Running head: SCRIPTED CURRICULUM AND STATE READING ASSESSMENT
1
Impact Scripted Reading Curriculum has on Student Performance on State Reading Assessment
Jacquelyn Loyd
University of St. Thomas
SCRIPTED CURRICULUM AND STATE READING ASSESSMENT
2
Impact Scripted Reading Curriculum has on Student Performance on State Reading Assessment
In response to the ever growing pressure from today’s high stakes testing arena, language
arts and reading classrooms across the nation are moving away from teacher created lessons and
more often towards a scripted curriculum. A scripted curriculum provides the teacher with
premade lessons including the materials and an actual script of what to say during direct
instruction as well as questions for discussion and conferencing with students.
It has become especially common for preschools to seek out research based,
commercially produced scripted curriculums to help address literacy among early readers
(Justice, 2010). One major problem with commercially produced curriculums is the high cost of
materials and training for staff. Justice and her colleagues created “Read it Again” (RIA) as a
low cost and low preparation alternative. Their 30 week study included 66 students who were
either taught the regular curriculum or 60 RIA lessons. Results showed students who
participated in the RIA lessons scored noticeably higher in language performance on the spring
administration than those who did not (Justice, 2010). The RIA program required minimal cost,
professional development support, and teachers reported the ability to easily implement the
curriculum and meet the needs of their students (Justice, 2010). Although this study shows
promising results for a scripted curriculum it is limited to early and emergent literacy skills and
does not imply that the scripts work at all levels or improved scores on state assessments.
Teachers have a variety of responses to the use of scripted curriculum. Eisenbach
detailed three different responses she noted in her own department when the campus began
implementing a scripted curriculum program (2012). The first she labeled “The Accommodator”
who chose to set aside personal beliefs in place of the mandated curriculum. Eisenbach notes
that this approach takes a negative toll on the psyche of the educator. The second was called
SCRIPTED CURRICULUM AND STATE READING ASSESSMENT
3
“The Negotiator” who selects the components of the mandated curriculum that will work best for
individual students and supplements with their own instruction. This approach allows the
educator to both meet the mandated expectation of using the scripted curriculum while
continuing to be a practitioner actively seeking the best instruction for their students. The final
approach, “The Rebel”, completely ignores the scripted curriculum and maintains instructing
students as they see fit. Though this allows them to maintain control of the classroom, Eisenbach
notes that this can create conflict with the campus administration who is mandating the scripted
approach (2012). Clearly, the teacher’s mindset and approach towards the scripted curriculum
will have an impact on the level of effectiveness of the scripted curriculum.
The use of a scripted curriculum not only the teachers’ mindsets, but also their
instruction. Ainsworth, et. al found that the use of a scripted curriculum created consistency and
continuity across the four first grade classrooms they studied (2011). When comparing reading
instruction across the observed classrooms, observation notes showed a majority of similarities
with few differences. Schedule of activities, resources used, and reading instruction strategies
were the same across all four classrooms. Teacher’s survey responses at the end of the study
showed 32.25% strongly agreed and 50% agreed that the required curriculum had changed their
instructional practices (Ainsworth, 2011). Though the study supports a change in instructional
practices, the impact of such changes on student performance was not determined.
Parks and Bridges-Rhoads also explored what impact the use of a scripted curriculum had
on teachers’ instructional practice and found concerning results (2011). The two-year
ethnographic study conducted at a low performing rural preschool classroom in Georgia
observed a classroom teacher and a paraprofessional using a scripted reading curriculum (Parks
& Bridges-Rhoads, 2011). The questioning techniques used in the scripted curriculum mainly
SCRIPTED CURRICULUM AND STATE READING ASSESSMENT
4
included yes or no, one word, and right or wrong responses with the goal to have students answer
correctly as a group (Parks & Bridges-Rhoads, 2011). This questioning technique leaves little
opportunity for the teacher to identify individual children’s strengths and weaknesses or thought
patterns. Which could lead one to consider that without the presence of differentiated
instruction, student performance may not increase like it would if it were present.
Current Study and Hypothesis
Current research has only just begun to look at the various impacts a scripted curriculum
can have on students’ learning, teachers’ mindsets and instructional practices. In the highpressured testing era of today, researchers need to examine the effectiveness of the scripted
curriculum on the bottom line, student achievement. Regardless of all other impacts, if the
scripted curriculum produces the results of student success, then its continued use is supported.
If not, the debate should end there. My proposed research will look to determine what impact a
district generated scripted curriculum for a sixth grade language arts classroom will have on
students’ performance on the state reading assessment, STAAR. I predict that because of the
high quality of the scripted curriculum and the planning time it provides teachers, it will increase
students’ performance on the reading STAAR test more than teacher generated lessons.
Method
Participants
This research will take place at two middle schools, Anthony Middle School and Cook
Middle School, in the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District for the course of one
school year. Two volunteer teachers will asked to participate from the sixth grade ELAR teams,
one from each campus. Each teacher will select two classes to participate in the research. The
four volunteer classes will include the students enrolled in each class. Permission from students’
SCRIPTED CURRICULUM AND STATE READING ASSESSMENT
5
parents and the school district will be required before the research can begin. For each teacher,
one class will follow the district created scripted lessons while the other will complete teacher
created lessons.
Measures
I will use several pieces of data to track the impact of the scripted curriculum on students’
performance on the standardized reading assessment. I will collect the fifth grade reading
STAAR scores for students in all four classes from the previous school year. This will provide a
baseline of performance for each student and will be documented by learning categories.
“During the 2011–2012 school year, reliability for the STAAR test score was estimated using
statistical measures such as internal consistency, classical standard error of measurement,
conditional standard error of measurement, and classification accuracy” (TEA, 2011, p. 109).
Student performance will also be evaluated by collecting scores on the District Progress
Monitoring (DPM) exams which consist of released reading STAAR tests that have been broken
into smaller portions. These exams will provide information about how the students’ are
progressing throughout the year on specific Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). This
data is collected through the district’s Ixplore system which scans answer response sheets and
compiles usable data tables. Teachers will be asked to apply the same test security and
monitoring standards that are used when giving the official state assessment on each of the
DPMs to help ensure validity of the measures.
The final measures used to determine impact will be the students’ performance will
include the sixth grade reading STAAR test. Each measure will focus on the students’ ability to
read, comprehend, and analyze a text by the prescribed grade level standards, TEKS. A follow
up survey will be conducted with teacher’s to gather their opinions on what impact the scripted
SCRIPTED CURRICULUM AND STATE READING ASSESSMENT
6
curriculum had on the students’ performance levels. This survey will consist of questions and
responses provided on a Likert scale.
Design and Procedure
A quasi-experimental research design will be used to determine if a causal relationship
exists between using the scripted lesson curriculum and improved state reading assessment
scores. The majority of the data collected will be quantitative with only the teacher survey
providing qualitative data. Quantitative data will provide comparable data to determine if the
scripted curriculum can positively impact students’ performance on the state reading assessment.
The research will take place over one full school year. I will begin by meeting with the
volunteer teachers from each campus and overview the process with them. The volunteer
teachers will select which classes will be the control group and complete only teacher created
lessons and which will be the experimental group that completes the scripted lessons from the
district provided curriculum. The fifth grade reading STAAR scores will be analyzed for all
students’ participating to get a baseline for where the students are beginning the year.
Teachers will move through the school year using the scripted and teacher generated
lessons as normal. The teachers’ will be asked to keep a detailed log of all lessons taught and
what skills were covered in each which will be submitted to me at the end of the six weeks.
District Progress Monitoring exams (DPMS) are given one time a six weeks. I will pull the
DPM data from the Ixplore system after each administration to begin the comparison between
the control and experimental groups. This process will continue up until the administration of
the state reading assessment, STAAR.
SCRIPTED CURRICULUM AND STATE READING ASSESSMENT
7
The final stages of the research will consist of collecting and analyzing the students’
reading STAAR assessment from each class. This will come from the state provided data reports
and the information will not be available until the end of the school year or early summer. The
volunteer teachers will be asked to complete a ten question survey that asks their opinions on the
use of the scripted lessons and what impact they saw that it may have had on students.
Data Analysis Plan
Quantitative data will include fifth grade STAAR scores, DPM scores, sixth grade
STAAR scores, and teacher survey responses. For the fifth grade reading STAAR test student
results, descriptive statistics will be collected including the mean, median, and standard deviation
for both the control group receiving teacher made lessons and the experimental group
undergoing the scripted curriculum lessons. This standard deviation will be used later to
determine if there is a statistically significant impact on scores on the sixth grade reading
STAAR test. The same descriptive data will be collected by group (control and experimental)
after each test administration, five DPMs and the sixth grade reading STAAR. All data will be
collected as class groups and no individual student data will be analyzed or discussed. Teachers’
lesson plans and survey responses will be reviewed for patterns and used as part of the discussion
in this research plan.
SCRIPTED CURRICULUM AND STATE READING ASSESSMENT
References
Ainsworth, M. T., Ortlieb, E., Cheek, E.H., Pate R.S. & Fetters, C. (2011). First-grade teachers’
perception and implementation of a semi-scripted reading curriculum. Language and
Education, 26(1), 77-90.
Eisenbach, B. (2012). Teacher belief and practice in a scripted curriculum. The Clearing House,
85, 153-156.
Justice, L.M., McGinty, A.S., Cabell S.Q., Kilday C.R., Knighton K., & Huffman, G. (2010).
Language and literacy curriculum supplement for preschoolers who are academically at
risk: a feasibility study. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 161178.
Parks, A. N.., & Bridges-Rhoads, S. (2011). Overly scripted: Exploring the impact of a scripted
literacy curriculum on a preschool teacher’s instructional practices in mathematics.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26, 308-324.
TEA State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR). (2011). Technical Digest,
2011-2012. Retrieved December 2, 2015, from
http://tea.texas.gov/student.assessment/techdigest/yr1112/
8