Many students begin kindergarten with great differences in vocabulary knowledge

(Coyne, McCoach, & Kapp, 2007). Some students enter school with thousands of hours

of exposure to books and a wealth of rich and supportive oral languages experiences

peers who have a rich vocabulary knowledge. Other students begin school with very

limited knowledge of language and word meanings. Sadly, the vocabulary gap grows

larger in the early grades as students with limited vocabulary knowledge grow more

discrepant over time from their peers who have rich vocabulary knowledge (Coyne et al.,

2007).


Young students who fall behind in developing vocabulary knowledge are at a high

risk for experiencing major reading and learning difficulties and eventually are identified

as having a language or reading disability (Coyne et al., 2007). Literature suggest that

structured and supported oral language activities, such as listening to and discussing

storybooks are direct ways to promote language and vocabulary development in young

students. This type of activity is not equally effective for all students. Students who are

at risk for reading disabilities with lower initial vocabularies are less likely than their

peers with higher vocabularies to learn words incidentally while listening to stories. This

is quite possible in part because these students are less able to make use of context to

infer word meanings because of their limited vocabulary and content knowledge. Due to

this finding, researchers have acted for more intentional, teacher-directed vocabulary

instruction and intervention to complement traditional reading activities for students who

are at risk for language and reading difficulties. Students with weaker vocabularies are

less likely to learn new words from listening to stories than children with larger

vocabularies. Thus, teachers need to provide more one-on-one or small group explicit

vocabulary instruction for students with smaller vocabularies (Coyne et al., 2007).

Intervention Plans

There is certainly no disagreement that a successful early elementary school

experience is a highly predictive factor of later positive academic outcomes (Cooke et al.,

2010). Student interventions need to be based on individual needs to provide experiences

to gain knowledge in order to go on to the next stage of the reading process (Caldwell &

Leslie, 2005). Good intervention is one that includes explicit approach to instruction in

which letters are taught in isolation and then blended to form words (Daily et al., 2005).


Interventions should be stimulating, not boring. Early literacy can develop through

teacher intervention in the specific skills needed. Interventions should be focused on a

level that allows high rates of successful student performance (Daily et al., 2005).

Early intervention literatures suggest that there is a difference in opinion as to

relative importance of early academic skills and when early readiness intervention should

begin. One way of addressing both readiness skills and early intervention is to begin

with readiness skills during the first semester of kindergarten and waiting to provide

supplemental reading instruction until the second semester of kindergarten. Teachers

who have tried this method preferred the approach because it allowed students who have

problems in both areas some time to adjust to general school experiences, routines, and

expectations and full class instruction before working in small pull-out groups for early

reading interventions. However, the effect of delaying reading intervention is loss of

progress that might be made with supplementary small group instruction across the full

year (Cooke et al., 2010).

Research pertaining to interventions provides evidence that phonemic awareness,

alphabetic understanding, and decoding are in fact teachable (Simmons et al., 2007).

Individualized intervention instruction results in significant gains for most students. An

emphasis on alphabetic skills and phonological awareness positively influences both

phonemic awareness and word reading outcomes. According to Tankersley, (2003) The

National Reading Panel’s (2000) synthesis of experimental studies collaborated a set of

attributes of instruction as being positively related to kindergarten phonemic awareness

and phonics outcomes including:


Emphasis of a few priority phonemic awareness skills

Integration of letters with sounds

Small group instruction

Use of explicit, systematic instruction (page #5).

One validated model for providing early academic intervention is the use of tiered

instruction. In a tiered model of instruction, all students receive the core or Tier 1

instruction. Students requiring some additional help receive small group supplementary

Tier 2 instruction. Students who require intensive individualized support receive

instruction designed for tier 3. Studies using tiered models of intervention have

consistently shown that providing direct, explicit and systemic instruction in the evidence

based components of reading instruction to students at risk of reading failure in early

grades, effectively prevents many long term reading difficulties and reduces the

likelihood of referral and placement programs (Cooke et al., 2010).

Two areas make up quality intervention: Instructional Time and Instructional

Design. The most consistent educational finding is that the amount of instructional time

that children are actively engaged in results in tasks that they can perform successfully

(Simmons et al., 2007). Over four decades ago, an education researcher named J.B.

Carroll came up with a model of school leaning to guide the solution of educational

problems grounded in the economics of instruction. His model was based on the idea that

only a hand full of critical variables influence student learning, and important to this

model was time or opportunity to learn. Carroll espoused the belief that economy of

learning can be seen when time spent in learning equals time needed for learning. Going

along with his model, it is common practice to devote more time beyond typical


allotments for children who struggle to read. For the past decade, supplemental reading

instruction that increases opportunity to learn has become a common focus of educational

research and practice (Simmons et al., 2007)

Instructional Design is the way a particular domain is selected, prioritized,

sequenced, organized, and scheduled for instruction within a highly organized series of

lessons and materials that make up a course of study. Simmons et al. (2007) refer to the

instructional design as “systematic process of translating principles of learning and

instruction into plans for of instructional materials and activities” (p. 332).

Observations and Assessments

Developmentally appropriate observations and assessments of young students

have been supported by nationally recognized early childhood experts. In Children Now

(2009), The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National

Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (2003)

gave a joint statement about the value of knowing the needs, strengths and progress of

young children. The statement said that developmentally appropriate observation and

assessment methods can inform the three points for beneficial reasons:

1. Making solid decisions about learning and teaching

2. Identifying great concerns that may require focused intervention for individual

children

3. Helping programs improve the educational and developmental interventions (page

# 4).

By taking the guidelines into consideration, a complete kindergarten readiness

observation process can be appropriately created to measure the broad range of


development and skills associated with school readiness. Kindergarten readiness

observations should also utilize several methods to compile detailed information on

incoming kindergarten students, including an instrument for teachers to observe a child in

his/her school environment and a parent survey.

Children Now (2009) have identified at least 31 states that have some form of

Kindergarten readiness observation, survey, screening, or assessment. States vary in the

way they use the information gathered. Most commonly, teachers use individual student

data to guide their instruction. Some states are in the early stages of implementing their

kindergarten readiness observation systems according to the state standards. The state of

Georgia has some form of kindergarten observation, screening or assessment and Georgia

is required to use a tool that measures more than cognitive development skills.

Student Success

Most students enter school with self-integrated personalities and eager to learn to

read (Block, 2003). However, if success and approval are repeatedly denied, learned

helplessness (a student’s belief that they cannot be successful no matter how much they

try) can result. Defense mechanisms may also develop showing negative behaviors or

attitudes that divert students’ own as well as other’s attention away from their less than

desired level of literacy achievement. Persistence can arise from increased intrinsic

motivation, positive concept of self as reader, positive attitudes, interest stimulation and

productive emotions that give new cognitive commitment. Low performing students need

motivation. Motivation that is crucial to them is the impulse to initiate and direct

behavior with drive for competence that is sustained and augmented by deep feelings of

self efficacy. Self efficacy refers to the degree to which a student expects and values the


successful completion of certain task based on assessments. Student success results from

ability and effort rather than from luck. Reading intervention groups (for young students)

most likely need to be externally motivated as to where the students work for rewards

from the teacher. This will help increase interest in the literacy area. Interest has the

power to arouse and instigate behavior, give direction or purpose to behavior, and

continue to allow a behavior to persist. In order to build student interest teachers need to

use open task and student choice. Open task is allowing the students to decide which

information they will use and or what they want to read. Student choices are tasks with

several available options (Block, 2003).

Tutor interventions are a key component of successful oral language and reading

skills (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). Studies on the effects of tutor interventions show

success. Students being tutored made great gains on language and reading assessments

than non tutor students. The lowest students at the beginning of the interventions ended

up making the greatest gain in language and reading development. (Macdonald &

Figueredo, 2010).


CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The purpose of this action research study was to determine if extra interventions

would improve the scores of three kindergarten students in the areas of Kindergarten

Readiness, Phonics and Decoding Skills, Dolch Sigh Words, and Reading Informal on

the Lexia Test. Action based research gives teachers an idea of which areas to focus on,

collect data, assess students on, see the results, and then be able to plan for more

differentiated instruction based on the students’ results (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009).

By using action research, I, as the teacher, was able to see firsthand what parts of the

intervention worked and which ones did not work and or can be improved. In order to

collect data, mixed methods were used. Both quantitative and qualitative data were

analyzed using a t-test for dependent and independent sample groups. Teacher and

student journals were also used to collect data.

Setting

The kindergarten intervention took place in a Title I school in rural Troup County

Georgia. This school and class were chosen because I worked there. There were 519

students from Pre-K through 5th Grades. Forty two percent of the students received free

lunch and five percent received reduced lunch. The student body was made up of 248

girls and 271 boys. The racial breakdown was as follows: 15% African American,

77% White, .0039% Hispanic, .003% American Indian, .06% Multi-racial, 1% Asian, and

.005% other. The school had 45 certified teachers. Permission was given to conduct the

action research through the Troup County Board of Education, the principal of the

school, and the LaGrange College Institutional Review Board.


Subjects and Participants

The three subjects for the intervention research were decided upon because of

their low scores on the Kindergarten Readiness, Phonics and Decoding Skills, Dolch

Sight Words, and Reading Informal portions of the Lexia Test. Two of the subjects were

six years old and one is five years old. All three are female Caucasian students. All three

receive free lunch and are from low social economic families. The subjects are from

either divorced or broken families. Two of the students are at the correct mental age of

five and one is at a mental age of about three years old. One of the students has speech

and language disorders and is currently being served by the school Speech/Language

Pathologist. The three subjects are in an EIP Reading group and an EIP Math group

together. Two of the subjects receive 40 minutes of tutor time each week provided by

middle school students. The tutor works with the subjects on letter and sound

recognitions. The third subject does not work with a middle school tutor due to her

speech/language disorder. This student does however; work with a certified teacher for

20 minutes a day working on social and language skills. All three students work extra

time on SuccessMaker Math and Reading computer program.

The kindergarten class that served as the control was at the same school and had

about the same make-up of the subject intervention group. Three kindergarten teachers

also participated in this study as evaluators of my instructional plan. One teacher had

been teaching for 20 years, one teacher for four years and the last teacher was on her

second year. Two of the teachers had only taught kindergarten and the other teacher had

taught first grade as well as pre-k over the years.


Procedures and Data Collection Methods

Action research for this intervention started with the creation of an instructional

plan (see Appendix A). Next, a colleague reviewed the intervention instructional plan.

Based on the test scores from the Lexia Test administered in March 2011, three subjects

had the intervention and the other kindergarten classroom did not. The purpose of this

action research was to determine if an intervention will increase scores on the May 2011

testing window. The intervention goal was to raise each student’s score to 25.

The intervention was incorporated into the small group reading time in which the

three subjects are grouped into together. The intervention was two 45 minute segments a

week presented by the teacher and the teacher assistant. The intervention began in March

and ended in May. The intervention consisted of using letter and sound cards, picture

cards, sight word cards, selected reading passages, letter matching game, sound/picture

game, sound tub items, phonemic awareness activities, chants recalling letter and

corresponding sounds, and motions to recall letters and sounds.

During the time of the intervention, a reflective journal was kept by me so that

thoughts, ideas, and observations would be recorded. Using journal prompts (see

Appendix B) the journal entries were a combination of the teacher and the teacher

assistant. The subjects also kept a picture journal. Based on starters provided (see

Appendix C), they wrote and colored pictures of the material they were learning and how

they felt about their progress. The purpose of the journals was to see which parts of the

intervention worked, which ones need improvement, and which ones did not work at all.

The teacher of the control group did not change her teaching methods during the

research time frame. She used the same teaching methods that she had used all year long.


At the end of the intervention, the Lexia Test was given to the three subjects and

the control group. These scores were used to determine whether or not the interventions

proved to be successful in raising the Lexia Testing scores as composed to those of the

control group.

A teacher focus group was used for this study to collect qualitative data. The

focus group consisted of the three other kindergarten teachers for the control groups. I

feel that the focus group had beneficial experience to help with this research study. The

questions asked to the focus group were developed by me based on the literature

presented in Chapter Two of this study (see Appendix D).

The procedures and data collection methods are aligned with my focus questions

and research. The data shell (see Table 3.1) shows how the focus questions, literature,

and data collection were aligned and analyzed.


Table 3.1. Data Shell

Focus Question Literature Sources

Type: Method,Data, Validity

How are data analyzed?

Rationale

What is the most effective way to implement an intervention for kindergarten reading readiness?

Cooke, Kretlow, & Helf (2010)

Daily, Chafouleas, & Skinner (2005)

Caldwell (2005)

Type of Method:Instructional Plan and IP Interview

Type of Data:Qualitative

Type of Validity:Content

Coded for themes:RecurringDominantEmerging

Looking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors

What effects will an intervention have on students’ academic achievement?

Block (2003)

Papadopoulos, Charalambous, Kanari, & Loizou (2004)

Slavin (2003)

Type of Method: Lexia Reading Test

Type of Data:Quantitative,Nominal

Type of Validity:Content

Dependent TIndependent T

To determine if there are significant differences between means from one group tested twice, significant differences between means from two independent groups

How will teachers and students feel about the intervention?

Block (2003)

MacDonald & Figueredo (2010)

Papadopoulos, Charalambous, Kanari, & Loizou (2004)

Type of Method:Reflective Journal, Student Pictograph,Focus Group

Type of Data:Qualitative, Nominal

Type of Validity:Construct

Coded for themes:RecurringDominantEmerging

Looking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors.


Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias

Validity, reliability, dependability, and bias of instruments and outcomes are very

important when conducting action research. Validity is the property of an assessment

tool that shows that the tool does what it says it does (Salkind, 2010). Reliability is

defined by Salkind (2010) as whether an instrument would produce the same results

consistently. Dependability is closely related to the concepts of accuracy and consistency

(Salkind, 2010). Bias is the quality of an assessment instrument that offends or unfairly

penalizes a group of individuals (Popham, 2008).

Focus question one of this action research study ask what is the most effective

way to implement an intervention for kindergarten reading readiness. The data gathering

methods consisted of an instructional plan and interview. The Lexia test was used to

collect interval data from both the intervention group and the control group. Qualitative

data were used in this study. Content validity was ensured through the comparative

design of the research between and within the intervention group and the control group.

Reliability is assured using a test-retest correlation for dependent t-test. Dependability is

in tack by maintaining well organized data and through complete and accurate supporting

data. Steps have been taken to assure absence-of-bias. Offensiveness occurs when

negative stereotypes of certain subgroup members are presented in a test (Popham, 2008).

Unfair bias arises when a student’s test performance is distorted because of the student’s

group membership. Disparate impact occurs if scores of different groups are decidedly

differently (Popham, 2008). No part of the intervention or Lexia test will distort a

student’s performance based on bias.


The second focus question in this action research study addressees the effects that

an intervention will have on students’ academic achievement. The Lexia test was used to

collect pre and post test quantitative data. Content validity shows the student’s ability

skills of each session tested. The test shows reliability because it is a county wide

standardized test that is used by all students in grades kindergarten through fifth grade.

Data collection and treatment are kept consistent to give dependable results. There are no

biases that would affect the results of the assessment.

How will teachers and students feel about the intervention process is the goal of

focus question three. The researcher kept a journal regarding the intervention process.

The students involved in the intervention process kept a pictograph journal. A teacher

focus group consisting of three other kindergarten teachers and the speech and language

pathologist was also used. This qualitative data will show the feelings and thoughts of

the teachers and the involved students. The content matter is reliable and dependable due

to the personal connections of the teacher and students. Data collection and treatment are

kept consistent. The length of time for data collection is persistent and prolonged. There

are no biases that would show in the teacher journal or student pictograph.

Analysis of Data

Mixed methods were used to collect and analyze data for the research in this

study. For focus question one, the qualitative data of the study was collected in the form

of an instructional plan rubric and interview from three kindergarten teachers. Data from

each of these methods were analyzed by coding to establish themes that related to the

study focus questions.


Focus question two represents the quantitative data section of this study. A

dependent t-test and an independent t-test will be used to analyze the pre/post test data.

These data were collected in the form of a pre-test and a post-test that was administered

to both the intervention group and the control group. The resulting quantitative data were

analyzed in two ways. A dependent t-test for dependent means was used to determine the

change between the pre/post tests within each group. An independent t-test was used to

determine the gains from the intervention group and the control group. The gains of the

intervention group were analyzed and compared to the gains of the control group. An

effect size analysis will be used on both t-test.

Focus question three data was collected through qualitative data. Qualitative data

were looked at and analyzed by looking at the attitudes and feelings of the intervention

group through student pictographs and a reflective journal by the teacher. The

pictographs and reflective journal added to the results of the pre-test and post-test for the

intervention group. A teacher focus group provided details regarding feelings,

experiences, and overall thoughts regarding interventions. Data collection from each of

these methods were analyzed by coding to establish themes that relate to the focus

question.

Validation of this study was determined by the faculty review process. Eisner

(1991) calls the faculty review process a ‘Consensual Validation’ meaning that the study

was approved by faculty. Results of this action research study were tied to the theories

from the review of literature in chapter two ensuring consistency. Denzin and Lincoln

(1998) describe the cycling back to the literature review and comparing information as

‘Epistemological Validation.’


Credibility for this study is noted through the use of multiple data sources.

Instructional plan, interviews, reflective journal, student pictograph, and the Lexia test

are included in this study. Eisner (1991), calls this process ‘Structural Corroboration’, in

where a confluence of evidence comes together to form a compelling whole. Data was

presented fairly throughout the entire study using opposing points of view. Great care

was taken to ensure precision and accuracy so that the researcher can present a solid

argument, coherent case and have strong evidence to assert judgments. Eisner (1991)

refers to this as ‘Rightness of Fit.’

The transferability of the intervention plan and strategies that were proven

beneficial to learning outcomes for the students and the teacher are passed on to others to

be used in their classrooms. The intervention process should begin at the beginning of

the school year to guarantee the best results. This process is defined as ‘Referential

Adequacy’ according to Eisner (1991).

Transformational outcomes are expected from this study. Kinchloe & McLaren,

(1998) stated that ‘Catalytic Validity’ is the degree to which you anticipate an action

research study to change and transform the participants, subjects, and or school. The

changes brought on by this study will be positive and rewarding for all the individuals

involved. The results will be shared with school personnel and school officials.


CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

In this chapter, the results from this action research study will be explained and

presented. Results from the data collection will be organized and presented within each

focus question.

Implementing a Kindergarten Readiness Intervention Program

A kindergarten reading readiness intervention program was implemented into a

small group of kindergarten students over a time period of eight weeks. The Lexia

Reading Assessment (session four) pre-test was given to the students in the intervention

group and to the students in the control group prior to beginning the intervention process.

During the intervention the students were shown flash cards containing nonsense

words (words students must sound out), sight words, and story samples. The intervention

students used games and chants/songs to learn how to sound non-sense words. The

students were involved in activities that reinforced the use of sight words by sight word

coloring pages, writing the sight words, and using the sight words in sentences. The

students also practiced reading sample reading passages from Full Circle Reading

Program.

The students used their intervention materials two sessions a week at one hour per

session. Two of the students also received an extra twenty minutes a day from fifth grade

tutors. The third student received an extra forty- five minutes a week from the speech

and language pathologist. At the end of the intervention, a post test was given to both

groups. The post test was the Spring session of the Lexia Reading Assessment.

The intervention group showed gains from the pre test to the post test. Data also

shows a small gain in the control group from pre test to post test. The following tables


show data analysis of the intervention group from pre test to post test and the control

group from pre test to post test.

Table 4.1:

Pre Test for Intervention Group and Control Group

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Intervention Group

Control Group

Mean 3.6666666673.91666

7

Variance 14.0606060618.8106

1Observations 12 12Pooled Variance 16.43560606Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 22t Stat -0.15105071P(T<=t) one-tail 0.440656101t Critical one-tail 1.717144335P(T<=t) two-tail 0.881312202t Critical two-tail 2.073873058

Table 4.2:

Post Test for Intervention Group and Control Group

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Intervention Group

ControlGroup

Mean 5.583333333 4.666666667

Variance 19.71969697 22.96969697

Observations 12 12

Pooled Variance 21.34469697

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

df 22


t Stat 0.486006489

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.315884142

t Critical one-tail 1.717144335

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.631768285

t Critical two-tail 2.073873058

Table 4.3:Intervention and Control Group Pre and Post Test Comparison

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Intervention Group(Pre test)

InterventionGroup (Post test)

Mean 3.666666667 5.583333333Variance 14.06060606 19.71969697Observations 12 12Pearson Correlation 0.940858828Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 11t Stat -4.244464616P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000689247t Critical one-tail 1.795884814P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001378495t Critical two-tail 2.200985159

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Control Group(Pre test)

Control Group(Post test)

Mean 3.916666667 4.666666667Variance 18.81060606 22.96969697

Observations 12 12Pearson Correlation 0.991324742Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 11t Stat -3.446737588


P(T<=t) one-tail 0.00272969t Critical one-tail 1.795884814P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00545938t Critical two-tail 2.200985159

An independent t-test was performed to compare the gains of the intervention

group with those gains of the control group (refer to table 4.3). Significant gains were

found from the pre test to the post test. The control group also showed gains from the pre

test to the post test. An effect size calculation was also used to determine gains. Effect

size is the degree to which the statistic is significant. The intervention group had an

effect size of .22 which shows gains. The control group has an effect size of .08 which

shows a small gain. This indicates much more significant gain by the intervention group.

Qualitative data was gathered in the form of a teacher journal, teacher

observations, teacher focus group, and student pictographs. The journal entries were

written the day of an intervention group meeting. The student pictographs were

completed weekly. The data from these measures were analyzed by coding to establish

themes that related to the focus questions.

Effects of an Intervention Program

During the intervention all three students learned all of the capital and lowercase

letters, and all consonant letter sounds. This was a great milestone for the students. They

were (finally) able to add their name to the “I know all of the Letters” banner that hangs

in the room. Knowing all of the letters and sounds is the first building block of

kindergarten readiness. Students must know all sounds and letters in order to begin

sounding out words and reading words. Students are also able to sound out words by

individual sounds and write them. Students must be able to sound out and write their


words by the second half of the kindergarten year. We teachers rarely spell the words for

them. For the intervention group being able to sound out and write their words was a big

accomplishment.

Two of the students mastered three sections of the non-sense words portion of the

test. One student did not master the skill due mainly to her speech and language

disorders. The same can be said for the sight word portion of the test. Two students read

most, if not all of the sight words that they were shown. One student did not read any of

the words correctly. The intervention students showed great gains on the reading

informal section of the test. Two students read to the third pre-primer reading passage

with 81% and 79% correct word recognition. The other student read only the first pre-

primer reading passage with 56% correct word recognition. This is in comparison of the

pre test when all three students only read the first pre-primer story with correct word

recognition scores of 0%, 6%, and 56%.

The intervention students started recognizing their sight words as they saw them

in their Full Circle Reading program, around the room, school building, computer

programs, and in their library books. They were excited to recognize them in their

surroundings. I also noticed a difference in their daily class journal writing. Two of the

students would use their learned sight words in their writings. They were proud to know

that they could write words independently.

Students and Teachers Feelings Toward Interventions

The students enjoyed their intervention time with me and the teacher assistant.

This was most likely the only time that they got to sit down with an adult who cared

about them and tried to help them learn. They saw that we were helping them and they


so desperately wanted to learn the sounds and words like the other students in the room.

When the students came to our tables for reading groups they knew it was time to learn.

The students enjoyed the songs and chants, reading passages and sight word

cards. They also enjoyed the games and paper activities that we used to reinforce the

skills. They were not so fond of the non-sense word cards. I believe that they did not like

the non-sense words because they have to sound the words out. The intervention students

do not have high skills of sounding words out. Therefore this skill remained difficult for

them during the eight weeks of the intervention time period. Students that were not in the

intervention group were very curious as to what our groups were doing during the

intervention times. They noticed the intervention group learning and having fun. They

too wanted in on the fun learning.

My assistant and I had mixed feelings going into the intervention plan. We knew

we had a tough job ahead of us. I had high hopes that the intervention plan would work.

She was a little skeptical. She is not as trained on differentiation as I am. Working with

very low academic achieving students and trying to get them to learn new and

challenging material was new to her. By the end of the intervention time frame both my

assistant and I had learned so much about teaching to low achieving students. We have

to keep in mind that all students can learn we just have to present the information in

various ways and styles.

A focus group consisting of three kindergarten teachers and our school speech and

language pathologist was also a source of data collection for this action study. The

teachers were asked questions about my intervention instructional plan and if they

thought interventions would help raise Lexia Reading Assessment scores.


The focus group began with the question, “Do you think kindergarten students

can raise their Lexia scores through an intervention program?” All four teachers said

Yes. Teacher 1 stated that an intervention program isolates skills with which the students

are struggling. I then asked the teachers “Do you think students should learn the material

like everyone else and raise their scores on their own? All agreed and said No.

Teacher 2 explained that students need to be given initial instructional before expecting

them to do it on their own. “Why should teachers want to intervene and help raise

students’ scores? The school’s speech and language pathologist stated that it is our

responsibility to differentiate our curriculum and instruction so that all students have the

opportunity to be successful. If students need specific interventions to raise their scores,

then the teacher should be willingly and gladly in order to help their students be

successful. Lastly I asked my teachers if they thought my intervention plan will be

successful. The three kindergarten students stated yes while the speech and language

pathologist stated that I may have a difficult time with one student due to her speech and

language disorder.

Summary

The quantitative results of this action research study proved that an intervention

for reading readiness did help raise students’ scores on the Lexia Reading Assessment.

The students were presented the material more frequently than the control group and

therefore retained much more of the information. A dependent t-test and an independent

t-test were done on both the intervention group and the control group to compare pre and

post tests data.


The qualitative results of this action research study were in the form of teacher

observation, teacher journal, student pictograph, and a teacher focus group. The data

gathered from this part of the research provided insight and strategies for improving

reading readiness in kindergarten students.

CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The purpose of this action research was to determine if a reading intervention plan

would increase the basic kindergarten readiness skills of students in kindergarten.

Exploring effective strategies to build letter and sound recognition, sight word recalling,

and reading comprehension for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds was an

important part of this study. Results from comparable data did show that the intervention

had gains on increasing letter and sound recognition, sight word recalling, and reading

comprehension. In this last chapter, results from the action research will be analyzed and

discussed.

Analysis of Results

The object of focus question one is what is the most effective way to implement

an intervention for kindergarten reading readiness. The reading readiness intervention

was implemented into three kindergarten students’ small group reading time for a period

of eight weeks. Three other kindergarten students in another classroom served as the

control group. Both groups were given a pre-test (Lexia Session 4) before the

intervention and a post-test (Lexia Spring Session) after the intervention time frame.


Cooke et al., (2010) states that substantial research supports the need for early

intervention efforts for students at risk for failure. In the study, a group of kindergarten

students received small group reading intervention across the full school year. The other

group began the same intervention mid-year. Students with a full year of intervention

outperformed those who had only half year of intervention. The early emphasis on

academic skills has been recommended by national committees and organizations such as

The National Research Council’s Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in

Young Children and the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Results of experimental studies also support the need for early academic intervention for

students at risk for reading failure to ensure academic success in later grades (Cooke et

al., 2010). Knowing that the kindergarten years are a critical time of growth for students’

emergent-literacy skills, reading readiness interventions placed during the course of the

kindergarten year give students an additional source of support at a critical time in their

development (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). MacDonald and Figueredo (2010) state

that “An intervention program must be specific and focused, not just the more of the

same thing over a longer period of time” (p. #405).

Knowing this effective information I, the researcher, will start my intervention

program with at risk students at the beginning of the upcoming school year. I feel that

the students from the intervention group of my study benefited greatly. Their sight word

and reading skills improved and this helped prepare them for first grade. I am interested

to see the effects of implementing my intervention program at the beginning of the school

year and following through with it to the end of the school year.


The object of focus question two is what effects an intervention will have on

kindergarten students’ academic achievement. Quantitative data was analyzed through

different test. A t-test for dependent means was used to determine the intervention and

control groups’ scores before the intervention began. A t-test for dependent means was

used to determine the intervention and control groups’ scores after the intervention.

Lastly, an independent t-test was used to compare pre and post test from both groups

during the intervention time frame.

Data results of the dependent t-test showed that the intervention group showed

gains from pre test to post test. The gains were significant at the P<.06 level. The

control group showed a small gain between the pre and post test according to the data.

The independent t-test showed that the intervention group and more significant gains than

those of the control group. The effect size of the intervention group was .22. The effect

size of the control group was .08. Effect size is defined as the degree to which the

statistic is significant (Salkind, 2010). A small effect size can range from 0 to .20. A

large effect size can be any number above .50. According to the numbers the

intervention group made gains greater than the control group.

During action research studies, validity and reliability of instruments and

outcomes are most important. Validity is an instrument that measures what it is suppose

to measure. Reliability is whether an instrument can produce the same results

consistently. A correlation for test/retest reliability reinforced the reliability of the

pre/post test data. The matching design of the research between and within the

intervention and control groups secured criterion validity. Three kindergarten colleagues


reviewed the pre and post test instrument to rid any concerns of bias. The testing

instrument is used yearly and teachers are very familiar with testing program.

The object of focus question three is how the teachers and intervention students

will feel about the intervention. Teacher observations and a reflective journal were used

by the researcher and teacher assistant to collect qualitative data. The intervention

students kept a pictograph to express their feelings toward the intervention. A teacher

focus group of three other kindergarten teachers and the speech-language pathologist

was used to share thoughts and suggestions regarding my intervention plan.

Each member of the focus group said they would like to implement the

intervention plan for the upcoming school year. As a team we decided that we would

start the intervention in September and continue it to December. At this time we will

collect data via Lexia assessment. Students not meeting set requirements will remain in

the intervention program until the end of the year. Having a teacher focus group allowed

me to share my intervention plan and ideas to others on my teaching team.

Discussion

The reading readiness intervention plan produced positive gains through multiple

reasons. First and foremost, I and my assistant teacher worked tirelessly with the

intervention group. We worked hard at providing fun, engaging learning materials and

plans for the students. We knew that in order for the intervention to be effective we had

to have effective plans and materials. Our relationship with the intervention group grew

strong. They loved having the comfort of two people who were willing to help them in

any way possible.


The findings of the intervention program show that interventions are successful.

Previous data and this intervention data help make the point that knowledge of the subject

matter and practice with the subject matter turns into success. After much reading and

researching about interventions, I became aware of an abundant amount of new

information. I plan to take the new found information and apply it to future at-risk

students.

Credibility for this action research was ensured by the use of several data sources

in response to the focus questions. Data were collected for the first focus question by an

Instructional Plan Rubric and Interview, along with the implementation of the

intervention program. For focus question two, The Lexia Reading Assessment data was

used in all tests. The dependent t-tests showed gains from the pre-test to the post-test for

both groups and the independent t-test showed comparable data for the two groups. For

focus question three, a teacher focus group, reflective journal, and student pictographs

served as qualitative data. Data from this study were compared to previous studies on

interventions that were discussed in chapter two. Combining all data sources together to

form a large body of evidence is called “epistemological validity” (Eisner, 1991).

The analysis of data for this action research included all data including that which

did not express the views of the researcher. Data was shown to be fair in all aspects.

Quantitative data were presented in the form of results from dependent t-test and

independent t-test. Qualitative data was recorded in written form and also compared to

previous studies. Precision was secured and the results were established based on the

evidence drawn from the analysis. All evidence and analysis of data proves that a

reading readiness intervention had a major effect on the increase of letter/sound


recognition, sight word recall, and reading comprehension. This is referred to as

“rightness of fit” according to Eisner.

Implications

The information from this action research study confirms that a kindergarten

reading readiness intervention can increase a student’s ability to recall letters and sounds,

sight words, and reading comprehension skills. Based on the quantitative data from this

study, I plan to use the intervention with more students for the upcoming school year. I

feel that the intervention would be very helpful for students scoring at the bottom fifty

percent of the class. The three other kindergarten teachers on my team will also be

incorporating the intervention into their classrooms as well. This strategy is known as

“referential adequacy” according to Eisner (1991). I have also shared this intervention

study with kindergarten teachers at other local schools. They too liked the idea of

beginning a reading readiness intervention at the beginning of school instead of waiting

until mid-year. The process of the intervention is explained in great detail in the

Instructional Plan. Any teacher interested in incorporating the intervention into her

classroom can be guided through the plan.

Based on the student pictographs, the intervention group enjoyed our learning

sessions. They drew themselves and their teachers on most of the pages looking very

happy. Other drawings showed pictures of new words that they had learned and

drawings of the reading passages that they had mastered to read.

Students in the intervention group changed for the better during their intervention

time. As they mastered a skill they were rewarded. The intervention brought on much

needed self-confidence that they had previously lacked. The students were more


confident in other areas as well such as independent writing, morning work, and speaking

to their peers. Students not in the intervention group took note of the intervention

group’s “fun” learning and they too wanted to join in. Due to their notion and excitement

of learning I plan to begin the intervention with more students at the beginning of the

year.

I had no idea that this research study would engage not only the students as

learners but also me. I am very intrigued at a student’s learning process. I feel that this

research study helped me be more aware of differentiation among students as it relates to

students’ reading readiness skills. “Catalytic Validity” occurred as a result of both

teacher and children witnessing what the power of reading skills can do and how much

can be learned through such a circumstance. I believed the intervention in this action

study benefited the students because it allowed then to take in material and then apply it

to their everyday classroom assignments.

Impact on Student Learning

Based on the quantitative data presented in this study it is proven that a reading

readiness intervention does work. The post test scores of the control group were not

much lower than that of the intervention group. However, the intervention group did

make drastic changes. Altering the way we approach the diversity of our students is not

an easy job. Looking at our students critically does not happen overnight, rather it is an

ongoing journey. Through working with the intervention group and conducting research

on intervention I am more apt to providing and sharing information regarding

interventions and how they can work.

Recommendations for Future Research


The topic of reading readiness interventions could be researched further. An

intervention plan could be implemented into first grade for the students that had the

intervention in kindergarten. It would be interesting to see their Lexia scores at the end

of first grade after receiving two years of intervention. I learned a tremendous amount of

knowledge regarding intervention thought out this study. I will implement the

intervention plan into my upcoming class and many more classes to come.

References

Aiken, N.L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories:

The contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 235-251. Retrieved from:

doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.100.2.235

Block, C. C. (2003). Literacy difficulties: Diagnosis and instruction for reading

specialists and classroom teachers (end ed.). Boston: Allyn and Boston.

Books, S. (2004). Poverty and schooling in the U.S.: Context and consequences.

Cladem Heights, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Caldwell, J. S., & Leslie, L. (2005). Intervention strategies to follow informal reading

inventory assessment: So what do I do now? Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Children Now. (2009). Kindergarten Readiness Data: Improving children’s success in

school. Education policy Brief, 1-17.

Cooke, N.L., Kretlow, A.G., & Helf, S. (2010). Supplemental reading help for

kindergarten students: how early should you start? Preventing School Failure, 54

(3), 137-144. doi: 10.1080/10459880903492924

Coyne, M.D., McCoach, B., & Kapp, S. (2007, Spring). Vocabulary intervention for

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.235


kindergarten students: comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction

and incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, (30), 74-88.

Dailey, E. J., Chafouleas, S., & Skinner, C.H. (2005) Interventions for reading problems:

Designing and evaluating effective strategies. New York: Guilford Press.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),

The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues (pp. 407-430).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.

Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research competencies for

analysis and applications (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,

Inc.

Georgia Professional Standards commission [GAPSC] (n.d.). Georgia Framework for

Teaching. Retrieved from

www.gapsc.com/EducatorPreparation/GeorgiaFramework.asp

Gillet, J.W., Temple, C., & Crawford, A.N. (2004). Understanding reading problems:

Assessment and instruction (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.

In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscaper of qualitative research:

Theories and issues (pp 260-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

LaGrange College Education Department. (2010). The Conceptual Framework.

LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College.

MacDonald, C., & Figueredo, L. (2010). Closing the gap early: Implementing a literacy

intervention for at-risk kindergartens in urban schools. The Reading Teacher,

63(5), 404-419. doi:10.1598/RT.63.5.6

McCartney, K., Dearing, E., Taylor, B.A., & Bub, K.L. (2007). Quality child care

http://www.gapsc.com/EducatorPreparation/GeorgiaFramework.asp


supports the achievement of low-income children: Direct and indirect pathways

through caregiving and the home environment. Journal of Applied Development

Psychology, 28 (5-6), 411-426. Retrieved from

doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.06.010

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2010). NBPTS-Five Core

Propositions. Retrieved from: http://www.nbpts.org/the standards/the five core

propositions

Papadopoulos, T.C., Charalambous, A., Kanari, A., & Loizou, M. (2004). Kindergarten

cognitive intervention for reading difficulties. European Journal of Psychology of

Education, XIX (79-105).

Payne, R.K. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty (4th revised ed.). Highlands,

TX: aha! Process, Inc.

Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.).

Boston: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.

Salkind, N.J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd Ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scanlon, D.M., Vellutino, F.R., Small, S.G., Fanuele, D.P., & Sweeney, J.M. (2005).

Severe reading difficulties-can they be prevented? A comparison of prevention

and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13(4), 209-227.

Simmons, D.C., Kame’enui, B.H., Coyne M.D., Stoolmiller, M., Santoro, L.E., Smith,

S.B., Beck, C.B., & Kaufman, N.K. (2007). Attributes of effective and efficient

kindergarten reading intervention: An examination of instructional times and

design specificity. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 40(4), 331-347.

Slavin, R.E. (2003). Educational Psychology: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Tankersley, K. (2003). The threads of reading: Strategies for literacy development.

Notchess,VI: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

http://www.nbpts.org/the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.06.010


Appendix A

Kindergarten Reading Readiness Intervention Instructional Plan

Standard Essential Question(s) Activity Materials VocabularyWeek 1 ELAKR3

b. Recognizes and names all uppercase and lowercase letters

of the alphabet

What are consonants? Students will be shown the letter cards and will call out the

letter name.Students will point to a letter when called out by teacher.

Saxon Phonics letter cardsAlphamotion cards

Full Circle Reading Book

Uppercase andlowercase

letters

Week 2 ELAKR3b. Recognizes and names all

uppercase and lowercase letters of the alphabet

What are vowels? Students will be shown the vowel cards and will call out

the vowel name.Students will point to vowel when called out by teacher.

Saxon Phonics letter cardsAlphamotion cards


Short vowels

Week 3 ELAKR3c. Matches all consonant and

short vowel sounds to appropriate letters

What are the consonant letter sounds?

Students will identify letter sound by choosing correct item

from sound tub.

Consonant letter sound tubsSaxon Phonics letter cardsFull Circle Reading Book

Consonant letter sounds

Week 4 ELAKR3c. Matches all consonant and

short vowel sounds to appropriate letters

What are the vowel letter sounds?

Students will identify vowel sound by choosing correct item

from sound tub.

Vowel letter sound tubsSaxon Phonics letter cardsFull Circle Reading Book

Vowel letter sounds

Week 5 ELAKR2b. Identifies component sounds (phonemes and combinations of

phonemes) in spoken words

How do I know which sounds are in a word?

Students will sound out CVC word, match it to picture, and pick out letters to spell word.

Saxon Phonics letter cardsLetter tiles and Picture Cards

Full Circle Reading BookPhonemic Awareness Kit

Sounds

Words

Week 6 ELAKR2b. Identifies component sounds (phonemes and combinations of

phonemes) in spoken words

How do I know which sounds are in a word?

Students will sound out CVC word, match it to picture, and pick out letters to spell word.

Saxon Phonics letter cardsLetter tiles and Picture Cards

Full Circle Reading BookPhonemic Awareness Kit

Sounds

Words

Week 7 ELAKR2c. Blends and segments

syllables in spoken words

How do I blend sounds to make words?

Students will be introduced to blends.

Students will put two letter tiles together to make a blend.

Cupp Cards (blends)Blending letter cards and

picture cardsFull Circle Reading Book

Blending sounds


Week 8 ELAKR2c. Blends and segments

syllables in spoken words

How do I blend sounds to make words?

Students will put two letter tiles together to make a blend.

Students will look at a blend picture and determine what the

blend is.

Cupp Cards (blends)Blending letter cards and

picture cardsFull Circle Reading Book

Blendingsounds

Week 9 ELAKR3e. Applies learned phonics

skills when reading words and sentences in stories

How do I learn new words?

The student will read simple sentences using picture clues to

help.

Sentence StripsFull Circle Reading Book

Sounds

Words

Week 10

ELAKR3e. Applies learned phonics

skills when reading words and sentences in stories


The student will read simple sentences using CVC words.

Sentence StripsFull Circle Reading Book

Decodable words

Week 11

ELAKR4a. Reads previously taught high frequency words at the rate of 30 words correct per minute


The student will be shown Sight Words on cards.

The student will be shown picture Sight Word cards is

needed.

Sight Word Cards (various decks)

Sight Word Picture Cards (various decks)


Sight Words

Week 12

ELAKR4a. Reads previously taught high frequency words at the rate of 30 words correct per minute

How do I know what words mean?

The student will be shown Sight Words on Cards.

The student will read as many as possible in a minute.

Sight Word Cards (various decks)

Sight Word Picture Cards (various decks)


Sight Words

Week 13

ELAKR4b. Reads previously taught grade-level text with appropriate expression

How do I read with expression?

The student will listen to the teacher read a short story. The

teacher will describe voice changes to show expression.

Reading A-Z ReadersSample reading passages from

LexiaFull Circle Reading Book

Expression

Fluency

Week 14

ELAKR4b. Reads previously taught

grade-level text with appropriate expression

How do I read with fluency?

The student will echo read a short passage with the teacher.The student will read the same passage independently using

expression.

Reading A-Z ReadersSample reading passages from

LexiaFull Circle Reading Book

Expression

Fluency


Kindergarten Reading Readiness InterventionEvaluation Rubric for Instructional Plan

1. Do you think kindergarten students can raise their Lexia scores through an intervention program?

2. Do you think the students should learn the curriculum and raise scores on their own?

3. Why should teachers want to intervene and help raise student’s scores?

4. Do you recommend any other materials and or technology to aid in my intervention?

5. Do you have an intervention program that you implement on students who are lacking in kindergarten readiness skills? If so what do you do?

6. As a teacher do you think my intervention plan will be successful?


Appendix B

Reflective Journal Questions

1. What were three main things I learned from this weekly intervention session?

2. What did we not cover that I expected we should?

3. What was new or surprising to me?

4. What have I changed my mind about as a result of this intervention?

5. One thing I learned in this weekly intervention session that I may use in the future

is…

6. I am still unsure about…

7. Ideas for action based on this weekly session…

8. What I most liked about this session was…

9. What I most disliked about this session was…

10. Miscellaneous interesting facts I learned from the intervention…


Appendix C

Pictograph Journal Starters

1. Draw your thoughts on how you feel about our session today.

2. Draw how you feel after naming all letters of the alphabet.

3. Draw how you feel after matching all sounds to their letters.

4. Draw how you feel after reading your set of sight words.

5. Draw a picture of the word…

6. Draw a picture of the story you mastered reading.

7. Write a new sight word that you have learned to spell.

8. Draw a picture of the sight word.

9. Write a sentence using one sight word.

10. Draw a picture of your sentence.


Appendix D

Questions for Focus Group

1. Do you think kindergarten students can raise their Lexia scores through an

intervention program?

2. Do you think the students should learn the curriculum and raise scores on their

own?

3. Why should teachers want to intervene and help raise a student’s scores?

4. Do you recommend any materials and or technology to aid in my

intervention?

5. Have you ever implemented a reading readiness intervention into your

classroom?

6. If so what was your instructional plan for the intervention?

7. Why do you think students enter kindergarten lacking readiness skills?

8. Should Pre-K standards be higher in order to prepare students for the more

rigorous standards facing kindergarten students?

9. After receiving an intervention program in kindergarten, do you think it would

be beneficial for students to carry their intervention plan with them to first

grade?

10. Would you be interested in implementing my intervention program into your

classroom?

home.lagrange.eduhome.lagrange.edu/educate/Advanced Programs/M.Ed. D… · Web viewWith the...

Documents

Transcript of home.lagrange.eduhome.lagrange.edu/educate/Advanced Programs/M.Ed. D… · Web viewWith the...