Walden University
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
This is to certify that the doctoral study by
Katrina Wicker
has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,
and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.
Review Committee
Dr. Linda Gatlin, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty
Dr. Wilma Longstreet, Committee Member, Education Faculty
Provost
Denise DeZolt, Ph.D.
Walden University
2007
ABSTRACT
The Effect of Two Reading Programs on Kindergarten Student’s Reading Readiness
by
Katrina Wicker
M. Ed., Georgia College and State University, 1995
Ed.S., Georgia Southwestern State University, 2002
Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirement for the Degree of
Doctor of Education with a Specialization
In Teacher Leadership
Walden University
August 2007
ABSTRACT
Schools spend significant amounts of money (purchasing computers, textbooks, and
funding programs) attempting to increase student literacy. Appropriate teaching strategies
and tools are needed to accomplish this task. The purpose of this modified quasiexperimental research study was to examine the effect of two reading programs on the
GKAP-R literacy scores of kindergarten students and to identify differences in gain
scores between two instructional approaches. The effect was examined through six
research questions and provided disaggregated data using identified subgroups in
compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act. Students from two classes, one using Dr.
Cupp Readers and another using Phonics K/Harcourt Basal Reading Series, participated
in regular classroom instruction during the school year and were evaluated using the
GKAP-R by their classroom teacher. The researcher gathered GKAP-R literacy section
scores from the participating teachers. Descriptive statistics and independent samples ttests were used to examine differences in student data between groups. The researcher
used SPSS 14.0 for Windows to perform the statistical analyses. Statistically significant
findings showed that the cumulative gains on the literacy section were greater for
students in the Dr. Cupp reading program was more effective in producing academic
gains. The results of this study are beneficial to all kindergarten teachers and publishers
of the identified reading programs in order to aide in increasing student reading
achievement. This study promoted the use of 4 principles of social change: a) inclusion
and equity, b) high expectations, c) system-wide approach, and d) direct social justice
education and intervention.
The Effect of Two Reading Programs on Kindergarten Student’s Reading Readiness
by
Katrina Wicker
M. Ed., Georgia College and State University, 1995
Ed.S., Georgia Southwestern State University, 2002
Doctoral Study Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education with a Specialization
In Teacher Leadership
Walden University
August 2007
DEDICATION
I dedicate this doctoral study to two very important people in my life: my granny,
Hattie, and my father, Alfred. To Granny for all of her years of unconditional love,
attention, prayers, and guidance. She has always been my source of inspiration, both
spiritually and academically. Although she passed away earlier this year and was not able
to be here to see the end result, I know she is looking down from heaven and smiling on
me. I love her and miss her dearly, but know she will always be my source of inspiration
and will continue to be looking after me from her spot amongst all the other angels in
heaven. I would also like to dedicate this doctoral study to my father, Alfred, for instilling
in me the desire to continue my education. He always said, “A good education is
something no one can ever take away from you!” Thank you, daddy, for encouraging me
to pursue my dreams!
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to recognize those individuals who have helped me reach this stage in my
education and complete this doctoral study. First, I would like to thank my faculty mentor
and committee chair, Dr. Linda Gatlin, for without her and her expertise, I would never
be at this stage in my educational endeavor. I also wish to thank my other committee
member, Dr. Wilma Longstreet, for her guidance, support, and expertise. My committee
worked tirelessly to help me complete this research. I appreciate the Laurens County
School System for allowing me to conduct this study. I offer my gratitude to the two
participating teachers in my study, Mrs. Johnnie Sue Greene and Mrs. Stephanie Wood,
who contributed their student data to this research. Finally, I would like to thank my
husband, Kevin, and sons, William and Landon, for their understanding through all the
mood swings, trials, and tribulations during the pursuit of this degree. I love you all!
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES. ........................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
Phonics .....................................................................................................................2
Whole Language ......................................................................................................3
Balanced Literacy ....................................................................................................4
Problem Statement ..............................................................................................................6
Background .........................................................................................................................6
Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program-Revised (GKAP-R) ....................................10
Literature Sources .............................................................................................................11
Need to Know ...................................................................................................................11
Purpose Statement ..............................................................................................................12
Research Questions ...........................................................................................................13
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................15
Social Change ...................................................................................................................18
Limitations and Delimitations ...........................................................................................19
Assumptions.......................................................................................................................20
Definition of Terms ...........................................................................................................21
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................22
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................25
Introduction .......................................................................................................................25
The History of Reading Instruction ...................................................................................25
Jean Piaget ............................................................................................................27
Lev Vygotsky ........................................................................................................29
Howard Gardner ....................................................................................................33
B.F. Skinner ...……… ...........................................................................................34
iii
Dr. Cupp Readers ..............................................................................................................36
Phonics K ..........................................................................................................................41
Harcourt .............................................................................................................................47
Previous Research .............................................................................................................51
Phonemic Awareness ............................................................................................51
Phonics ..................................................................................................................53
Fluency ..................................................................................................................55
Vocabulary ............................................................................................................58
Text Comprehension .............................................................................................60
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................62
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................64
Introduction .......................................................................................................................64
Research Design and Approach ........................................................................................66
Research Questions/Hypothesis ........................................................................................66
Setting ...............................................................................................................................69
Subject Selection and Characteristics ...............................................................................70
Treatment ..........................................................................................................................72
Instrumentation and Materials ..........................................................................................72
Data Collection Procedures................................................................................................73
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................77
Participant’s Rights ............................................................................................................78
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...................................................................................................79
Introduction ........................................................................................................................79
Results – Research Question 1 ...........................................................................................80
Results – Research Question 2 ...........................................................................................83
Results – Research Question 3 ...........................................................................................89
Results – Research Question 4 ...........................................................................................95
Results – Research Question 5 ........................................................................................104
Results – Research Question 6 .........................................................................................110
iv
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................113
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................115
Introduction ......................................................................................................................115
Summary of the Study .....................................................................................................115
Ancillary Data ..................................................................................................................120
Unexpected Results ..........................................................................................................123
Study in the Context of the Literature..............................................................................124
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................125
Contributions to Our Current Knowledge............................................................125
Contributions for the Classroom Teacher ............................................................126
Implications for Social Change ........................................................................................127
Dissemination of Study ....................................................................................................132
Recommendations for Further Research ..........................................................................132
Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................................133
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................133
APPENDIX A: PREEXISTING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE
BRACKEN ......................................................................................................................140
APPENDIX B: PREEXISTING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
OF THE GKAP-R ............................................................................................................141
APPENDIX C: TEACHER QUESTIONS ......................................................................142
CURRICULUM VITAE ..................................................................................................143
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Class 1 Data: combined EIP kindergarten classes …………………………… ..74
Table 2. Class 2 Data: regular education kindergarten .....................................................75
Table 3. Class 1 Additional information ............................................................................76
Table 4. Class 2 Additional information ............................................................................76
Table 5. Group A versus Group B: August – January ......................................................81
Table 6. Group A versus Group B: January – April ..........................................................81
Table 7. Group A versus Group B: August – April ..........................................................82
Table 8. Males in Group A versus males in Group B: August – January ..........................83
Table 9. Females in Group A versus females in Group B: August – January ...................84
Table 10. Males in Group A versus males in Group B: January – April ...........................85
Table 11. Females in Group A versus females in Group B: January – April ....................86
Table 12. Males in Group A versus males in Group B: August – April ............................87
Table 13. Females in Group A versus females in Group B: August – April .....................88
Table 14. Caucasian students in Group A versus Caucasian students in Group B:
August – January................................................................................................................89
Table 15. African American students in Group A versus African American students in
Group B: August – January................................................................................................90
Table 16. Caucasian students in Group A versus Caucasian students in Group B:
January – April ...................................................................................................................91
Table 17. African American Students in Group A versus African American students in
Group B: January – April ..................................................................................................92
Table 18. Caucasian students in Group A versus Caucasian students in Group B:
August – April....................................................................................................................93
Table 19. African American students in Group A versus African American students in
Group B: August – April....................................................................................................94
Table 20. No disability in Group A versus no disability in Group B: August – January ..95
Table 21. Speech disability in Group A versus speech disability in Group B:
August – January................................................................................................................96
Table 22. Dual disability in Group A versus dual disability in Group B:
August – January................................................................................................................97
vi
Table 23. No disability in Group A versus no disability in Group B: January – April .....98
Table 24. Speech disability in Group A versus speech disability in Group B:
January – April ...................................................................................................................99
Table 25. Dual disability in Group A versus dual disability in Group B:
January – April .................................................................................................................100
Table 26. No disability in Group A versus no disability in Group B: August – April ....101
Table 27. Speech disability in Group A versus speech disability in Group B:
August – April .................................................................................................................102
Table 28. Dual disability in Group A versus dual disability in Group B:
August – April..................................................................................................................103
Table 29. Prekindergarten in Group A versus prekindergarten in Group B:
August – January..............................................................................................................104
Table 30. No prekindergarten in Group A versus no prekindergarten in Group B:
August – January..............................................................................................................105
Table 31. Prekindergarten in Group A versus prekindergarten in Group B:
January – April .................................................................................................................106
Table 32. No prekindergarten in Group A versus no prekindergarten in Group B:
January – April ................................................................................................................107
Table 33. Prekindergarten in Group A versus prekindergarten in Group B:
August – April..................................................................................................................108
Table 34. No prekindergarten in Group A versus no prekindergarten in Group B:
August – April..................................................................................................................109
Table 35. Nonrepeaters in Group A versus nonrepeaters in Group B:
August – January..............................................................................................................110
Table 36. Repeaters in Group A versus repeaters in Group B: August – January...........111
Table 37. Nonrepeaters in Group A versus nonrepeaters in Group B: January – April ..111
Table 38. Repeaters in Group A versus repeaters in Group B: January – April .............112
Table 30. Nonrepeaters in Group A versus nonrepeaters in Group B: August – April ...112
Table 40. Repeaters in Group A versus repeaters in Group B: August – April ..............113
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Pretest posttest control group design ..................................................................66
viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction
One of the greatest achievements in a child’s life is learning to read. “The road to
becoming a reader begins the day a child is born and continues through the end of third
grade” (Arbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001, p. 1). In school, the responsibility for teaching
children to read falls on the shoulders of kindergarten teachers because they lay the
academic foundation for reading readiness skills. Teachers today constantly struggle with
what approach to use to teach students to read.
Historically, all American school children were taught to read. Teachers never
considered that a child could not be taught to read, and remedial reading was
unheard of. In fact, the first remedial reading clinic opened in 1930, soon after the
results of the “look and say” (the so-called “Dick and Jane” program) reading
methods were beginning to be felt. (Sweet, 1996, p. 2)
Spache and Spache (1969) defined the reading process as “obviously a
multifaceted process, a process that, like a chameleon, changes its nature from one
developmental stage to the next” (p. 3). Reading is a process consisting of skill
development, visual acts, perceptual acts, a reflection of cultural background, and a
thinking process. The authors stated
the teachers obligation is far more than teaching the vocabulary of a basal series
or the content of the prescribed workbooks; or faithfully following the steps of
each daily lesson as outlined in the manual; or having, provided a variety of books
from which he may freely select, saying, “Go. Read”. (p. 37)
Much publicity, concern, and debate over which program (phonics, whole
language, or the balanced literacy approach) is best for teaching students to read has led
to constant debate. This epidemic is termed The Great Debate, also known as The
2
Reading Wars. Educators often refer to this dilemma as the pendulum swing between
phonics, whole language, and a newer version called the balanced approach.
Phonics
Phonics advocates Chall, Adams, and the National Reading Panel (NRP) found in
order for children to learn to read, students must be taught explicit phonics rules about
how words are written and spelled as well as spelling-sound relationships. Students apply
the rule through practice with decodable text with the goal in a phonics classroom being
to provide students with rules and common spelling-sound relationships so they are able
to read precisely. Comprehension and appreciation is believed to occur as students
practice reading.
In the years 1967, 1983, and 1996, Chall exhausted the reading research to find
great support for phonics first programs.
The research….indicates that a code emphasis method--i.e., one that views
beginning reading as essentially different from mature reading and emphasizes the
learning of the printed code for the spoken language--produces better
results….the results are better, not only in terms of the mechanical aspects of
literacy alone, as was once supposed, but also in terms of the ultimate goals of
reading instruction--comprehension and possibly even speed of reading. The long
existing fear that an initial code emphasis produces readers who do not read for
meaning or with enjoyment is unfounded. On the contrary, the evidence indicates
that better results in terms of reading for meaning are achieved with the programs
that emphasize code at the start than with the programs that stress meaning at the
beginning. (1996, p. 307)
Sweet (1996) also supported Chall in saying children must understand the
mechanics of the code we call the English language. Once they learn the code, they can
then learn the more advanced content that reading entails. He did not advocate for
beginning readers to learn lists of words or memorize these words before learning the
3
basis of word parts. He attributed all of this to the whole language approach to teaching
children to read, which he thinks has caused much of the illiteracy in America.
Adams (1990) presented her findings in a research-based textbook, Beginning to
Read: Thinking and Learning About Print:
In summary, deep and thorough knowledge of letters, spelling patterns, and words
and of the phonological translations of all three, are of inescapable importance to
both skillful reading and its acquisition. By extension, instruction designed to
develop children’s sensitivity to spellings and their relations to pronunciations
should be of paramount importance in the development of reading skills. This is,
of course, precisely what is intended of good phonics instruction. (p. 416)
In the NRP’s (2000) press release statement, Congresswoman Northup stated:
In the largest, most comprehensive evidence based review ever conducted on
research on how children learn reading; a congressionally mandated independent
panel has concluded that the most effective way to teach children to read is
through instruction that includes a combination of methods. The panel determined
that effective reading instruction includes teaching children to break apart and
manipulate the sounds in words (phonemic awareness), teaching them that these
sounds are represented by letters of the alphabet which can then be blended
together to form words (phonics), having them practice what they’ve learned by
reading aloud with guidance and feedback (guided oral reading), and applying
reading comprehension strategies to guide and improve reading comprehension.
(pp. 1-2)
Whole Language
Smith (2001) and Goodman (1998), whole language advocates, stressed the whole
language philosophy being a belief system for how children learn. Smith (2003) admitted
whole language is widely misunderstood, even among its supporters, and often
misrepresented by the people who attack it. He wanted children to encounter sense
making in the classroom as a means for learning. Everything children do to learn should
be done through experiences that are meaningful and relate to real life.
4
Smith (1994) maintained an immersion theory where children learn to read
naturally, just as they learn to speak. Smith advocated that decoding skills are only used
by children because teachers have forced them to use these skills when learning to read.
Fluent readers have little use for the alphabetic principle. These readers rely on word
knowledge, context clues, and decoding simply as a last resort. Fluent readers do not
visually process every word but rather pick up detail to correct and corroborate their
hypotheses about the message of the text (p. 1).
At the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)
Conference in 1991, Goodman made this statement:
Whole language is self-empowered teachers taking the best available knowledge
about language, about learners, about curriculum, about teaching and building the
learning community, and turning it into reality for the learners in their classrooms.
It involves a body of knowledge, and a humanistic philosophy that values all
learners, but it is teachers who have proclaimed themselves professionals and who
have turned this all into practical reality. If you want to understand whole
language, you must, more than anything, understand this new professionalism
among teachers. (p. 1)
Balanced Literacy
Today many educators term their preferred method of teaching reading a
balanced approach to literacy in hopes of creating an end to the Great Debate. Using this
terminology, educators try to secure a balance between the phonics and whole language
approaches to teaching reading. These educators really don’t favor one approach over the
other but believe a combination of the two differing approaches is the best way to teach
reading.
Educational theorist Strickland (n.d.) favored a balanced approach to reading
where phonics and whole language are intertwined throughout the school day to teach
5
children to read. Strickland emphasized reading is a complex process and requires more
than one strategy for instruction. She stated, “Teaching children how to use phonics and
to use it with other strategies is very different from simply knowing about phonics” (p.
4). She reinforced that phonics is simply one way to help children figure out words and
that students still need to use trade books and other forms of literature.
Pinnell’s (2006) 10 principles in literacy programs that work also support the
balanced literacy approach to teaching students to read and are a major component of the
Reading Recovery Council’s approach of appropriate reading instruction. The 10
principles are: a) phonological awareness, where students are taught to hear the sounds in
words; b) visual perception of letters, where students are taught to perceive and identify
letters of the alphabet; c) word recognition, where students are taught to recognize words;
d) phonics/decoding skills, where students are taught to use simple and complex lettersound relationships to solve words in reading and writing; e) phonics/structural analysis,
where students are taught to use structural analysis of words and learning of spelling
patterns; f) fluency/automaticity, where students develop speed and fluency in reading
and writing; g) comprehension; where students are taught to construct meaning from
print; h) balanced/structured approach, where students are provided a balance so literacy
develops along a broad front and students can apply skills in reading and writing; i) early
intervention to undercut reading failure; and j) individual tutoring, where one-to-one
assistance provides individualized instruction for students having difficulty.
6
Problem Statement
For 3 years now, kindergarten students at the researcher’s school have learned to
read using one of two reading programs. This past school year, two of the nine
classrooms used Dr. Cupp Readers (2004) and the other seven classrooms used a
combination of two different programs: Phonics K (2003) and Harcourt (2003) basal
readers. In this study, the researcher compared and contrasted these two reading
approaches using developmental, behavioral, and constructivist theories. The Dr. Cupp
Readers and the alternate Phonics K /Harcourt were audited for alignment with the
current theories of reading.
Background
Dr. Cupp (2004) readiness lessons encompassed the first 6 weeks of school. The
readiness lessons featured eight language arts components (phonemic awareness,
phonics, spelling, fluency-sight words, grammar, creative writing, listening, and
speaking). From there, students moved into reader booklets, which continued to focus on
the eight language arts components, and allowed students to receive individualized
instruction based on each student’s ability.
Phonics K (2003) is an intense, whole group, systematic phonics program.
Teachers used scripted phonics lessons, which contained questioning strategies allowing
active participation by students. Phonics K (2003) is not a total reading program and was
used as a supplement to the basal reading program. Students were taught to read by
introducing them to language in small increments. Students were taught to “code” words
by identifying the sound each letter or letter cluster makes, thus enabling them to read,
7
and eventually to spell, those words. A series of spelling rules explained typical patterns
used to spell words.
Harcourt’s (2003) reading series for kindergarten is titled Trophies. “Trophies is a
research based, developmental reading/language arts program. Explicit phonics
instruction; direct reading instruction; guided reading strategies; phonemic awareness
instruction; systematic, intervention strategies; integrated language arts components; and
state-of-the-art assessment tools ensure every student successfully learns to read”
(Harcourt, 2006). The Harcourt (2003) basal readers utilize trade books and various other
forms of genre to teach students to read. Phonics K (2003) and Harcourt (2003) provides
students with individual readers but limited sight word instruction.
The principal of the researcher’s school required uniformity in the kindergarten
curriculum. Reading textbook adoption will take place during the 2008-2009 school year
(R. Kea, personal communication, October 24, 2006). Findings of this research study can
be used in both the researcher’s school and the researcher’s county so an appropriate
reading curriculum may be chosen during the textbook adoption process. Serious
implications, such as adopting a program that does not meet the needs of learners, may
follow unless adequate data is used to guide data-driven decision making. Reading
textbooks are a significant investment for the taxpayers and the school system. The last
reading textbook adoption (2003-2004 school year) cost the county $43,173 for
kindergarten students alone. Refill kits for Phonics K cost the county an additional $25
per kindergarten student per year, totaling approximately $12,000 per year (R. Kea,
personal communication, October 24, 2006). With this considerable amount of money
8
being spent on reading programs for kindergarten students, educators need to be able to
make informed decisions regarding reading textbook adoption. The appropriate decision
can only be made when teachers are provided unbiased data about student achievement as
well as alignment with current theories of reading.
In the past at the researcher’s school, teachers reviewed textbooks during a
planning period. Teachers were not afforded the opportunity to actually “test” the
material in their classroom prior to textbook adoption. Since the program was piloted at
the researcher’s school and several other classrooms throughout the researcher’s county,
teacher participants can provide first hand research data, which can be used to guide
textbook adoption. Findings of this research study can be provided to all involved parties
during the textbook adoption in the researcher’s county during the 2007-2008 school
year.
Many parents, kindergarten teachers, and first-grade teachers expressed concern
that students in the Dr. Cupp reading program are at a disadvantage when entering the
Phonics 1 program in first-grade. Phonics 1 requires students to use marks, termed coding
marks, placed on letters that signal to students the sound each letter makes based on
specific phonics rules. When students learn basic marks for short vowel sounds (breve)
and long vowel sounds (macron) in kindergarten, parents and other teachers think the
students are ready for the more in-depth coding of first-grade. Since the students in the
Dr. Cupp Reading program are not taught coding marks, some first-grade teachers and
parents think kindergarten students are not adequately prepared for first-grade.
9
Uniformity in the kindergarten reading curriculum can help alleviate tension
amongst the staff. Stress is created because teachers want the best for their students and
they constantly compare activities, lessons, and progress of students in order to determine
the best program being used. Teachers frequently integrate bits and pieces of each
program in order to use approaches yielding the most success. Because the principal
required the kindergarten teachers to determine which one of the two programs can be
used in kindergarten in the future, solid data from this research project can be used to
help make this decision. As one of the kindergarten teachers, this researcher strives to
find the answer to the difficult question at the researcher’s school: How do the two
reading programs, using divergent approaches, compare in preparing kindergarten
students to read, as measured by the literacy scores on the Georgia Kindergarten
Assessment Program-Revised (GKAP-R)? Which one of the two reading programs best
prepares students for first-grade reading as indicated by literacy scores on the GKAP-R?
Which one of the reading programs promotes higher accomplishment of the skills on the
GKAP-R? The researcher compared gain scores from the literacy section of the GKAP-R
in order to compare student achievement for classes of students in the two reading
programs.
Fuchs et al. (2001) stated, “Kindergarten is traditionally regarded as the time to
develop children’s reading readiness skills” (p. 76). Because “literacy skills acquired in
kindergarten and first-grade serve as the foundation for the development of subsequent
reading skills and strategies” (Coyne & Harn, 2006), when an appropriate reading
readiness program is used, students are prepared for a successful reading experience.
10
The researcher closely examined and described the two reading programs used at
her school in order to help kindergarten teachers make an informed decision about how
the two reading programs, using divergent approaches, compare in preparing
kindergarten students to read, as measured by the literacy scores on the GKAP-R. In
order to determine which program best serves the school’s students for reading readiness,
the results of the state-mandated GKAP-R were used. The GKAP-R assesses four domain
areas: literacy, mathematics, social, and emotional development. However, for the
purposes of this research study, the focus remained on the literacy section.
Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program-Revised (GKAP-R)
Children enrolled in Georgia public school kindergarten programs are assessed for
first-grade readiness with the GKAP-R. All Georgia kindergarten students must
participate in the GKAP-R without exemptions or modifications unless specifically
documented with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The purpose of the GKAP-R is
to provide cumulative evidence of a student’s readiness for first-grade. Thirty-two State
of Georgia Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) objectives are measured on the GKAP-R
using performance-based assessment activities (GDOE, 1998). Students are assessed in
four domain areas, which include: literacy, mathematics, social, and emotional
development. The test is given in a variety of one-on-one, small group, or large group
settings and is administered three times during the kindergarten year (Remillard, 2004).
Many of the skills on the GKAP-R are related to reading readiness; therefore this
information was used to evaluate the two reading programs in use at the researcher’s
school.
11
Literature Sources
Schools spend significant amounts of money to improve reading achievement
(purchasing computers, textbooks, and funding programs). For example, in the
researcher’s school district, approximately $45,000 was spent to improve reading
achievement in kindergarten in one year alone (R. Kea, personal communication, October
24, 2006).
The United States Department of Education (USDOE, n.d.) now requires student
achievement be used to determine success of reading programs (¶ 6). The comparison
was made between taking children to the dentist and testing students. Children go to the
dentist for checkups and if the child has a cavity, an appointment is made for a filling.
When students are assessed and have reading problems, the student should be given
appropriate instruction in order to promote achievement. The USDOE requires all states
to use some form of testing as a measurement of student progress (USDOE, n.d., ¶ 9).
Appropriate teaching strategies and tools might be used to target at-risk students
to get their performance up to the desired level. Extra help for students is not looked upon
as punishment, but rather the responsibility of the educational system (USDOE, n.d., ¶ 9).
This enables students to catch up as well as increases their chances of success.
Need to Know
Remillard’s (2004) study, “A comparison on the effectiveness of Readers
Workshop and Dr. Cupp Readers” revealed students who participated in Readers
Workshop in northwest Georgia during the 2003-2004 school year made average scores
of 195 total points on the GKAP-R in the spring. Students who participated in Dr. Cupp
12
Readers in the same school during the same school year made average scores of 191 total
points on the GKAP-R. Remillard’s (2004) study focused on the total GKAP-R scores
rather than literacy scores alone. The study did not compare the two reading programs in
question for this research study nor did the previous study look at student gains during
the school year.
This research study comparing Dr. Cupp Readers with Phonics K/Harcourt basal
reading series at a school in southwest Georgia during the 2006-2007 school year is
expected to yield similar scores from classes using the two differing reading programs.
However, the current study is expected to produce higher average gains on the GKAP-R
literacy scores for students in the Dr. Cupp Readers program throughout the duration of
the instruction. Scores were obtained only from the literacy section of the GKAP-R rather
than the entire GKAP-R assessment. Subgroups were identified (high- and lowperforming students, gender, ethnicity groups, students with prekindergarten experience
and those without, and students with and without disabilities) and those scores were
analyzed to determine which of the two reading programs produced higher average gains
on the literacy section of the GKAP-R for the different subgroups of students.
Purpose Statement
This past school year, the researcher and one other teacher piloted the Dr. Cupp
Readers combining eight literacy components (phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling,
fluency-sight words, grammar, creative writing, listening, and speaking). The other seven
kindergarten teachers used the Phonics K program with Harcourt basal readers. The
purpose of this study was to show the effect each of the two currently used reading
13
programs had on kindergarten students’ reading readiness as measured by literacy score
gains on the GKAP-R. The researcher compared literacy score gains from the GKAP-R
of classes using the two different reading programs. The information obtained allows
teachers to make informed decisions about which program best teaches the kindergarten
students to read and can be used in the upcoming textbook adoption during the next
school year.
Research Questions
Quantitative Questions
1. What is the difference in class gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAPR for students utilizing Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series when compared to
students utilizing Dr. Cupp Readers combining eight literacy components?
2. What is the difference in gain scores on the GKAP-R among students in the
two opposing programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)
for students of different gender?
3. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
among students of different ethnicities in the two opposing programs (Phonics
K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
4. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
among students with disabilities and students without disabilities in the two opposing
programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
5. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
between students with prekindergarten experience as compared to students without
14
prekindergarten experience and in the two opposing programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal
reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
6. Does the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
depend on whether or not students are repeating kindergarten and in the two opposing
reading programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
Campbell and Stanley (1963) were used as the bases for development of this
research study. The researcher chose to adapt their quasi-experimental quantitative
research design to compare the mean gain scores of two classes of GKAP-R literacy
scores. The researcher realizes this study did not meet all their conditions for a true
control group design. Therefore, the researcher termed this study a modified quasiexperimental research study. The researcher worked with the given population and used
an in-school sample which will inform schools in our district when going through the
upcoming reading textbook adoption.
The researcher examined the socio economics of the two classes of students and
determined enough similarities for the groups to be deemed comparable. The researcher
chose to focus on the mean gain scores in order to determine the reading program which
best advanced student achievement as measured by literacy scores on the GKAP-R. A
dire need for local research on the two reading programs was also a contributing factor to
the implementation of this study and therefore the researcher realized the circumstances
were not ideal but rather a true representation of what actually occurs in classrooms in
our county and district. The researcher knew a decision would be made in the upcoming
textbook adoption and knew any information or data collected and presented would
15
inform the critical decision regarding textbook adoption. Quantitative data were
presented and described to explain differences, if any, on class and subgroup gain literacy
scores of the GKAP-R. Further details of the methodology are discussed in chapter 3.
Significance of the Study
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, commonly called No Child Left
Behind, is an act put in place in order to improve student achievement. Schools failing to
meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) for disadvantaged students receive sanctions such
as assistance to subgroups identified in the NCLB and corrective action for continuous
failure to make progress. This act basically amended the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and placed more guidelines on schools and school
systems. The acts have been revised and modified many times over the years with NCLB
being the latest revision. NCLB is projected to target all areas that will close the
achievement gap for all ethnic groups, all major socio economic groups, all Englishlanguage learners, and all special education students. All of these groups have been
identified as previously unsuccessful in achieving the quality of education needed for
future success (USDOE, 2002, p. 16).
President Bush said, “We must confront the scandal of illiteracy in America, seen
most clearly in high-poverty schools, where nearly 70 percent of fourth-graders are
unable to read at a basic level” (USDOE, n.d. ¶ 6). The National Assessment of
Education Progress (NAEP) found there has been no improvement in the average reading
scores of 17-year-olds since the 1970s. Sixty percent of 12th graders in 1998 were reading
below proficiency (USDOE, n.d. ¶ 6). As part of the NCLB (2001), annual report cards
16
show school performance and statewide progress on standardized testing measures. This
report card shows parents information such as: the quality of their child’s school, the
teacher’s qualifications, and their child’s progress in subject areas. This assessment data
is disaggregated by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency
(USDOE, ¶ 3).
Each state defines adequate yearly progress for schools, within the boundaries set
by Title I. Individual states set the minimum standards of improvement--measured by
student performance--that must be achieved within specified time frames. States begin by
establishing a “starting point” based on the performance of its lowest achieving
demographic group or of the lowest achieving schools in the state, whichever is higher.
The state then sets the bar--or level of student achievement--a school must attain after 2
years in order to continue to show AYP. Subsequent thresholds must be raised at least
once every 3 years, until at the end of 12 years, all students in the state are achieving at
the proficient level on state assessments in reading/language arts and math (USDOE, n.d.
¶ 9).
The researcher’s school is a Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
accredited Title I school where 67% of the students qualified for free/reduced lunches
(Self-Study for Continued Accreditation, 2006). Under legislation by NCLB (2001), the
researcher’s school made AYP for two consecutive years. In order to continue making
AYP, the researcher’s school designed a data room where teachers work to disaggregate
data in order to determine student needs and learn to address those learning needs.
17
Information from this study adds to the disaggregated data and shows how kindergarten
teachers are working to help close the achievement gap.
The researcher’s school has been labeled the poorest school in the county, with
67% of the student body qualifying for free/reduced lunches (P. Rowe, personal
communication, October 24, 2006). One of the main focuses of NCLB (2001) is to close
the achievement gap and make sure all students, including disadvantaged students, meet
high academic standards. Many times students who come from poor homes lack the
background knowledge and experiences in order to be successful. Agreement among
Resnick (1983) and Von Glaserfeld (1984) confirmed prior knowledge influences
learning and learners construct concepts from prior knowledge. Since the researcher’s
school has many children who come from homes where background knowledge and
experiences are limited, the researcher chose to compare data based on high-achieving
students and low-achieving students in an effort to help close the achievement gap at the
researcher’s school.
The NCLB (2001) legislation demanded scientifically based research practices be
used in classrooms (USDOE, 2004). The researcher identified the strengths and
weaknesses of the two programs used in kindergarten and presented the findings to the
staff. According to the NCLB legislation, in order for a program to be considered
scientifically based on research, reliable evidence must show the program or practice
actually works with specified groups of students. The researcher presented evidence that
one of the programs meets the needs of a variety of learners--from sight word-based
18
learners to phonetic learners. The information is available for staff and other teachers
within the county for the upcoming reading textbook adoption.
Results of this study are significant to all reading teachers but especially to the
kindergarten teachers at the researcher’s school and in the researcher’s county because of
the upcoming reading textbook adoption. The study is significant to all colleagues in the
field of the teaching of reading because they may use the findings to evaluate their
current teaching materials or future materials during textbook adoptions. The findings are
significant to the publishers of all reading materials used in the study because in order to
market their materials, they want to use the best approaches to teach reading. The study
allowed the researcher to advocate for self and others in the role of teacher leader. The
researcher has demonstrated the tenets of teacher leadership through conducting this
study. The study produced empirical reading achievement data facilitating decision
making for better student performance.
Social Change
Carlisle, Jackson, and George (2006) identified five principles of social change: a)
inclusion and equity, b) high expectations, c) reciprocal community relationships, d)
system-wide approach, and e) direct social justice education and intervention. Social
change was implemented through this particular action research project at the
researcher’s school and in the researcher’s county using several of the Carlisle, Jackson,
and George (2006) principles.
During the 2006-2007 school year, the researcher’s school participated in the selfstudy for continued accreditation, where 10 accreditation standards were identified. The
19
researcher implemented many of those standards into the current research study. These
standards also support the Carlisle, Jackson, and George (2006) principles.
The research study focused on identifying the reading program promoting higher
achievement for students regardless of any barriers. Teachers were allowed to participate
in piloting a program which could promote higher achievement as well as facilitated
learning for all students, thereby providing teachers with reliable data in order to inform
data-driven decision making.
Limitations and Delimitations
Mauch and Birch (1993) stated, A limitation is a factor that may or will affect the
study in an important way, but is not under control of the researcher (p. 103). The
limitations of this study include heterogeneously grouped classes, the fact that the study
was limited to the reading programs used (Dr. Cupp Readers, Phonics K, and Harcourt) at
the researcher’s school, and the fact that some of the students were conveniently placed
in EIP classes. The researcher acknowledges lack of control over testing times (during the
day), testing sites (in the teacher’s classroom or in the hallway outside the classroom),
and observational data indicating the reading programs were taught as recommended by
the respective publishing companies.
Mauch and Birch (1993) also stated delimitation differs, principally, in that it is
controlled by the researcher (p. 103). The delimitations of this study include: a small
sampling of scores, the purposeful sampling procedure for selecting students, and the
statistical measures being used. The study confined itself to the researcher’s school and
those kindergarten classes during the previous school year. The school is located in a
20
rural community in southern Georgia and educates children of the middle to lower socio
economic class. The study was comprised of students in three of the nine kindergarten
classes at the researcher’s school. The findings of the study are generalizable to groups of
students with the same demographics and equal quality of delivery of instruction using
the identified reading programs.
Assumptions
The researcher assumed the other two kindergarten teachers would teach as
recommended by the textbook publishers, following the prescribed protocol of the
identified reading programs, and that they would not pull in any outside programs. One of
the other kindergarten teachers has 22 years of teaching experience and one has 9 years
of teaching experience. Both were trained in the delivery of their respective reading
programs. The other teachers knew the research was being conducted and the researcher
assumed all kindergarten teachers would want accurate information to be reported.
The participating teachers were evaluated throughout the school year and
provided an end-of-the-year evaluation. All participating teachers received a satisfactory
rating on both evaluations. They were evaluated by school administrators who used the
Georgia Teacher Observation Instrument (GTOI; GDOE, n.d.) to observe, evaluate, and
record the performance of classroom teachers. Teachers receive ratings of either need
improvement or satisfactory on the GTOI.
21
Definition of Terms
Assessment: the processes of gathering information about something to determine
how well individuals are achieving or have achieved what they or someone else expects
them to achieve (Cooper, 2000).
Basal: a textbook compiled to teach people, especially young children, to read
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2004).
Dr. Cupp Readers: a beginning reading program combining two types of reading
text. The Cupp Readers are written with a combination of 95% high-frequency
cumulative texts and 5% decodable text (Cupp, 2001).
Early Intervention Program (EIP): a program designed to serve students who are
at risk of not reaching or maintaining academic grade level. The purpose of the EIP is to
provide additional instructional resources to help students who are performing below
grade level obtain the necessary academic skills to reach grade level performance in the
shortest possible time (GDOE, 2003, ¶ 1).
Fluency: the ability to read a text accurately and quickly (Arbruster, Lehr, &
Osborn, 2001).
Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program-Revised (GKAP-R): an assessment
required by the United States Department of Education which provides cumulative
evidence of student’s readiness for first-grade. All kindergarten students are assessed in
four domain areas, which include: literacy, mathematics, and social and emotional
development. The test is administered in a variety of one-on-one, small group settings
and is administered three times during the kindergarten year (GDOE, 1998).
22
Individualized Educational Plan (IEP): a formal, written document describing a
specific child's skills, and including a statement of goals for special education services
and strategies for achieving those goals (Bailey, 1994).
Multiple intelligences: the capacities for learning, reasoning, understanding, and
similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts,
meanings, and so on (Random House Dictionary, 2006).
Reading readiness: the readiness to profit from beginning reading instruction
(Matthews, D.P., Klaassens, A., Walter, L.B., & Stewart, T.K., 1999).
Conclusion
Chapter 1 presented the problem at the researcher’s school: perceived differences
in student achievement based on the GKAP-R literacy scores when students are taught
with two different reading programs. The problem was linked to historical perspectives
on the teaching of reading and background data were provided. The purpose of the study
was identified: to show the effect each of the two currently used reading programs has on
kindergarten students’ reading readiness. The researcher compared mean gain scores
from the literacy section of the GKAP-R of classes using the two different reading
programs. The researcher identified many quantitative research questions:
1. What is the difference in class gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAPR for students utilizing Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series when compared to
students utilizing Dr. Cupp Readers combining eight literacy components?
23
2. What is the difference in gain scores on the GKAP-R among students in the
two opposing programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)
for students of different gender?
3. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
among students of different ethnicities in the two opposing programs (Phonics
K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
4. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
among students with disabilities and students without disabilities in the two opposing
programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
5. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
between students with prekindergarten experience as compared to students without
prekindergarten experience and in the two opposing programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal
reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
6. Does the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
depend on whether or not students are repeating kindergarten and in the two opposing
reading programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
Background data were presented to inform the reader. Limitations, assumptions,
and definition of terms were presented.
Chapter 2 presents a literature review regarding the current reading programs used
to teach reading readiness skills. These reading programs are linked to educational
theorists. Chapter 3 contains the research design and methods. Chapter 4 identifies the
results of the quantitative research project. The summary, conclusions, and
24
recommendations comprise chapter 5. The study concludes with a bibliography and
appendixes.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Providing the best educational materials and/or programs to teach reading
readiness skills to kindergarten students takes many forms. Understanding the different
reading programs used to teach reading readiness skills to kindergarten students at a
school in central Georgia is vital to the design of this study. This quantitative research
study compared GKAP-R literacy results of students using Dr. Cupp Readers with
GKAP-R literacy results of students using Phonics K in conjunction with the Harcourt
basal reading series.
This chapter reviews the history of research instruction. The researcher then
identifies four educational theorists who have contributed much knowledge and
information regarding how to educate young children. Their contributions to the field of
education, especially the teaching of reading, are briefly summarized with linkages to the
reading programs used at the researcher’s school during the time of this study. The
chapter explains in full detail the programs used to teach students at a school in central
Georgia. The researcher also discusses each of the components posed by the NRP (2000)
and identifies where each of the reading programs used adhered to those guidelines.
These measures were taken in order to determine the best reading program for students at
the researcher’s school.
The History of Reading Instruction
Beginning in the early 1800s children were initially taught letters and letter-sound
relationships (phonics). Students were not taught decoding until the basics of letters and
26
letter-sound relationships were mastered (Sweet, 1996). The great education reformer
Horace Mann, during the mid-19th century, advocated the need for a whole word
approach to reading instruction rather than the phonics approach being used at the time.
In the late 19th century and into the 20th century, the trend was skills- and drills-based
instruction, which relied on two popular readers, the McGuffy readers and the Beacon
readers. Scott Foresman’s “Dick and Jane” reading books became popular before World
War II because of the more repetitive, simple words of the child’s sight vocabulary and
highly predictable story lines (Turbill, 2002).
Approaches to teaching reading have spanned over time from the “traditional
view of reading based on behaviorism to visions of reading and readers based on
cognitive psychology” (Knuth & Jones, 1991, p. 1). The traditional view of teaching
reading was based on the behaviorism research for which Skinner (1974) became wellknown. The teacher brought desired behaviors under stimulus control by breaking
learning into small parts and providing reinforcement following each stage of learning.
Reading was described more as a process where students mechanically decoded words
and memorized other words by rote. The learner was passive and was seen simply as a
vessel receiving knowledge from an external source (Knuth & Jones, 1991).
Knuth and Jones (1991) found the new definition of reading based on the
cognitive sciences and the constructivist research base where the goal of reading was to
construct meaning and self-regulate learning. Reading in this approach required
interaction among the reader, the text, and context. The student was an active learner and
27
became a strategic reader using strategies taught by the teacher and practiced by the
student.
“Understanding child development helps teachers know how and why children
behave as they do and what to expect of children within each age group” (Bickart, Jablon,
Dodge & Kohn, 1999, p. 12). Bickart et al. (1999) identified the developmental
characteristics of children from age five through eight in their book, Building the Primary
Classroom: A Complete Guide to Teaching and Learning. These authors described child
development in categories of emotional, social, cognitive, and physical development.
Although individual child development varies slightly, teachers are provided with
reference points by which a child’s instruction and learning patterns may be gauged.
Kindergarten teachers should be sure students are developmentally ready to absorb the
material and apply the skills. Teaching a kindergarten student to read requires students to
be taught reading readiness skills such as phonemic awareness, alphabetic principles, and
conventions of print, which students master through appropriate instruction utilizing
guidelines presented by reading theorists. In order for kindergarten teachers to be
effective in teaching reading readiness skills, they should use a reading readiness
program that prepares students for a successful reading experience (Bickart et al. 1999).
Jean Piaget
According to Piaget’s (1952) stages of cognitive development, kindergarten
students are in the preoperational development stage. The preoperational stage is the
second of four developmental stages. In the preoperational stage, students aged 2 through
7, engage in symbolic play and language games, which Goodman (1998) said whole
28
language does through personal and social inventions in the reading classroom. Students
at this age have a self-centered point of view and can rarely see another person’s
viewpoint. It is during this stage that a child’s language acquisition develops rapidly.
Students converse with each other while overlapping sentences with their friends to find
no meaning in any ideas other than their own. Goodman (1998) stated written language is
learned and develops in much the same way as oral language. During this time, teachers
should present various forms of literature to students so they are exposed to thoughts of
others which do not necessarily focus on thoughts and ideas of their peers. Goodman
(1998) and Smith (2001) advocated for engaging students in their learning through
authentic reading and writing. Students in this stage also engage in intuitive thought,
where the child is able to believe in something without fully understanding why he or she
believes it. According to Piaget (1952) students should pass from this stage into the
concrete operational stage where they leave egocentrism and demonstrate the logical
thought process. According to Piaget (1952), all students must pass through the stages in
order for them to adequately acquire reading readiness skills (Chapter III: The Third
Stage, pp. 153-208).
Because Piaget (1952) is considered to be a developmental theorist, he would
applaud Chall’s work and the development of the stages of the reading process. Chall
(1996) identified six developmental stages of the reading process with the first of those
stages being applicable to this study. The first stage is called Stage 0 – prereading: for
children from birth to age 6. During this stage, children begin to understand the world
around them. The learner also begins to acquire insights into the nature of words and
29
begins to comprehend that words are made up of sounds and that some of these words
have the same beginning and ending sounds (Chall, 1996). The child starts to recognize
alliteration and rhyme in words. Children at this stage benefit from learner-centered
activities where they have a chance to make associations between their non visual
information and the visual information of the text (Chall, 1996). A top-down approach to
teaching that focuses on a whole language model of reading is recommended for children
at this stage (Chall, 1996).
Lev Vygotsky
Vygotsky’s (1978, pp. 84-91) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and
scaffolding were two tenets for which he became well-known. The ZPD is defined as the
difference between the actual development and the potential development of each
individual child. For example, teachers assess students to find out where they are in their
understanding of reading readiness skills. From this assessment, the teacher uses
developmental guidelines, presented by Piaget (1952) and Chall (1996) to determine
appropriate instructional methods in order to teach the student what they need to learn.
Where the child is on the assessment would be the child’s actual development; the
developmental milestones would be the potential development of the student; the ZPD
would be the difference between the two. The teacher provides appropriate individualized
instruction, encouraging growth and development, which allows individual students to go
from where they are to where the student should be in terms of academic development of
students at this age. Individualized instruction takes place when the ZPD is monitored
and used correctly.
30
Scaffolding is defined as a process where teachers provide interactions with peers
and others, which challenge the child, while also providing assistance when necessary.
For example, a teacher may use a song with flashcards and/or body motions to teach a
student the sounds of letters. When the teacher is working with the student in a small
group setting, the teacher may refer the student back to the flashcard or body motion to
cue the student towards a particular sound. The student can use this cue to respond in the
correct fashion. This technique encourages the student to rely on something the teacher
previously taught, make the connection, and learn the concept. Scaffolding is a
continuous process, which builds on the next level consistent with the child’s ZPD.
Components of scaffolding which make it an effective technique include: a) using
interesting and meaningful, collaborative problem solving; b) providing tasks to allow
participants to reach a joint understanding; and c) providing warm and sincere
encouragement. This process allows the learner to be challenged without being
overwhelmed. At the same time, the child feels independent and begins to take over their
own learning. Students ready to embrace the world of reading are allowed opportunities
to practice and further develop this skill. For students not ready to embrace the world of
reading, the teacher provides opportunities for phonemic awareness, which is a
prerequisite of reading readiness. Scaffolding most likely occurs in whole language or
balanced literacy classrooms but would rarely find itself in phonics based instruction
because of the rigidity of its strictly scripted lessons and the fact that the phonics program
moves students along at the same pace regardless of whether the students have mastered
the material or not.
31
According to Vygotsky (1978), the goal of primary speech is not communication
with others but communication with self in order to enhance self-regulation and guidance
of one’s own thought processes and actions. Children then transfer the regulatory role
from others to self. For reading readiness, students translate thoughts and actions of
others to themselves when they relate actions of characters from stories to their own lives
and situations. This translation of thought process could only occur in whole language or
literacy based classrooms where abundant exposure to children’s literature is prevalent.
The ZPD, scaffolding, and private speech are ways of moving from socially guided
thoughts and actions to individually guided thoughts and actions. Kindergarten students
express themselves through various means such as role-playing, journals, and literature
response activities, which further develop their reading readiness skills. These activities
are found in whole language or balanced literacy classrooms.
Vygotsky (1978) thought preschoolers who spend more time with socio dramatic
play are more advanced in general intellectual development, show an enhanced ability to
understand feelings of others, and are seen as more socially competent by their teachers.
Socio dramatic play occurs when students pretend to be someone or something other than
himself or herself. Students re-create real life experiences using prompts and makebelieve about a variety of topics. Imaginary play allows children to distinguish thought
from actions and objects. Restraint, which is one of the most important features of play, is
developed when children are able to control situations and events and also develops
through make believe play. Memory also strengthens during play. Children who
participated in thematic fantasy play appear to be above average in the following areas: a)
32
they performed better when asked to retell a story they had not heard before, b) their
language and reasoning skills were extended, c) they repeated language they heard before
and linked it to a situation of their own, d) they corrected and expanded each other’s
language, e) they were able to distinguish between real and make-believe, and f) they
fantasized more (Vygotsky, 1978). Again, these activities occur in whole language or
balanced literacy classrooms where children are given opportunities to express
themselves, be social and constructive.
Vygotsky (1978) supported the idea that instruction was the way children become
aware of and develop the ability to manipulate and control language. He believed mastery
of written language was a key element to this process. However, he opposed teachers
being guided by scripts from teaching materials, as in the tightly scripted phonics lessons,
which do not allow children time to be social learners. These lessons were more teacherdirected and less student-directed while allowing for little socialization. Whole language
and balanced literacy instruction provides children with increased interaction when
learning and develops socialization skills (Moats, 2000).
Vygotsky (1978) became known as a constructive learning theorist because he
believed children learn by connecting new knowledge with previously learned knowledge
(scaffolding). He also believed when children could not make connections with previous
knowledge, they simply memorized the needed information but did not fully understand
or comprehend the new learning (pp. 84-91). Applying the developmental milestones of
Chall (1996) and Piaget (1952) allows children to learn at the developmentally
appropriate timelines and guides teachers in their planning and instruction.
33
Howard Gardner
Howard Gardner (1978) identified eight different intelligences (linguistic, logicalmathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal).
Rather than concentrating efforts on one intelligence area, Gardner (1978) proposed
teachers should teach using a variety of intelligences, addressing the individual gifts of all
students. Students respond better to new material quicker when they are exposed to new
learning through their preferred intelligence. Teachers should present material through
music, cooperative learning activities, art, role-playing, multimedia, field trips, and inner
reflection (p. 338). Gardner’s (1978) theory of multiple intelligences allows teachers to
determine effective ways of presenting material in order for students to successfully
master any academic endeavor. Armstrong (1994) challenged teachers to use Gardner’s
(1978) theory of multiple intelligences so teaching does not take the form of dry lectures,
boring worksheets, and boring textbooks (pp. 1-4). The whole language or balanced
literacy classroom adheres to Gardner’s (1978) recommendations as well as Armstrong’s
challenge. However, the phonics based classroom does not take Gardner’s intelligences
into consideration due to the nature of the strictly scripted phonics lessons.
Honig (1997) found a balanced reading program includes strategies that develop
immediate word recognition. He stated, “In first-grade, recognizing individual words
contributes about 80% of passage meaning” (p. 2). Reading programs using strategies
such as flashcards, cheers, movement, etc. allow readers to learn basic sight words
through the use of multiple intelligences. The Dr. Cupp Readers employs this method for
teaching students many of the Dolch basic sight words. Research by Armstrong (2004)
34
supported the notion of allowing instruction to be guided by tried and true
recommendations of educational theorists, such as Gardner’s (1978) multiple
intelligences. Armstrong (2004) stated, “Reading strategies aimed at multiple
intelligences can make literacy come to life for all students” (p.1).
Whole language and/or balanced literacy classrooms promote the use of
Gardner’s (1978) multiple intelligences. Throughout the school day, kindergarten
students are exposed to the different intelligences during center time activities. Many
times the teacher presents information in a chosen intelligence while having the student
review it in their chosen method of intelligence. For example, a student might make up a
rap song using the new word(s) rather than simply making a sentence using the new
word(s). For the artistic child, they might choose to draw a picture depicting the new
words.
B. F. Skinner
Skinner (1974) was a well-known psychologist, taking on the behaviorist theory
of learning, due to his concentration on the modifiable behavior of individuals. The
behaviors Skinner (1974) were most concerned with were not the typical misbehaviors of
children (hitting, pinching, etc.) but rather the behaviors a child exhibits which do not
produce desired results. For example, suppose a student does not write a letter correctly.
The teacher demonstrates how to write the letter correctly and allows the child a chance
to do it again. If the child performed as expected, the teacher would reward the child for
correct behavior. Skinner (1974) believed each individual controls their own behavior
35
and could be taught to change that behavior based on certain rewards or manipulations by
other individuals.
Skinner (1974) was also a proponent of positive reinforcement for the typical
behaviors of children (hitting, pinching, etc.) rather than the punishment children for this
behavior. Skinner (1974) believed punishment does not teach individuals how to behave
well, does not necessarily eliminate the undesirable behavior, and often results in even
worse behaviors. Rather than punishing a child for the behavior, he preferred children be
shown how to correctly handle the situation in the future.
Skinner’s (1974) statement, “Stop making all students advance at the same rate.
Let them move at their own pace” (p. 951) causes problems for students in a phonics
based classroom where the lessons are scripted and students all move along together in
the lessons. However, in the whole language or balanced literacy classroom, flexibility is
given so that reteaching or extra time is allotted for students experiencing difficulty.
Skinner (1974) believed strongly in a direct linkage between the instruments
being used and what is measured from the specific instrument. In Phonics K classrooms,
there is definite linkage, as Skinner (1974) favored, when students are assessed using a
worksheet similar to the one they practiced on during the previous week. However, in
whole language or balanced literacy classrooms, there is much more authentic work by
students.
Skinner (1974) was very direction oriented and favored students being given
directives from the teacher and expected to perform according to those directives. Stahl
(1994) found direct-instruction approaches were originally developed to teach decoding
36
and did so through task analysis (p.8). Skinner (1974) supported teaching done in
increments where students were rewarded immediately thereafter. Stahl (1994) also
found direct-instruction proponents view “reading” as a process composed of isolated sub
processes or sub skills, and “reading instruction” as using a set of procedures to teach
students each of these sub processes (p.8).
Skinner’s (1974) theory of reinforcement led to programmed instruction and
outcome-oriented instruction in classrooms across the United States. The characteristics
of programmed instruction included: behavioral objectives, small frames of instruction,
self-pacing, active learner response to questions, and immediate feedback. This led to a
shift in educational focus to the outcome behaviors of the learner (chapter 4). This kind of
instruction is very prevalent in phonics based classrooms but not typically found in whole
language or balanced literacy classrooms.
Dr. Cupp Readers
Dr. Cupp (2004) developed a reading program called Dr. Cupp Readers. Dr.
Cupp stated,
IQ and many of the other categories we spend so much time discussing is not
important. I believe a teacher should find out what the students know, make a
sequential plan for instruction and begin teaching. The most important factor is to
pace your students so you move forward when they are ready, not when a reading
program says they should be ready. If you are using material that is sequential and
cumulative, then one reading program should be able to meet the needs of 99
percent of your students. You will need to move at a slower pace for the slower
learner and a faster pace for the gifted student, but learning to read is learning to
read. The pacing is the difference in instruction. (Cupp, 2004, p. 7)
Part 1 of Dr. Cupp’s program was specifically designed for kindergarten students
but also benefits remedial or special education students (K-5). This part teaches students
37
the first 110 Dolch sight words, beginning phonics skills, short, long, and r-controlled
vowels, as well as two-syllable words. The students learn to read and comprehend on a
beginning first-grade level. Advanced students read on second grade level or even higher.
The program normally starts out in kindergarten classrooms with students in a
readiness program. In this part of the program, students learn to automatically read eight
sight words, the name and sound for the letters a, t, m, c, r, and b, and the rime at.
Students must successfully complete the reading readiness program in order to move to
Part 1 of the Dr. Cupp Readers (Cupp, 2004, p. 9).
The readiness lessons feature eight language arts components (phonemic
awareness, phonics, spelling, fluency-sight words, grammar, creative writing, listening,
and speaking). The readiness lessons usually take the first six weeks of the kindergarten
year. “These lessons may be used with older students, but at a faster pace. If students in
kindergarten grasp the skills quicker, they move at a faster rate” (Cupp, 2004, p. 4). The
teacher teaches the first ten lessons in whole group format. Lesson 11 begins small group
instruction where two or three adults work with students in small group rotations. At least
three groups are in each classroom for the reading group rotations. “Group A will be the
faster moving students; group B will be the average moving students; and group C will be
the slower moving students” (Cupp, 2004, p. 5).
Dr. Cupp designed the program so focus skills are taught daily. The focus skills
are: alphabet letters, alphabet sounds, and sight words. Students learn one new alphabet
letter per week during the first six weeks. Sight word instruction begins with Lesson 4.
“Some beginning readers learn sight words easier than they learn letters and sounds.
38
Sight words make sense. Isolated letters and sounds do not have meaning for some
beginning readers” (Cupp, 2004, p. 5).
Students take individual assessments for readiness after Lessons 8, 15, 20, 25, and
30. “If most students do not pass the assessment, do not move the small group to the next
lesson. Go back and reteach the previous five readiness lessons until most of the students
pass the assessment” (Cupp, 2004, p. 5). The individual assessments include alphabet
letters, alphabet sounds, spelling, and sentence completion. Students are also assessed on
sight words.
Dr. Cupp’s program provides many materials and games (The Wordhouse Book,
AlphaMotion Alphabet Cards and CD, Little AlphaMotion Cards, Ten Minute Phonics
Toolbox Decks, Phonics Readiness Charts, Hop ‘n Pop Cheer Cards, ThinkerBox Books,
and much more), which may be used to reinforce and teach skills. Children love the
different games and activities and feel as if they are simply playing rather than learning.
The reading lesson starts off each day with students singing and making motions
to the Alpha Motion song. The teacher stands in front of the students holding the Alpha
Motion Alphabet Cards. After the song, the teacher uses flashcards to review all
uppercase and lowercase letters with the students.
The next component of the reading program is a quick review of the sight words
covered up to this point in the reading program. The teacher introduces two new words
each week in the beginning of the program. At approximately six weeks into the program,
the teacher begins introducing four new words each week. The teacher places a picture
39
card and the new word card in the front of the classroom as visual reminders to students
to help them learn the new words.
Students then play a game entitled, Pop Up. The teacher gives each student an
index card with a sight word on it. The teacher calls out directions to indicate which child
should pop up out of their seat and show their sight word. The teacher uses only the most
recently covered sight words.
Students play a game called Hop It. The teacher divides the students into two
groups. The teacher stands in front of the class with the sight word cards. The two
groups are: Say It (the word) and Use It (the word in a sentence). The teacher sets the
timer for three minutes. Students take turns saying the word and using the word in a
sentence. When the child says it correctly, they hop to the end of the line and the next two
students participate. The teacher keeps a chart in the room to track the number of words
covered in three minutes. Students then return to the carpeted area of the classroom
where the teacher uses card decks to teach blending of sounds to make words. Students
make and review word families.
The teacher reads a story to the class. The class discusses the story in detail. At
the end of the story, the teacher writes the name of the story on the board along with the
names of the main characters in the story. The teacher encourages the students to draw a
picture about the story and write a sentence telling about their picture.
The teacher uses magazine pictures to teach students how to come up with ideas
for writing sentences. The teacher selects three or four students daily to orally give a
sentence about the picture. Students help sound out selected words in the sentence. The
40
class reads the chart when finished. The teacher hangs the charts around the classroom
for a period of about one week. The teacher then takes the charts down and sends them
home with students.
The teacher divides the class into three or four groups based upon ability for
guided reading. Three adults work with students during this time - (one teacher, two
paraprofessionals). The teacher assigns one group of students to a paraprofessional, who
plays a game called Hop N Pop with the students. The students read a designated number
of covered sight words in a specified amount of time. Students catch Hop N Pop when
they read the words in the allotted amount of time. The other paraprofessional works with
the students on a literacy component called Ten Minute Phonics. The paraprofessional
shows the students a list of previously taught alphabet letters. Students give the sound for
each letter. The paraprofessional shows the students’ rimes. The students read the rimes.
The paraprofessional works with the students on learning to put onset and rime together
to make words. The teacher’s group works on fluency and comprehension. The teacher
uses various techniques to help the students develop fluency (round robin reading, choral
reading, etc.). The teacher uses one passage for teaching comprehension. Students read
and discuss the passage. The teacher asks questions to aid with comprehension of
material. The last group of students works independently on journal writing or a
handwriting activity. The groups rotate every 15-20 minutes. Each adult in the room
works with each child every day.
41
Part 1 of the program has 30 readers with 16 pages each. The readers have four
sections: Comprehension and Fluency, Hop ‘n Pop sight words – high-frequency words,
Ten Minute Phonics, and Independent Work/Center and Assessment (Cupp, 2004).
Dr. Cupp’s reading program follows guidelines presented by theorists Vygotsky
(1978), Skinner (1974), and Gardner (1978). Dr. Cupp Readers allow for student’s ZPD
(zone of proximal development) to be identified and appropriate instruction to follow as
recommended by Vygotsky (1978). Students are assessed throughout the program and are
allowed to move at their own pace as recommended by Vygotsky (1978). Students
receive reinforcement as recommended by Skinner (1974) throughout the program. Dr.
Cupp’s program also follows Gardner’s (1978) recommendation to make learning
meaningful by using different modalities for learning thereby reaching more students. Dr.
Cupp’s reading program did not appear to have Piaget’s (1952) symbolic play, but did
incorporate some language games as well as various literary forms.
Phonics K
The Phonics K (2003) program is an intense, whole group, systematic phonics
program. Saxon publisher’s philosophy focused on building on prior learning and
requires systematic, sequential teaching. “New learning is presented in increments and
each increment is reviewed every day for the entire year” through the scripted lessons
(Simmons, 1996, p. 5). These scripted lessons contain questioning strategies which allow
for active participation by students. Teachers are encouraged to use various activities
included in the lessons to allow for different learning modalities of students.
42
Phonics K (2003) is not a total reading program but can be used as a supplement
to any other reading program. The goal for Phonics K (2003) is to present students with
phonetically based reading readiness skills so that when students are developmentally
ready, they can read. Phonics K (2003) does not provide any “quality literature” and
therefore, will not suffice as a total reading program (Simmons, 1996).
The program teaches students how to read by introducing them to language in
small increments. Students are taught to “code” words by identifying the sound
each letter/letter cluster makes, thus enabling them to read, and eventually to
spell, those words. A series of spelling rules explaining typical patterns used to
spell words is taught. These words are displayed on wall charts hung around the
classroom so that they may be referred to easily. Words that do not follow the
spelling rules are displayed on posters. (Phonics K-2: An Incremental
Development, Saxon teacher’s resource booklet, 1998, p. 1)
Kindergarten teachers are encouraged to use the phonemic awareness
preassessment to identify if students are developmentally ready to begin phonics
instruction. The results of the test are interpreted and the teacher is able to group students
into categories: a) students with a high level of phonemic awareness and are ready to
begin the program, b) students with sufficient phonemic awareness who can start but
need monitoring, and c) students who do not possess the requisite level of phonemic
awareness for the phonics instruction to be beneficial.
Once daily instruction begins with Phonics K (2003), teachers are encouraged to
teach four lessons per week. The fifth day of each week is to be used to reteach difficult
lessons, play games, give assessments, review areas needing more practice, or to meet
special school district objections. “Teaching a lesson (which includes the presentation of
new learning and review of decks, as well as alphabet, phonemic awareness, and spelling
sound activities), should take about 30 minutes” (Simmons, 1996, p. 6). The program also
43
includes other components (handwriting, worksheet, practice, assessment, and reading
activities) as well as individual and/or group remediation which requires extra time
beyond the thirty minutes. The design of the program allows these activities to take place
in a sequential order. Teachers are encouraged to do all parts of the Phonics K (2003) as
indicated in the daily scripted teacher’s manual.
Phonics K (2003) offers recommendations for slowing, accelerating, or modifying
the program to meet the needs of a whole class or individual students. To slow the
program to benefit a the class, the teacher may either present new material only when you
have a full five-day school week to do so and/or during short weeks (four or fewer school
days), review previously taught information and play games to reinforce weak skills
(Simmons, 1996). To accelerate the pace of the program to benefit the class, the teacher
may either try to complete the four scheduled lessons in the days available during short
weeks and/or try to complete more than one worksheet per day. In order to accommodate
slower learners, teachers are encouraged to either help the student complete worksheets,
doing only portions the individual student is able to master, or use letter tiles instead of
teaching daily handwriting. In order to accommodate brighter students, teachers are
encouraged to either allow the student to complete worksheets independently, and/or
provide extra books for students ready to read.
Phonics K (2003) promotes working in small groups during a different time of the
day so each student has opportunities to learn and concepts may be reinforced.
Worksheets may be completed during this time so each type of learner is able to complete
the worksheets according to their ability.
44
While it is not necessary for all students to achieve mastery of previously taught
material before moving on to new material, adherence to the review process
ensures that any student who has not mastered a skill will be given subsequent
opportunities to do so. (Simmons, 1996, p. 7)
Phonics K (2003) allows the teacher to decide which style of handwriting
instruction to provide for their students and whether or not to even focus on handwriting
skills or not. The alphabet strip used in Phonics K (2003) shows D’Nealian handwriting
on one side and block-style handwriting on the other side of the strip. However, “letters
shown on the worksheets, letter tiles, charts, and reader booklets are modeled after the
Times-Roman, the standard print in newspapers, which is what most of the students will
see when reading” (Simmons, 1996, p. 8).
The Phonics K (2003) kit comes complete with the following: a) review card
decks, b) kid card decks, c) wall charts, d) alphabet strips, e) letter tiles, f) worksheets, g)
spelling sound sheets, h) word lists, and i) readers. The review card decks contain letter
cards, picture cards, and spelling cards. The letter cards are used to review each
letter/letter cluster taught, help students learn letter names and to help students recognize
letters/letter clusters in print. “The picture cards feature illustrations that represent
‘keywords’ which are used to remind students of specific letter sounds they may have
forgotten” (Simmons, 1996, p. 8). The spelling cards identify sounds and letter(s) that
make each sound.
“The kid cards are made up of orange letter cards, purple word cards, and red
picture cards” (Simmons, 1996, p. 8). These cards are used during teacher guided
activities, independent activities, and games. Small groups of students may use the cards
for remediation or practice.
45
The wall charts include letter charts, letter combination/digraph charts, sight word
charts, syllable division chart, and rule charts. The 26 letter charts are displayed
throughout the school year and “feature letters of the alphabet and pictures that represent
the corresponding keywords” (Simmons, 1996, p. 9). The letter combination/digraph
charts, the sight word charts, the syllable division chart, and the rule charts are added to
the classroom walls as the specific skills are taught.
Each student receives a complete set of 32 sturdy plastic coated cardboard letter
tiles (26 letters plus 6 blanks). These tiles can be used during teacher directed as well as
independent activities. “The tiles feature uppercase letters on one side, lowercase letters
on the other. Four different background patterns (stars, moons, hearts, and clovers)
prevent mix-ups when students work in small groups (Simmons, 1996, p. 9).
Students complete at least one non-graded worksheet in class every day. These
worksheets provide practice reinforcing new learning and reviewing previously taught
material. “Students should be seated in small groups for the worksheet activities, which
are usually teacher-directed but are occasionally completed independently” (Simmons,
1996, p. 9). The worksheets may have handwriting or a spelling sound work on the back.
The student’s paper should be checked daily, corrected, and sent home with the student.
“Students also use a spelling sound sheet to record sounds given by the teacher during
spelling sounds activities” (Simmons, 1996, p. 9). The spelling sound sheets have lines
for students to write the appropriate letter(s). The first spelling sound sheets have five
lines and increase to 39 towards the end of the school year. The spelling sound sheets are
not graded but should be reviewed by the teacher for accuracy.
46
Students are given a weekly word list containing words made up of previously
taught sounds. The students are expected to read the words to the teacher and encouraged
to take the lists home to read the words to their parents. The word lists consist of very
simple three letter word combinations.
Sixteen small reader booklets are prepared for the students over the course of the
school year. The program uses a controlled vocabulary so students are exposed only to
words containing letters, letter clusters, and sounds previously taught. The first fifteen
booklets allow students to read simple stories using words the students should be able to
read since they have previously been taught all sounds making up those words. “The
sixteenth reader contains an extensive list of words, all of which the students should be
able to read” (Simmons, 1996, p. 10). The students take the books home to read to their
parents and are encouraged to use the books for future practice.
Oral assessments occur after every four lessons until lesson 100. After this point,
students are not assessed because “students are not expected to master that material”
(Simmons, 1996, p. 10). The teacher should assess students individually, one-on-one.
Assessments cover materials students have practiced for at least ten days. Students are
considered successful if eighty percent of the tested material is achieved. The teacher is
encouraged to reteach specific skills or concepts when the majority of students
experience difficulty. The program includes individual assessment forms to “allow the
teacher to record each student’s answers, and after recording the score on the classroom
recording form, send the assessment home for parents to view” (Simmons, 1996, p. 10).
47
Because Phonics K (2003) is not a reading program; it was more difficult for the
program to follow the recommendations of the educational theorists specifically as they
related to reading instruction. Phonics K (2003) is used as a supplement to the Harcourt
reading program at the researcher’s school. The program follows scripts, which Vygotsky
(1978) opposed. The only one of Gardner’s (1978) levels of intelligence identified with
the program was the linguistic intelligence. Phonics K (2003) promotes learning by
reward as recommended by Skinner (1974) where students are positively reinforced when
they sound out words correctly or read the little reader booklets correctly.
Harcourt
Harcourt’s (2003) reading series for kindergarten is titled Trophies. “Trophies is a
research-based, developmental reading/language arts program. Explicit phonics
instruction; direct reading instruction; guided reading strategies; phonemic awareness
instruction; systematic, intervention strategies; integrated language arts components; and
state-of-the-art assessment tools ensure every student successfully learns to read”
(Harcourt website, 2006).
Harcourt’s (2003) Trophies kindergarten reading series contains 35 weeks of daily
lesson plans divided into three teacher edition volumes of four themes each. The kit is
composed of: a) reading materials (14 big books, 14 little books, a big book of rhymes
and songs, a big book audio text collection, a 24 book classroom library collection, 35
independent readers, 37 predecodable/decodable books for classroom use, 37
predecodable/decodable books for take home use, and a read aloud anthology); b)
manipulatives (sets of five tactile letter cards, write-on/wipe-off boards with phonemic
48
awareness disks, letter, and sound place mats, word builders and cards, and magnetic
letters); c) phonics materials (12 practice books, a phonics practice book, and a phonics
practice book copying master); d) teaching tools (teacher’s editions, big alphabet cards,
picture cards/picture word cards, 24 high-frequency word cards, alphabet cards, a
teacher’s resource book, Oo-pples and Boo-noo-noos: Songs and Activities for Phonemic
Awareness, Second Edition with CD, letter and sound charts, letter and sound chart
sentence strips, and Alphie Rabbit Puppet); and e) an assessment handbook (Harcourt
Trophies Kindergarten In-Service Guide, 2002, pp. 1-3).
Harcourt’s (2003) kindergarten program teaches phonemic awareness and print
awareness. Each letter is taught through a series of lessons that follow the same sequence
of instruction and includes lots of opportunities for word blending and building: a)
phonemic awareness; b) introduce and write the letter; c) identify and review the sound to
the letter; d) relating the sound to the letter; and e) early reading, blending and building
(Harcourt Trophies Kindergarten In-service Guide, 2002, p. 4).
The teacher’s edition provides a shared, interactive, and independent writing
lesson for each theme. Lessons include practice in all stages of the writing process
(Harcourt Trophies Kindergarten In-service Guide, 2002, p. 5).
Harcourt (2003) provides assessment tools, which can be used to: a) monitor
children’s ongoing development of reading skills, b) build a solid base for planning
instruction, c) construct a comprehensive picture of children’s progress, d) provide
practical suggestions for using assessment results, and e) determines the instructional
needs of individual children (Beck, Farr & Strickland, 2003).
49
Harcourt (2003) presents the materials in theme format. The theme resources are
displayed in picture format in the heavy, spiral bound teacher’s volumes. Harcourt’s
(2003) “Theme at a Glance” provides teachers with a week-by-week lesson plan layout
for each theme. The various reading components (sharing literature, listening
comprehension, phonemic awareness, early literacy skills, reading, writing, and cross
curricular centers) are identified with specific ideas for covering those components
(Beck, Farr, & Strickland, 2003). Tested skills are identified by the T symbol. Teachers
are provided many activities and are allowed flexibility in choosing which activities they
choose to use to cover the objective.
Harcourt (2003) provides additional support materials for the different kinds of
learners (below-level, English-language learners, advanced, combination classrooms, and
special needs students). Specific ideas for meeting the needs of these children are
identified in table format by page numbers. On the identified pages, teachers choose from
a variety of activities to accommodate these learners. A recommended reading list
provides teachers with appropriate materials to meet the diverse needs in a kindergarten
classroom.
Each theme contains a reproducible homework idea sheet which maybe sent home
allowing the parents to become involved in their child’s educational experience. Theme
project ideas and learning center (writing, science, sand and water, math, dramatic play,
art, social studies, and block center) ideas are also presented. The suggested lesson
planner lays out the theme activities in a week-by-week and day-by-day format.
50
Harcourt’s (2003) layout is very easy to follow and provides many colorful examples and
illustrations for the teacher.
The day-by-day pages contain scripted lessons for the teacher to follow as well as
small illustrations of the student workbook page to accompany the particular lesson.
Specific objectives, materials needed, additional support materials for diverse learners,
and assessment suggestions are identified for each daily lesson. Because each theme is a
little different, the teacher must follow the teacher’s manual when teaching the Harcourt
(2003) reading series.
Students are given many opportunities to practice writing in the Harcourt (2003)
series. Students copy a sentence each day from the board. Students work cooperatively to
generate lists, sentences, and even stories. Students have journals in which they write on
identified as well as self-selected topics.
The Harcourt (2003) reading series aligned with recommendations from all the
educational theorists presented. Piaget’s (1952) symbolic play, language games, and the
presentation of various literacy forms were evident throughout the program. Vygotsky’s
(1978) individualized instruction, role playing, journal writing, and socio dramatic play
were evident throughout the program. Many activities were available for whole class,
small group, and one-on-one experiences for children of all ability levels. Skinner’s
(1974) behaviorist approach to learning takes place in the repeated readings of the books
where children memorize the words and are not truly reading the books but rather
imitating the reading they have heard. Gardner’s (1978) theory of multiple intelligences
was found throughout the use of the program.
51
Previous Research
The NRP (2000), established by the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, and the U.S. Secretary of Education, identified three major components
critical to learning to read: alphabetic principles, fluency, and comprehension. The panel
divided these into 5 sub-categories: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,
and text comprehension. The researcher identified research on each of the five sub
categories and shows how the reading programs used adhered to these recommendations.
Phonemic Awareness
Arbruster, Lehr, and Osborn, (2001) stated “phonemic awareness helps students
recognize that language is made up of sounds, which will ultimately help them read
words rapidly and accurately” (p. 6). Research by Stanovich and Cunningham (1998)
found phonemic awareness is the most potent predictor of success in learning to read
while Adams (1990) found the lack of phonemic awareness is the most powerful
determinant of failure to learn to read. Adams (1990) also found phonemic awareness to
be the essential core and causal factor separating normal and disabled readers.
When one learns to manipulate sounds in words and syllables by blending,
substituting, deleting or separating sounds, the child is said to be phonemically aware.
This makes it possible for students to use and understand strategies taught during
phonics. This may also help children learn to spell because “children who have phonemic
awareness understand that sounds and letters are related in a predictable way. They are
able to relate the sounds to letters as they spell words” (Arbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001,
p. 6).
52
Dr. Cupp Readers focuses heavily on teaching phonemic awareness during the
first six weeks of the program during the reading readiness lessons. The teacher models
the activity first by saying the name of the specific objects and students repeat. The
teacher names the objects again in two parts and the students put the parts together to
make words. This skill continues to be practiced throughout the remainder of the program
on page six of each reader booklet where the student practices onset and rime. Students
are introduced to sound blending with simple three letter words using frequently used
consonants with short vowel sounds. Students move on to blending long vowel sound
words later in the program. Dr. Cupp Readers teaches students to manipulate phonemes
by focusing on a few at a time. Direct exercises in each booklet allow students to practice
phonemes; onset and rime with simple sound it out words. Dr. Cupp’s Wordhouse book
is a tool used for teaching as well as reinforcing short and long vowel sounds and
common phonics rules. The students relate well to the story and use the story to help
remember letter sounds or the rules that help students make the correct sound.
Phonics K (2003) practices this skill on a daily basis at the beginning of each
phonics lesson. In the beginning of the school year, the activities for phonemic awareness
begin simple with students distinguishing between sounds by identifying same or
different. The lessons move on to include more complex skills such as: a) distinguishing
words by same and different; b) identifying rhyming words, sentences, and compound
words; c) sound blending; initial, medial and final sound identification; syllabication; d)
sound manipulation and substitution; and e) and vowel sound identification. Phonics K
53
(2003) prides itself on teaching kindergarten students the formal names for groups of
letters (combinations and digraphs).
The Harcourt (2003) basal series uses daily activities for developing phonemic
awareness throughout the school year. The program teaches phonemes with alphabet
letters to help children learn letter-sound relationships. Phonemic awareness lessons teach
children to notice, think about, and manipulate sounds. Harcourt (2003) combines each
phonemic awareness activity with a phonics lesson, which focuses on a specific skill.
Harcourt (2003) focuses on phoneme isolation, identity, categorization, blending, and
manipulation.
Phonics
Snow, Burns and Griffin, in Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children
(1998), verified the importance of a strong phonics base. They stated “getting started in
alphabetic reading depends critically on mapping letters and spellings of words into
speech units that they represent; failure to master word recognition can impede text
comprehension” (Snow et al., 1998, p. 18). These authors encouraged teachers to use
small group activities in order to create chances for more intensive teaching as well as
individualized participation. Burns, Griffin, and Snow (1999) in Starting out Right,
encouraged positive learning experiences where the environment creates enthusiasm and
success in learning to read and write. Share et al. (1984) in a Journal of Educational
Psychology article reported “teaching children to manipulate phonemes in words was
highly effective across all literacy domains and outcomes” and “these measures best
54
predict how well students will be reading at the end of kindergarten and first-grade” (p.
1320).
The NRP (2000) found explicit phonemic awareness instruction helps all
beginning readers, including those having reading difficulties and English-language
learners. Summaries of research in Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children
justified the recommendation of a systematic phonics program. Chall (1967), Adams
(1990) as well as Stebbins, St. Pierre, Proper, Anderson, and Cerva (1977) all reached a
consensus - in separate studies - regarding systematic phonics instruction where they
found a consistent advantage for students in a systematic phonics program. Another panel
of scholars compiled findings in the same book:
There is overwhelming evidence that explicit instruction that directs children’s
attention to the phonological structure of oral language and to the connections
between phonemes and spellings help children who have not grasped the
alphabetic principle or who do not apply it productively when they encounter
unfamiliar printed words. (Snow et al., 1998, p. 321)
Dr. Cupp Readers (2004) teaches phonics through the use of the Wordhouse book
and the AlphaMotion song. During reading readiness, students learn hand signs and
sounds for letters of the alphabet. The teacher reads selected pages of the Wordhouse
book and introduces seven letters/hand signs at the time and students sing that portion of
the AlphaMotion song. By the end of the fourth week of school, students are exposed to
all 26 alphabet letters and sounds (short vowel sounds only at this point). Students
continue to sing the AlphaMotion song and make hand signs for as long as deemed
necessary. When students begin the reader booklets, they progress at their own rate
55
through the material so each student works on the specific letters and sounds they need to
learn.
Phonics K (2003) teaches one letter at a time. The program focuses on each letter
for four days in a row. Various activities during the four days allow the student to
concentrate on that letter, the sound it makes, and ways to manipulate the use of that
letter in various words. After lesson 104, students are taught various phonics rules and
how these rules are applied to reading words. Phonics K (2003) focuses on teaching
students coding marks and the phonetic language used to describe these marks (breve,
macron, digraph, combination, etc.). Students complete a daily worksheet where they
practice the skills taught.
Harcourt (2003) teaches letter sounds and blending sounds into words in
decodable text. The student begins with simple vowel consonant and/or vowel consonant
vowel words. Harcourt (2003) uses a technique termed as word building where students
practice making words using previously taught letter sound relationships. This activity
requires students to focus their attention on those letters in sequence to make a word.
Students are taught to see words as patterns of letters, to identify long words by breaking
them down, and to blend chunks to form and read longer words.
Fluency
Students who can read with speed, accuracy, and expression are reading fluently.
This skill must be developed through practice. Snow et al. (1998) recommended all
primary grade classes be taught the literacy components as well as practice them daily.
They recommend students be taught how to map speech sounds to parts, how to use
56
syntax and rhetorical structures to decipher words, how to comprehend passages using
strategies such as such as summarizing, predicting, and monitoring (Snow et al., 1998, p.
6).
The NRP (2000) found, “There is a close relationship between fluency and
reading comprehension. Students who are low in fluency may have difficulty getting the
meaning of what they read” (p. 311). Snow et al. (1998) stated, “Adequate progress in
learning to read English (or, any alphabetic language) beyond the initial level depends on
sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different texts” (p. 223).
Kuhn and Stahl (2000) identified characteristics of fluency as: word recognition
accuracy, automaticity of decoding at a sufficient rate, and the use of prosody. Freedom
from word identification enables the reader to attend to meaning in text. Fluency is the
ability to decode and comprehend at the same time with little effort (Samuels & Farstrup,
1996).
Teachers should provide opportunities for fluency development before, during,
and after reading lessons and should model fluent reading daily. Children should engage
in assisted practice activities that enable them to hear fluent reading modeled, such as
pairing with more able readers to do repeated readings. Kuhn and Stahl (2003) found
“repeated reading and other fluency-oriented approaches improve comprehension” (p. 8).
In order to be effective, the reading instruction used to develop fluency must include
more than independent silent reading, as it is not clear that reading silently to themselves
will increase students’ fluency (NRP, 2000).
57
After reading readiness, Dr. Cupp Readers (2004) use guided, unison, and
repeated reading for students to practice fluency. Students are able to develop the ability
to read with speed, accuracy, and proper expression by practicing sight words lists and
reading stories. The teacher models and students follow along. Students are encouraged
to keep their place as reading shifts from one student to the next in round robin reading.
Stahl stated in his 2000 research with Kuhn, “Teachers support fluency through repetition
and modeling” (p.4). Dr. Cupp Readers (2004) allow students to read on their own
independent level rather than the teaching level of a whole class.
Beginning with lesson 27 in Phonics K (2003), students are introduced to sight
words and readers. The teacher models the reading of each book for the students. The
books are very simple in the beginning of the program since the vocabulary in the books
is limited to only those sounds the students have been taught. The emphasis at this point
is on teaching students how to read, not on teaching grammar (Simmons, p. 4, lesson 27).
Throughout the course of the Phonics K (2003) program students get 16 readers and learn
24 sight words. Phonics K (2003) provides 16 word lists, which students take home to
read to their parents.
Harcourt (2003) provides 35 independent readers and 37 predecodable/decodable
books for classroom use. Teachers may opt to use these books for guided reading where
students learn to read fluently.
In kindergarten and at the beginning of first-grade, oral reading may sound less
like speech because students are still learning to decode and to identify words.
Nevertheless, with appropriate guidance, independent-level text, and substantial
practice, students begin to develop reading fluency. (Beck, Farr, & Strickland,
2003, p. x)
58
Vocabulary
Stahl and Fairbanks (1986), through meta-analysis research, found direct
instruction in vocabulary improves comprehension. Without the proper vocabulary, it is
next to impossible to understand story context (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). Teachers are
encouraged to select a few words based on need to know. The teacher may even allow the
students to help select the words. Activities to promote numerous exposures to these
words in meaningful contexts should be used. Students should engage in utilizing the
word meanings and be able to relate them to their own life experiences.
Students who do not understand the vocabulary in a passage cannot possibly
comprehend its meaning. Kuhn and Stahl (2000) recommended children read widely and
in material which provides challenging words. Vocabulary instruction is an on-going
process and is supported by Kuhn and Stahl (2000) as they recommended using a variety
of approaches.
Many times children learn word meaning from being read to by parents or other
adult readers who are able to explain meaning of unfamiliar text. They provide strategies
through conversations because the vocabulary of written language is more extensive and
richer than the vocabulary of the spoken language (Remillard, 2004). Nevertheless, all
students need direct instruction to become fluent readers and to improve their
comprehension. Direct vocabulary instruction provides students “specific word
instruction” and “teaches students word-learning strategies” (Arbruster, Lehr, & Osborn,
2001, p. 36).
59
In order to have a good vocabulary, one must know not only the words but also
the versatility of language (Remillard, 2004). Using words more than once and in a
variety of contexts helps to reinforce vocabulary understanding (Allen, 1999). This
process takes readers from the basic recognition on one end of the vocabulary continuum
to the rich web of meanings and literacy experiences at the other (Remillard, 2004).
Dr. Cupp Readers (2004) focuses on students learning a cumulative sight word
vocabulary consisting mostly of Dolch sight words. New vocabulary words are integrated
into stories in each reader booklet. Four new sight words are introduced with each new
reader booklet. Practice with these words occurs in both text and in isolation. These
words are repeated in subsequent lessons with the word list expanding with each new
book. This allows students to begin to read successfully right away.
At least 85-95% of the text contains words already introduced in previous lessons,
which not only allows the stories to become more complex in terms of
vocabulary, comprehension, and interest; but also greatly increases the chances a
child will succeed and begin a real reading experience within the first few lessons.
(Miller, 2005, p. 3)
Newly introduced decodable words make up the remaining 5 to 15 % of text. One
component of Dr. Cupp Readers (2004) allows teachers to read appropriate literature to
students, which allows introduction of new vocabulary for students.
Phonics K (2003) provides word lists for students beginning with lesson 25. The
list contains words made up of the letters and sounds students have learned. Students
sound out the words to learn new words. Students practice reading these words and
applying them in the context of reader booklets.
60
Trade books are used to introduce students to new vocabulary in the Harcourt
(2003) series. Teachers read from the Read Aloud Anthologies so students may learn new
vocabulary. A library collection is included with each Harcourt (2003) kit. Teachers may
use these books to expose students to other vocabulary. Strategies such as using a
dictionary, using context to determine word meaning, understanding word structure, and
word relationships are suggested in the Harcourt (2003) teacher’s manual.
Text Comprehension
Pearson and Fielding (1996) found the amount of prior knowledge a reader brings
to text is the best determinant of how well the text will be understood and remembered.
“A causal relationship between background knowledge and comprehension exists” stated
Tierney and Cunningham (1984, p. 612). Cooper (2000) stated, “Prior knowledge for
narrative texts are determined by the story line. The need for expository text is
determined by the topic, main ideas, and structure of the text” (p. 102). When students
understand the difference between structures of narrative and expository texts, they can
better assign meaning to the text structures. In order to help students with this, teachers
should incorporate activities, which activate students’ prior knowledge, or schemata, and
lead active classroom discussions which enable students to add new information to what
they already know.
Comprehension strategy instruction should take a multiple strategy method (NRP,
2000) rather than a single method approach. Comprehension strategy instruction must be
an integral part in the process of reading. Skills taught in isolation are rarely beneficial
and students must practice these strategies as they read across the curriculum.
61
Comprehension strategy instruction can begin early, even before students are able to read
print. The goal of reading instruction is to equip students with the strategic processes
necessary for independently processing print and assigning meaning to text. Providing a
framework of strategies and activities assists in helping students reach this goal.
Dr. Cupp Readers (2004) instill reading comprehension immediately. From
simply sounding out words and understanding them in order to read and understand, Dr.
Cupp Readers (2004) allow many opportunities for teachers to question students
regarding their comprehension of text. Each reader booklet contains two to three passages
where students may be assessed for comprehension. Strategies are taught over time and
practiced throughout each reader booklet. Students are also read aloud to and questioned
using various forms of literature. The teacher models strategies and scaffolds as
necessary. Daily response to questions (both verbal and written) builds understanding and
increases oral language abilities of students.
Phonics K (2003) provides opportunities for comprehension through the use of
the reader booklets. As students move through the booklets, the text becomes longer and
the teacher chooses which questions to use in checking for comprehension.
Harcourt (2003) provides many opportunities for text comprehension.
“Comprehension instruction in kindergarten focuses on helping students construct
meaning from stories read to them” (Beck, Farr & Strickland, 2003, p. xv). Focus
strategies are provided in the teacher’s manual for focus skill instruction regarding
comprehension. Teachers model the strategies and guide students to practice and apply
strategies in their own reading. Students respond to text read by the teacher with some
62
students learning to apply strategies they read to themselves. Students demonstrate
comprehension by answering questions, summarizing, recognizing story structure, and
making and confirming predictions. Harcourt (2003) provides a variety of fiction and
nonfiction selection so students can learn and apply comprehension strategies to various
genres. “In kindergarten, students explore story elements, such as characters, setting, and
important events” (Beck, Farr, & Strickland, 2003, p. xv).
Conclusion
President Bush said, “Too many of our neediest children are being left behind”
(USDOE, 2001, ¶ 1) and “We must confront the scandal of illiteracy in America, seen
most clearly in high-poverty schools, where nearly 70 percent of fourth-graders are
unable to read at a basic level” stated President Bush (USDOE, n.d., ¶ 6). In order to do
this, President Bush signed into law, NCLB (2001). The act basically amended the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and placed more guidelines on
schools and school systems. The acts have been revised and modified many times over
the years with NCLB being the latest revision. President Bush is convinced NCLB targets
areas to close an achievement gap amongst ethnic groups, all major socioeconomic
groups, English-language learners, and special education students, who have been
unsuccessful in achieving the quality of education needed for future success (USDOE,
2001, ¶ 4).
One of the key components of NCLB (2001) is improving literacy by putting
reading first. In order to accomplish this tremendous assignment, NCLB focuses on
reading in the early grades. “States that establish a comprehensive reading program
63
anchored in scientific research from kindergarten to second grade will be eligible for
grants under a new Reading First initiative” (USDOE, 2001, ¶ 4). “States participating in
the Reading First program will have the option to receive funding from a new ‘Early
Reading First’ program to implement research-based prereading methods in
prekindergarten programs, including Head Start centers” (USDOE, 2001, ¶ 4).
The researcher presents findings to support a reading readiness program to meet
the needs of students while also expanding the current research on reading readiness
programs available for kindergarten students. Reading textbook/program adoption will
occur in the next school year. Prior to that adoption, the researcher will present evidence
of the effectiveness of two reading programs used during the last school year. This study
allows the local school system personnel to make an informed decision regarding
appropriate reading materials for the kindergarten students. The results of this study
gravitate out from the researcher’s school to other school systems and states, which
currently use the identified reading materials. The results benefit overall education in a
broader, global manner.
The focus of this modified quasi-experimental research study was to identify
which reading program provides greater gains on the literacy section of the GKAP-R for
students in two different reading programs. The quantitative approach was the best mode
of research to address the relationship between the GKAP-R literacy scores of the two
opposing programs. Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in this localized
demonstration research study.
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this modified quasi-experimental research study was to examine
the impact of reading program instruction (Dr. Cupp Readers and Phonics K/Harcourt
basal readers) on the GKAP-R literacy scores of identified classes of kindergarten
students enrolled at the researcher’s school in central GA. Three classes were chosen by
purposeful sampling to participate in the study (two EIP classes and one regular
education class). The researcher was the teacher of one of the EIP classes of students.
All children who registered for kindergarten were tested in the spring of the year
using the Bracken (1998). The Bracken (1998) is used “to assess the basic concept
development of children in the age range of 2 years 6 months through 7 years 11 months”
(p. 1). The test is administered one-on-one with concepts presented orally. Eleven
subtests of concept categories (colors, letters, numbers/counting, sizes comparisons,
shapes, direction/position, self/social awareness, texture/material, quantity, and
time/sequence) are given to students. The first six subtests make up the School Readiness
Composite (SRC). This section “assesses children’s knowledge of those readiness
concepts parents and teachers traditionally teach children in preparation for formal
education” (p.1). The next eleven subtests require the testing administrator to determine a
starting point for the next set of subtests.
Testing administrators begin with question one for each of the first six subtests.
The testing administrator stops the particular subtest and moves to the next subtest when
a student misses three items in a row. This procedure is followed through all six subtests.
65
When all six subtests are completed, the testing administrator calculates the SRC raw
score by totaling all subtests scores. The testing administrator proceeds to the starting
point table to locate the child’s SRC raw score and then determine the letter or number
for starting item on subsequent subtests. The testing administrator continues testing on
each subtest until the student misses three consecutive items. Totaled raw scores on the
SRC and the seven final subtests allow for the testing administrator to determine a
percentile rank, a level of conceptual development, and a concept age equivalent for each
child (Bracken Examiner’s Manual, 1998). The reliability of the Bracken (Bracken Basic
Concept Scale – Revised, BBCS-R) was estimated in two ways: by examining its internal
consistency and test-retest stability, and the standards errors of measurement examination
(Bracken Examiner’s Manual, 1998). In the examiner’s manual, Estabrook described the
Bracken as “the most comprehensive measure of basic concepts available.”
Two EIP classes participated in the study. Students were placed in EIP classes
based on Bracken percentile scores and teacher recommendation. Students who scored
below the 20% percentile on the Bracken were considered for placement in EIP classes.
The remainder of the students who scored in the 20th percentile were randomly placed in
regular education kindergarten classes. Out of the control of the researcher, students who
transferred into the school or enrolled late might have been placed in EIP classrooms due
to space limitations and the lack of Bracken scores being available. Other students were
conveniently placed in the EIP classrooms because they were repeating kindergarten and
had been in the opposing reading program the prior year.
66
Research Design and Approach
The researcher chose to use the quasi-experimental group design of Campbell and
Stanley (1963) as the bases for the design of this research study. The pretest-posttest
control group design was used (Figure 1). Because of the fluid population and the lack of
intact classrooms at the researcher’s school, modifications were made to the research
design in order to complete the study. Research by Coyne, Kame’enui, and Simmons
(2001) suggests there is a relationship b
etween appropriate reading instruction and reading readiness. It is suspected that using a
balanced literacy program increases literacy score gains on the GKAP-R.
Group A
O1-------------------X----------------------O2
---------------------------------------------------------------Group B O1-------------------------------------------O2
Figure 1. Pretest and posttest control group design
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Quantitative Questions and Hypotheses
1. What is the difference in class gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAPR for students utilizing Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series when compared to
students utilizing Dr. Cupp Readers combining eight literacy components?
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in class gain scores on the
literacy section of the GKAP-R for students utilizing Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading
series when compared to students utilizing Dr. Cupp Readers combining eight literacy
components.
67
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in class gain scores on
the literacy section of the GKAP-R for students utilizing Phonics K/Harcourt basal
reading series when compared to students utilizing Dr. Cupp Readers combining eight
literacy components.
2. What is the difference in gain scores on the GKAP-R among students in the
two opposing programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)
for students of different gender?
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in gain scores for students of
different gender and in the opposing programs.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in gain scores for
students of different gender and in the opposing programs.
3. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
among students of different ethnicities in the two opposing programs (Phonics
K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in gain scores on the literacy
section of the GKAP-R among students of different ethnicities and in the two opposing
programs.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in gain scores on the
literacy section of the GKAP-R among students of different ethnicities and in the two
opposing programs.
68
4. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
among students with disabilities and students without disabilities in the two opposing
programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in gain scores on the literacy
section of the GKAP-R among students with disabilities and students without disabilities
and in the opposing programs.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in gain scores on the
literacy section of the GKAP-R among students with disabilities and students without
disabilities and in the opposing programs.
5. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
between students with prekindergarten experience as compared to students without
prekindergarten experience and in the two opposing programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal
reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in gain scores on the literacy
section of the GKAP-R between students with prekindergarten experience as compared to
students without prekindergarten experience and in the opposing programs.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in gain scores on the
literacy section of the GKAP-R between students with prekindergarten experience as
compared to students without prekindergarten experience and in the opposing programs
6. Does the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
depend on whether or not students are repeating kindergarten and in the two opposing
reading programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
69
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in gain scores on the literacy
section of the GKAP-R between students who are repeating kindergarten and those who
are not repeating kindergarten and in the opposing programs.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in gain scores on the
literacy section of the GKAP-R between students who are repeating kindergarten and
those who are not repeating kindergarten and in the opposing programs.
For the purposes of this research study, the researcher defined gain scores as the
point difference between the posttest and pretest scores. Therefore the gain scores were
computed by subtracting the students’ pretest scores from their posttest scores. The
difference between the two sets of scores were the gain scores (the number of points the
student gained from the pretest to the posttest). Three sets of gain scores were computed:
a) August scores were subtracted from the January scores, b) January scores were
subtracted from April scores, and c) August scores were subtracted from April scores.
The researcher relied on recommendations from Campbell and Stanley (1963) “the most
widely used acceptable test is to compute for each group pretest—posttest gain scores
and to compute a t test between experimental and control groups on these gain scores”
(p.23).
Setting
This study referenced the quasi-experimental research designs (Campbell &
Stanley, 1963). The classes of students being used in the study were not intact and the
population of students was very fluid during the school year. Therefore, the researcher
modified the Campbell and Stanley (1963) design so the research could be conducted as
70
accurately as possible given the circumstances at the researcher’s school. While random
assignment is preferable, this was a convenience sample of classes available to the
researcher. One class consisted of students who were randomly assigned in the Phonics
K/Harcourt basal reader classroom based on their scores on the Bracken. The other class
consisted of students in the EIP who were conveniently placed in the Dr. Cupp Readers
program based on their scores on the Bracken. These students were conveniently placed
in the EIP classroom because their scores were in the bottom 20% on the Bracken test or
conveniently placed in this classroom because they enrolled in school late and no
Bracken scores were available. Students might have been placed in EIP classrooms
simply because they were repeating kindergarten and teachers requested using the
opposing reading program for those students.
The study was conducted at a rural elementary school in Georgia. The school
body consisted of 1,041 students; 164 of those students were kindergarten students.
School ethnicity was 74% White, 20% African American, 3% percent Hispanic, and 2%
multiracial. The gifted population made up 3% percent of the student body, students with
disabilities made up 14% of the population, 1% were characterized as limited English
proficient, and 67% of the population were eligible for free or reduced lunch. The school
is a Title 1 school with 15 % of the student body enrolled in EIP classes during the past
school year.
Subject Selection and Characteristics
Forty-three student’s literacy scores on the GKAP-R scores in three classes made
up the sample for this study. The scores of the two classes of EIP student’s GKAP-R
71
literacy scores (these were combined to make up one group) and one class of regular
education student’s GKAP-R literacy scores were used for the study. The researcher’s
school was comprised of a fluid population during the 2006-2007 school year.
The EIP classes were composed of 24 students. The ethnicity of the class was
eight African Americans and 16 Caucasians. Four of the students were repeating
kindergarten. Nine of the students were not enrolled in a public prekindergarten program
prior to coming to kindergarten. Three of the students were enrolled in both the speech
and special education program at the researcher’s school. Five of the students were in the
speech program while the remaining 16 students were not enrolled in speech or special
education classes at the researcher’s school.
The regular education kindergarten class was composed of 19 students. The
ethnicity of the class was two African Americans, one multiracial, and 16 Caucasians.
Only one student was repeating kindergarten. Five of the students were not enrolled in a
public prekindergarten program prior to coming to kindergarten. Two of the students
were enrolled in both the speech and special education program at the researcher’s
school. Three of the students were in the speech program while the remaining 14 students
were not enrolled in speech or special education classes at the researcher’s school.
The researcher realized dissimilarities among the groups. The researcher was not
able to perform an ANCOVA on the Bracken scores to adjust for differences because of
the lack of scores for all students in the identified classes. One class lacked nine Bracken
scores while the other class lacked five. It was also very difficult to assess students
academically because of the fluid population at the researcher’s school. The researcher
72
was able to identify comparable scores on the GKAP-R assessment during August of the
school year between the two groups of students to be used in the study. Therefore, the
researcher felt all students were on level ground. The researcher then made the decision
to look at gain scores and average differences in gain scores on the GKAP-R literacy
section.
An effort was also made to look at the socio economics of the student population.
It was determined that each class was made up of comparable gender, ethnicities, and
socio economic status. The researcher’s school is a Title I school where all students are
eligible for free lunch. It was found that students did take the free lunch from the school
cafeteria.
Treatment
The two Dr. Cupp Reader teachers and one Phonics K/Harcourt basal reader
teacher conducted their normal reading instruction during the school year. Students in the
Dr. Cupp Readers received 45 minutes of whole group instruction on a daily basis and 1
hour of small group reading instruction per day. Students in the Phonics K/Harcourt basal
reader class received whole group phonics instruction for 45 minutes per day and small
group reading instruction for 45 minutes per day. The teachers followed the
recommendations of the publishers as identified in Chapter 2 of this research paper.
GDOE (1998) guidelines state students should be assessed on the literacy skills
three times per year: August, January, and April. All teachers assessed their own students
according to the state department guidelines. The teachers were aware GKAP-R literacy
score data collection would take place sometime in late spring of the school year. The
73
participating teachers compiled and scored their own class data for the researcher. In
April of the school year, the researcher gathered the data from the participating teachers.
Instrumentation and Materials
Children enrolled in Georgia public school kindergarten programs are assessed for
first-grade readiness with the GKAP-R. All Georgia kindergarten students must
participate in the GKAP-R without exemptions or modifications unless specifically
documented with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The purpose of the GKAP-R is
to provide cumulative evidence of a student’s readiness for first-grade. Thirty-two
Quality Core Curriculum (QCC) objectives are measured on the GKAP-R using
performance-based assessment activities (GDOE, 1998). Students are assessed in four
domain areas, which include: literacy, mathematics, social, and emotional development.
The test is given in a variety of one-on-one, small group, or large group settings and is
administered three times during the kindergarten year (Remillard, 2004). Many of the
skills on the GKAP-R are related to reading readiness and therefore, this information was
used to evaluate the two reading programs.
Preexisting reliability and validity information regarding the Bracken is located in
Appendix A. Preexisting reliability and validity information regarding the GKAP-R
assessment piece is located in Appendix B.
Data Collection Procedures
The researcher began data collection in the spring of the 2006-07 school year. The
researcher provided the participating teachers with a spreadsheet for inputting GKAP-R
literacy scores (Tables 1 and 2). The researcher requested additional information (Tables
74
3 and 4) from the participating teachers so disaggregated data could be generated in
regards to the difference in scores for various subgroups (high performing, low
performing, ethnicity, disabilities, prekindergarten experience, and repeaters). The
researcher chose to conduct descriptive statistics such as means and standard deviations
to analyze whether or not differences in performance existed as a function of
demographic characteristics.
(Table 1. Class 1 data – combined EIP kindergarten)
Student
SA1
DB2
JC3
TC4
AF5
TN6
LP7
CP8
DP9
SS10
JT11
JW12
DB1
LC2
LC3
TD4
RF5
CG6
SM7
GP8
CR9
MT10
CT11
DW12
Bracken
No Score
No Score
9
12
10
6
55
6
No Score
No Score
10
5
.5
2
3
8
Repeater
No Score
12
Repeater
Repeater
3
No Score
5
Aug GKAP-R
10
12
9
8
10
9
9
10
No Score
7
6
10
5
6
7
9
7
8
6
No Score
8
5
7
8
Jan GKAP-R
19
25
21
23
18
20
22
22
17
19
18
21
24
23
28
31
26
29
27
24
29
30
28
26
Apr GKAP-R
42
42
40
32
40
42
41
42
35
42
41
42
33
36
42
42
41
37
36
40
41
37
40
38
75
(Table 2. Class 2 data – regular education kindergarten)
Student
BA1
MA2
CB3
AC4
SC5
JD6
ME7
DE8
CH9
KY10
LH11
JM12
CP13
KR14
AS15
CS16
AT17
TW18
CY19
Bracken
25
86
Repeater (no
score)
58
Repeater (no
score
14
42
55
68
No Score
55
61
No Score
30
77
No Score
37
98
47
Aug GKAP-R
8
10
12
Jan GKAP-R
29
29
24
April GKAP-R
42
42
41
12
10
29
25
42
37
11
12
12
12
12
12
14
11
10
8
No Score
10
12
11
20
26
25
29
29
29
30
28
28
26
20
26
27
29
36
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
76
(Table 3. Class 1 – additional information)
Student
SA1
DB2
JC3
TC4
AF5
TC6
LP7
CM8
SS9
JT10
DP11
JW12
DB1
LC2
LC3
TD4
RF5
CG6
SM7
GP8
CR9
MT10
CT11
DW12
Race
W
W
W
W
B
W
W
B
W
W
W
B
B
W
B
B
W
B
W
W
W
W
W
B
Sex
F
M
M
M
F
F
M
F
F
M
M
M
M
M
F
F
F
M
F
M
M
M
F
M
Pre-K
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Disability (speech, Sp. Ed)
No
No
No
Speech, Sp. Ed.
No
No
No
No
Speech
No
No
No
Speech
No
No
No
Speech
Speech, Sp. Ed.
Speech
Speech
Speech, Sp. Ed.
No
No
No
Repeater
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
77
(Table 4. Class 2 – additional information)
Student
BA1
MA2
CB3
AC4
SC5
DE6
ME7
JD8
CH9
LH10
JM11
CP12
KR13
AS14
AT15
TW16
CY17
KY18
CS19
Race
W
W
W
Multi
W
W
B
W
W
W
W
W
B
W
W
W
W
W
W
Sex
F
F
M
F
M
M
F
M
M
F
M
F
F
F
M
M
M
F
M
Pre-K
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Disability (speech, Sp. Ed)
No
No
No
No
Speech, Sp. Ed.
Speech, Sp. Ed.
No
Speech
No
No
No
No
No
No
Speech
Speech
No
No
Speech, Sp. Ed.
Repeater
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Data Analysis
All student data was analyzed using SPSS, version 14.0 for Windows. Descriptive
statistics presented average gain scores for classes of students in the two opposing
reading programs. Independent samples t-tests were used to determine which group of
students achieved average gain scores that were statistically significantly different. The
researcher performed independent samples t-tests on the group means for three different
cycles of GKAP-R testing. The first independent samples t-test was performed using data
from the literacy section scores on the GKAP-R during the August and January testing
periods. The second independent samples t-test was performed using data from the
literacy sections scores on the GKAP-R during the January and April testing periods. The
78
third and final independent samples t-test was performed using data from the literacy
section scores on the GKAP-R during the August and April testing periods.
Participants’ Rights
The study posed little to no risk to the participants. The students were not aware
research was being conducted as they participated in their normal routine at school. There
was also little to no risk to the teachers as they were allowed to conduct their routine in
their regular fashion without intrusion from the researcher or any assistants. Permission
to conduct the study was obtained from the principal of the researcher’s school. The
principal also granted permission for the researcher to access archival data as needed. To
maintain confidentiality of student scores, the participating teachers used student initials
followed by a number rather than using student names. Only the aggregate or pooled data
were used in the final write up of the study. The only person who had access to the total
scores on the GKAP-R was the classroom teachers of the students. The data is being kept
in a locked box for 5 years and then will be destroyed. Information stored on the
computer was burned on a CD and then erased from the computer’s hard drive at the
conclusion of the study. The CD is also being stored in the locked box along with the
paper documents. Each participant had the right to obtain a copy of the results from this
study. The researcher obtained consent from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to
conduct this research study (IRB approval number 03-15-028950-8).
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Introduction
This modified quasi-experimental study examined student performance on the
GKAP-R based on several factors which included: a) the student’s classroom (regular
versus EIP), b) student gender, c) student ethnicity, d) student disability, e) student
prekindergarten experience, and f) whether or not the student was repeating kindergarten.
The main variables of interest were whether or not the student participated in the Dr.
Cupp reading instruction and which of two identified reading programs produced the
higher gains on literacy section scores of the GKAP-R. Those students who received the
Dr. Cupp reading instruction are referred to as Group B while those who received
Phonics K/Harcourt reading instruction are referred to as Group A.
This chapter presents the data analysis findings to address the following research
questions:
1. What is the difference in class gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAPR for students utilizing Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series when compared to
students utilizing Dr. Cupp Readers combining eight literacy components?
2. What is the difference in gain scores on the GKAP-R among students in the
two opposing programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)
for students of different gender?
3. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
among students of different ethnicities in the two opposing programs (Phonics
K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
80
4. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
among students with disabilities and students without disabilities in the two opposing
programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
5. What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
between students with prekindergarten experience as compared to students without
prekindergarten experience and in the two opposing programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal
reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
6. Does the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of the GKAP-R
depend on whether or not students are repeating kindergarten and in the two opposing
reading programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
Results - Research Question 1
The first research question examined whether or not differences existed in GKAPR performance between those in group A and group B, regardless of demographic
characteristics or background experiences. Table 5 provides the gain scores from August
to January and the independent samples t-test results comparing the two groups’ means.
The results in Table 5 indicate that the average gain scores for the two groups are almost
the same (16.05 versus 16.06). The results also indicate that the two groups’ mean gain
scores were not statistically significantly different (p > .05).
81
Table 5. Group A versus Group B: August – January
The results comparing the two groups with regard to their gains scores from
January to April are provided in Table 6. The results in Table 6 indicate that Group B had
greater average gains than Group A (15.58 versus 13.26). The results also indicate that
although Group B had greater gains on average, the difference was not statistically
significant (p > .05).
Table 6. Group A versus Group B: January - April
82
The results comparing the two groups with regard to their average gains scores
from August to April are provided in Table 7. The results in Table 7 indicate that Group
B had greater gains than Group A on average (31.50 versus 28.94). The results also
indicate that the difference was statistically significant (p < .05). Therefore when looking
at gain scores from August to April, those in Group B had significantly greater gains on
average.
Table 7. Group A versus Group B: August - April
The results for research Question 1 indicate that Group B was not statistically
significantly different from Group A with regard to their gain scores for the August to
January administration or the January to April administration. However, Group B had
significantly greater gains when comparing the August administration to the April
administration. Therefore the research hypothesis that the two groups will have
significantly different gain scores has been supported and should therefore be retained,
but only when comparing the two groups based on the August to April gain scores.
83
Results - Research Question 2
The second research question examined differences in performance based on
gender. Therefore, males in Group A were compared to males in Group B and females in
Group A were compared to females in Group B. The results for the males for the first
comparison (August – January) are provided in Table 8.
Table 8. Males in Group A versus males in Group B: August - January
The results in Table 8 indicate that Group B had higher average gains than did
Group A (16.42 versus 14.25). However, the difference between the two groups’ means
was not statistically significant (p > .05).
84
The results for the females are provided in Table 9 and indicate that Group A had
average higher gains than did Group B (17.50 versus 15.60, although the difference was
not statistically significant (p > .05).
Table 9. Females in Group A versus females in Group B: August - January
85
The January versus April performance results for males are presented in Table 10
and indicate that the two groups’ mean gain scores were very similar (14.50 versus
14.22). The results also indicate that the differences were not statistically significantly
different (p > .05).
Table10. Males in Group A versus males in Group B: January - April
86
The results for the females are provided in Table 11 and indicate that although
Group A had higher gain scores in the beginning (August – January), Group B had much
higher gain scores when comparing January to April (17.10 versus 12.40). In fact, the
difference was statistically significant (p < .05).
Table 11. Females in Group A versus females in Group B: January – April
87
The results for the males for the final comparison (August – April) are provided in
Table 12 and indicate that overall, males in Group B had higher average gains than males
in Group A (30.50 versus 27.75). The difference between the two groups’ means was
statistically significant (p > .05). Therefore males in Group B improved significantly
more than did males in Group A when comparing performance from August to April.
Table 12. Males in Group A versus males in Group B: August – April
88
The female results for the final comparison (August – April) are provided in
Table 13 and indicate that overall the females in Group B had higher average gains than
the females in Group A (32.70 versus 29.90). The difference between the two groups was
statistically significantly different (p < .05). Therefore females in Group B improved
significantly more than did females in Group A when comparing performance from
August to April.
Table 13. Females in Group A versus females in Group B: August - April
The results for research Question 2 indicate that both boys and girls appeared to
have benefited equally from being in Group B based on their significantly higher average
gain scores from August to April. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference based
on gender is retained.
89
Results - Research Question 3
The third research question examined differences in performance based on
ethnicity. Therefore, white students in Group A were compared to Caucasian students in
Group B and African-American students in Group A were compared to African American
students in Group B. The results for the first comparison for the Caucasian students are
provided in Table 14.
Table 14. Caucasian students in Group A versus Caucasian students in Group B:
August - January
The results in Table 14 indicate that Caucasian students in Group A had slightly
higher average gains than Caucasian students in Group B (16.00 versus 15.79). However,
the difference was not statistically significant (p > .05).
90
The results for the African American students are provided in Table 15 and
indicate that Group B had higher gains than did Group A (16.50 versus 16.00). However,
it is important to note that there were only two African American students in Group A.
The difference was not statistically significant (p > .05).
Table 15. African American students in Group A versus African American students
in Group B: August - January
91
In comparing average gain scores from January to April, the Caucasian students’
results are provided in Table 16. The results in Table 16 indicate that Group B evidenced
higher average gains than did Group A (16.06 versus 13.31). However, the difference
was not statistically significant (p > .05).
Table 16. Caucasian students in Group A versus Caucasian students in Group B:
January - April
92
The results for the African American students are provided in Table 17. The
results in Table 17 indicate that those in Group B had higher average gains than those in
Group A (14.63 versus 13.00). However, the difference was not statistically significant (p
> .05).
Table 17. African American students in Group A versus African American students
in Group B: January - April
93
The results for the final comparison for the Caucasian students (August – April)
are provided in Table 18 and indicate that the students in Group B had higher average
gains than the students in Group A (31.71 versus 28.87). The difference was statistically
significant (p < .05).
Table 18. Caucasian students in Group A versus Caucasian students in Group B:
August – April
94
The results for the final comparison for the African American students are
provided in Table 19 and indicate that overall, those in Group B had higher average gains
than those in Group A (31.13 versus 29.00). However, the difference was not statistically
significant (p > .05).
Table 19. African American students in Group A versus African American students
in Group B: August – April
The results for research Question 3 indicate that when comparing the difference in
gains scores between Group A and Group B, race does not appear to play a role. Both
Caucasian and African American students’ evidenced higher average gains overall in
Group B than they did in Group A; although the results for the Caucasian students
reached statistical significance. However, the African American student group had a very
small sample size making it is difficult to achieve statistical significance. Therefore the
null hypothesis of no differences based on race is retained.
95
Results - Research Question 4
The fourth research question examined differences based on disability type.
Therefore those without disabilities in Group A were compared to those without
disabilities in Group B, those with a speech disability in Group A were compared to those
with a speech disability in Group B and those with a dual disability in Group A were
compared to those with a dual disability in Group B. The results for those without a
disability are presented in Table 20.
Table 20. No disability in Group A versus no disability in Group B:
August – January
The results for Table 20 indicate that that Group A had higher average gains than
did Group B (16.71 versus 15.00). However, the difference was not statistically
significant (p > .05).
96
The results for those with speech disabilities are provided in Table 21 and indicate
that those in Group B had much higher average gain scores than those in Group A (17.75
versus 13.33). However, the difference was not statistically significant (p > .05); there
were only four students in Group B and three in Group A.
Table 21. Speech disability in Group A versus speech disability in Group B:
August – January
97
When comparing those with dual disabilities in Group A to those with dual
disabilities in Group B, no t-tests were computed because there was only one person in
Group A. Therefore, only descriptive statistics are provided in Table 22.
Table 22. Dual disability in Group A versus dual disability in Group B:
August - January
The results in Table 22 indicate that those in Group B had a much higher mean
gain score as compared to the one student in Group A (19.00 versus 15.00).
98
The results for the no disability students when comparing January performance to
April performance are provided in Table 23. The results in Table 23 indicate that
although those in Group B had smaller average gains in the first comparison, they had
much higher average gains from January to April than did those in Group A (17.06 versus
12.64). In fact the result was statistically significant (p < .05).
Table 23. No disability in Group A versus no disability in Group B: January - April
99
The results for those with speech disabilities are provided in Table 24 and indicate
that those in Group B had slightly higher average gain scores than those in Group A
(14.40 versus 14.33). The difference was not statistically significant (p > .05).
Table 24. Speech disability in Group A versus speech disability in Group B:
January - April
100
The results for the dual disability students are provided in Table 25 and indicate
that the pattern reversed itself with those in Group A yielding much higher average gain
scores than those in Group B (16.00 versus 9.67). However, as previously mentioned, the
sample sizes are very low. The difference was not statistically significant (p > .05).
Table 25. Dual disability in Group A versus dual disability in Group B:
January – April
101
The results for the final comparison for those without disabilities (August – April)
are provided in Table 26 and indicate that overall those in Group B had higher average
gain scores than those in Group A (32.00 versus 29.36). The difference was statistically
significant (p < .05).
Table 26. No disability in Group A versus no disability in Group B: August - April
102
The results for the final comparison for those with speech disabilities are provided
in Table 27. The results in Table 27 indicate that overall those in Group B had higher
average gain scores than those in Group A (31.75 versus 27.67). The difference was
based on only seven students and was therefore not statistically significant (p > .05).
Table 27. Speech disability in Group A versus speech disability in Group B:
August – April
103
The results for the final comparison for those with dual disabilities are provided in
Table 28 and indicate that those in Group B had a higher overall mean gain score than the
one student in Group A (28.67 versus 27.00).
Table 28. Dual disability in Group A versus dual disability in Group B:
August – April
The results for research Question 4 indicate that regardless of disability type, the
students had higher average gain scores in Group B than they did in Group A when
comparing August performance to April performance; although some of the sample sizes
were very small. Therefore the null hypothesis of no difference due to disability type is
retained.
104
Results - Research Question 5
The fifth research question examined differences based on whether or not the
student had prekindergarten experience. Therefore those with prekindergarten experience
in Group A were compared to those with prekindergarten experience in Group B and
those without prekindergarten experience in Group A were compared to those without
prekindergarten experience in Group B. The results for those with prekindergarten
experience are provided in Table 29.
Table 29. Prekindergarten in Group A versus prekindergarten in Group B:
August – January
The results in Table 29 indicate that those in Group B had slightly higher average
gain scores than those in Group A (16.93 versus 16.14). However, the difference was not
statistically significant (p > .05).
105
The results for those without prekindergarten experience are provided in Table 30
and indicate that those in Group A had higher average gain scores than those in Group B
(15.75 versus 14.14); although the difference was not statistically significant (p > .05).
Table 30. No prekindergarten in Group A versus no prekindergarten in Group B:
August – January
106
The results for the January to April comparison for those with prekindergarten
experience are presented in Table 31 and indicate that those in Group B had higher
average gains than those in Group A (14.60 versus 12.93). The difference was not
statistically significant (p > .05).
Table 31. Prekindergarten in Group A versus prekindergarten in Group B:
January – April
107
The results for those without prekindergarten experience are provided in Table 32
and indicate that the pattern reversed and those in Group B evidenced higher gains than
those in Group A (17.22 versus 14.20). The difference was not statistically significant (p
> .05).
Table 32. No prekindergarten in Group A versus no prekindergarten in Group B:
January – April
108
The results for the final comparison for those with prekindergarten experience are
provided in Table 33 and indicate that overall those in Group B had higher average gains
than those in Group A (31.53 versus 29.07) and the difference was statistically significant
(p < .05).
Table 33. Prekindergarten in Group A versus prekindergarten in Group B:
August - April
109
The results for the final comparison for those without prekindergarten experience
are provided in Table 34 and indicate that overall those in Group B had higher mean
gains than those in Group A (31.43 versus 28.50). The difference was statistically
significant (p < .05).
Table 34. No prekindergarten in Group A versus no prekindergarten in Group B:
August – April
The results for research Question 5 indicate that higher average gain scores were
achieved in Group B when comparing student performance in August to performance in
April, regardless of whether or not the students had prekindergarten experience.
Therefore the null hypothesis of no difference due to prekindergarten experience is
retained; both groups significantly benefited from being in Group B with regard to their
gains from August to April.
110
Results - Research Question 6
The sixth research question examined differences based on whether or not the
student was repeating the grade. Therefore those who were nonrepeaters in Group A were
compared to nonrepeaters in Group B and those who were repeaters in Group A were
compared to repeaters in Group B. The results for first set of comparisons the
nonrepeaters are provided in Table 35.
Table 35. Nonrepeaters in Group A versus nonrepeaters in Group B: August - January
The results in Table 35 indicate that those in Group A had higher average gain
scores than did those in Group B (16.29 versus 15.79). However, the difference was not
statistically significant (p > .05).
111
The results for the repeaters are provided in Table 36; however only one student
was included in Group A and therefore only descriptive statistics are provided. The
results in Table 36 indicate that Group B had a higher average gain score than the one
student in Group A (17.67 versus 12.00).
Table 36. Repeaters in Group A versus repeaters in Group B: August - January
The results for the nonrepeaters when comparing January to April performance
are provided in Table 37. The results in Table 37 indicate that the average gain score for
Group B was higher than the average gain score for Group A (15.70 versus 13.06).
However, the difference was not statistically significant (p > .05).
Table 37. Nonrepeaters in Group A versus nonrepeaters in Group B: January - April
112
The results for the repeaters are provided in Table 38 and indicate that the one
student in Group A showed a greater gain than Group B, on average (17.00 versus 15.00).
Table 38. Repeaters in Group A versus repeaters in Group B: January - April
The results for the final comparison for the nonrepeaters (August – April) are
provided in Table 39 and indicate that on average, Group B had greater overall gains than
did Group A (31.37 versus 28.94). Also, the difference was statistically significant (p <
.05).
Table 39. Nonrepeaters in Group A versus nonrepeaters in Group B: August - April
113
The results for the final comparison for the repeaters are provided in Table 40 and
indicate that those in Group B had a higher average gain than the one student in Group A
(32.33 versus 29.00). However, no significance testing was done due to the fact that
Group A only had one student.
Table 40. Repeaters in Group A versus repeaters in Group B: August - April
The results for research Question 6 indicate that overall, higher gains were
achieved in Group B than Group A regardless of whether or not the student repeated the
grade. Therefore the null hypothesis of no difference due to repeating the grade is
retained; both groups benefited from being in Group B with regard to their gains from
August to April.
Conclusion
The researcher explored six research questions in order to determine which of two
reading programs promotes higher achievement on literacy scores of the GKAP-R. The
researcher used descriptive statistics to present gain scores for classes of students in the
two opposing reading programs. Independent samples t-tests determined that those in
Group B had statistically significantly higher average gain scores than did those in Group
A when comparing performance from August to April. The results also found that all
114
subgroups showed higher average gains from August to April regardless of demographic
characteristics or background experiences.
Chapter 5 presents a summary of the research findings and relates those findings
to the literature. The significance of the study, the implications for social change, the
dissemination of the study as well as recommendations for future research is discussed in
chapter 5.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Chapter 5 presents a summary of the study and conclusions based on the results
identified in chapter 4. Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the data and the implications
for classroom use as well as suggested recommendations for further research.
Summary of the Study
Educators and school districts search tirelessly for the best reading program, the
one that produces higher test scores and meets the needs of all learners. The review of
literature suggests a balanced approach to literacy teaching in the elementary years. The
purpose of this study was to show the effect each of the two currently used reading
programs has on kindergarten students’ reading readiness as measured by literacy scores
on the GKAP-R. The researcher presents each research question, the findings, and a
discussion of the results.
Research Question 1: What is the difference in class gain scores on the literacy
section of the GKAP-R for students utilizing Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series
when compared to students utilizing Dr. Cupp Readers combining eight literacy
components? Both groups of students experienced almost identical average gain scores
between the August and January testing cycle and therefore there was no statistical
significant difference. From January to April, Group B achieved greater average gains
which were not statistically significant. Throughout the duration of the school year,
Group B had greater average gains of statistically significant difference. Group B has
been identified as the group of students which received reading instruction using the Dr.
116
Cupp Readers. For this group of students also identified as EIP to show a greater gain
throughout the duration of this program strongly suggests that Dr. Cupp Readers
provided appropriate reading readiness instruction for these students. Therefore, the
research hypothesis that the two groups will have significantly different gain scores was
supported and retained.
Research Question 2: What is the difference in gain scores on the GKAP-R
among students in the two opposing programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series
and Dr. Cupp Readers) for students of different gender? The males in Group B had higher
average gains which were not statistically significantly different between August and
January. The males in Group B also had very similar gains between January and April of
no statistical significant difference. The males in Group B retained higher average gains
overall and those gains were statistically significant. The females in Group B made
greater gains of statistical significance during the January through April cycle of testing
and maintained the higher average gain of statistical significance overall. Equal benefit
for both males and females was evident with Group B, Dr. Cupp Reader instruction.
Therefore, the researcher retained the null hypothesis of no differences found based on
gender.
Research Question 3: What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section
of the GKAP-R among students of different ethnicities in the two opposing programs
(Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)? African American
students in Group B achieved higher gains which were not statistically significantly
different during both the August to January and the January to April cycles. Caucasian
117
students in Group B achieved the higher gains of no statistical significant difference on
the January to April cycle. Overall, Caucasian and African American students in Group B
achieved greater gains throughout the duration of the Dr. Cupp Reader instruction. The
Caucasian students in Group B had gain scores of significant difference overall, while the
African American students’ gain scores were not statistically significantly different. The
Dr. Cupp Readers program provided appropriate reading readiness instruction for African
American students as well as Caucasian students as reflected by their gains throughout
the duration of the program. Given this data, the researcher retained the null hypothesis of
no differences found based on race.
Research Question 4: What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section
of the GKAP-R among students with disabilities and students without disabilities in the
two opposing programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)?
Students in Group B with speech disabilities and dual disabilities achieved gains of no
statistically significant difference during the August to January cycle. The January to
April cycle of testing revealed students with no disability achieved much higher average
gains that were statistically significant. The speech students in Group B achieved slightly
higher gains with no statistical significant difference during the January through April
testing cycle. Again, students in Group B in all three categories of disabilities had higher
average gain scores throughout the duration of program instruction. Regardless of
disability type, students in Group B had higher average gains overall. Therefore, the null
hypothesis of no difference due to disability type is retained.
118
Research Question 5: What is the difference in gain scores on the literacy section
of the GKAP-R between students with prekindergarten experience as compared to
students without prekindergarten experience and in the two opposing programs (Phonics
K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp Readers)? Group B students with
prekindergarten experience had slightly higher average gain scores of no statistical
significance during both the August to January and January to April testing cycles.
Overall, this same group of students maintained a higher average gain but this time the
gains were of statistical significance. Students without prekindergarten experience in
Group B achieved higher average gains of no significant difference during the January to
April testing cycle. This same group of students achieved the higher overall gains with
statistically significant differences. Group B achieved the higher gains throughout the
duration of the program and the researcher retained the null hypothesis of no difference
due to prekindergarten experience.
Research Question 6: Does the difference in gain scores on the literacy section of
the GKAP-R depend on whether or not students are repeating kindergarten and in the two
opposing reading programs (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series and Dr. Cupp
Readers)? Students who were repeating kindergarten in Group B achieved higher gain
scores during the August to April and maintained those higher gain scores throughout the
duration of the program instruction. Students who were not repeating kindergarten in
Group B experienced greater gains of no statistical significant difference during the
January to April testing cycle while also maintaining greater overall gains of statistical
significant difference throughout the program instruction. All students in Group B
119
experienced higher average gains throughout the duration of the program and therefore,
the researcher retained the null hypothesis of no significant difference based on whether
or not a student was repeating kindergarten.
The results of this research study indicate that being in Group B, regardless of
demographic factors, is associated with higher average gain scores of statistically
significant difference from the August to April testing cycles. Group B was defined as the
group of EIP students who received Dr. Cupp Reader instruction. The results also found
that all subgroups in Group B showed higher average gains from August to April
regardless of demographic characteristics or background experience.
The results indicated three major trends which emerged from the data collection.
The first major trend that emerged was the substantially larger gain that Group B
evidenced in comparison to Group A when comparing January test scores to that of April
test scores. The January to April time period showed the greatest gains for Group B,
although the differences between the two groups did not reach statistical significance in
most cases.
A second major trend that emerged was the significantly greater gain achieved in
Group B in comparison to Group A when comparing the two groups on the third set of
scores (August to April). Although the gains tended not to be statistically significant from
January to April, the cumulative gains (August to April) were found to be significant.
This finding indicates that although Group B showed the greatest gains in the second half
of the year, only the cumulative differences (August to January gains plus January to
April gains) reached statistical significance.
120
The third major trend that emerged was the consistency of Group B to outperform
Group A, as measured by gains from January to April and from August to April,
regardless of gender, race, disability status, prekindergarten experience and repeat status.
The results indicated that all students appeared to have benefited from the instruction
they received in Group B, as compared to Group A, regardless of their demographic
background or previous educational experience.
Overall, the major limitation of this study was the small sample sizes. This was
particularly true when comparing student performance within groups broken down by
demographic factors. However, regardless of the study’s limitations, a clear pattern was
found indicating that students showed stronger gains in performance in literacy when in
Group B, the Dr. Cupp Readers, as measured by average gain scores on the literacy
section of the GKAP-R.
Ancillary Data
Ancillary data was added to this research study due to the fact there were similar
final scores found amongst the two classes of students. The researcher was curious as to
why the findings were similar between the two classes of students when one group of
students had been identified as being EIP, or at risk. The researcher expected significant
differences between the groups of students because the Phonics K/Harcourt basal
combination is not a balanced approach to literacy instruction. Research (Pinnell, 2006)
suggests the balanced approach to literacy instruction produces higher reading skills in
students. The Dr. Cupp Reader curriculum provides this kind of instruction and should
121
therefore have produced the higher scores with more differences in the final scores
between the groups of students.
In order to gain a better understanding of why the differences were so similar
between the groups of students, the researcher chose to further investigate this finding
through a qualitative technique, interviewing. The researcher interviewed the
participating teacher of the opposing program after data collection took place. The
researcher found a diffusion of treatment because the participating teacher did not adhere
to the protocol for the identified program (Phonics K/Harcourt basal reading series) of
reading instruction in her classroom. The participating teacher chose to incorporate
components of the Dr. Cupp Readers into her classroom reading instruction. Because the
researcher did not observe the reading instruction of students to confirm the teacher was
following the prescribed curriculum, a diffusion of treatment was identified as a
limitation of the study.
The participating teacher reported using the Harcourt reading series in the
beginning of the school year but then resorted to only using the trade books
accompanying the series for thematic unit instruction. She also reported using the
Harcourt reading workbooks only in the beginning of the year due to its simplicity and
skill level. The participating teacher reported using Phonics K the entire school year and
followed the publisher’s recommendations for use to the best of her ability.
The researcher discovered through this interview that the participating teacher
used the Dr. Cupp Readers in her classroom three times per week. She used the Hop N’
Pop as well as the fluency and comprehension sections of the Dr. Cupp Readers because
122
those were the major components missing from the Harcourt basal reading series. The
Hop N’ Pop section was used to help students improve sight word recognition. The
fluency and comprehension sections were used to allow students an introduction to sight
word vocabulary and an opportunity to practice reading these words through round robin
reading as well as choral reading. Students were presented with passages of text in single
line format as well as paragraph format where they practiced reading in order to develop
their fluency skills. The teacher asked questions provided by the program at the end of
each passage to check students understanding of text. The students were also allowed to
take these sections home to practice reading to their parents.
The researcher also found the participating teacher attended a Dr. Cupp Readers
training program several years back and was given copies of the original set of the Dr.
Cupp Readers, to which she was allowed to copy and use in her classroom. The
participating teacher had also observed in the EIP classrooms and saw the Dr. Cupp
Readers instruction taking place.
The Dr. Cupp Readers have been discussed among kindergarten teachers at the
researcher’s school and within the researcher’s county for the past 3 years. Many
educators believe Dr. Cupp Readers is a good reading program that promotes reading
readiness skills in kindergarten students. However, some of the other kindergarten
teachers were misled into believing if the school chose the Dr. Cupp Readers, they would
have to give up the Phonics K program. Therefore, no other teachers expressed an interest
in piloting or adopting this as the reading program to be used at the researcher’s school
and in the researcher’s county.
123
The participating teacher openly used the materials in her classroom and did not
consider whether administration would question why she was using the opposing reading
program. The teacher stated that all teachers integrate bits and pieces of other programs
which they have found would further students learning.
Because teachers constantly pick and chose those elements of instruction which
are best at promoting growth and development of students, the participating teacher
picked those components of the Dr. Cupp Readers which she believed would promote
more reading readiness skills acquisition for her students. Those were the components of
the program she integrated into her reading instruction.
Baumann, Hoffman, Moon, and Duffy-Hester (1998) found 76% of teachers draw
from multiple perspectives and materials when teaching elementary students to read.
Therefore the participating teacher did what the majority of teachers do. They decide
what is best for their students and do what is necessary to meet those needs, thereby
producing better learners and higher scores.
Upon interviewing the other participating teacher of EIP students, the researcher
found this teacher only used the Dr. Cupp Readers for reading instruction. The teacher
stated she followed the guidelines of the Dr. Cupp Readers to the best of her ability as
suggested by the teacher’s manual.
Unexpected Results
The researcher was surprised to find a mixture of reading approaches being used
in the comparison group. Given that all kindergarten teachers went to a Dr. Cupp Readers
workshop the prior year, the comparison group teacher was vaguely familiar with the
124
program and had limited knowledge of how to integrate this program into the reading
instruction in her classroom.
While the researcher did not have any provisions in the study regarding the actual
instruction that took place inside the comparison group classroom, the findings of this
study were slightly skewed due to the finding that parts of the Dr. Cupp Reader program
were used in the comparison group reading instruction. However, the researcher
maintains the Dr. Cupp Readers program provided adequate reading readiness skills
acquisition for the group of students labeled EIP. There is no doubt the program is
effective given the amount of gain (averaging 15.75 points gain between the August and
January testing; 41.33 points gain between the August and April testing) for children in
the EIP classroom.
Study in Context of the Literature
The balanced literacy approach to teaching students to read is one way to increase
students reading readiness. Pinnell’s (2006) ten principles in literacy programs that work
support the balanced literacy approach to teaching students to read and is a major
component of the Reading Recovery Council’s approach of appropriate reading
instruction. The NRP (2000) identified three major components critical to learning to
read (alphabetic principles, fluency, and comprehension). These components were later
subdivided into five sub-categories (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary,
and text comprehension), which all support the balanced literacy approach.
One of the key components of the NCLB (2001) is improving literacy by putting
reading first. In order to accomplish this tremendous assignment, NCLB focuses on
125
reading in the early grades. Another part of NCLB requires test data be disaggregated so
gaps in test scores amongst various sub-groups can be found and teaching may take place
that allows the gaps to close.
Providing the best educational materials and/or programs to teach reading
readiness skills to kindergarten students takes many forms. Understanding the different
programs used to teach reading readiness skills are of utmost importance to this
researcher. Relying on the recommendations of educational theorists Piaget (1952),
Vygotsky (1978), Gardner (1978), and Skinner (1974), the researcher thoroughly
critiqued and analyzed the current reading programs used at the researcher’s school to
teach kindergarten students reading readiness skills.
The researcher presented quantitative data from both reading programs being used
at the researcher’s school as well as educational theorist’s recommendations of how
children learn these skills. The researcher critiqued and summarized this information for
use in the current research study. Regardless of which class a student was in, all students
participating in the study made progress. While each program has advantages and
disadvantages, teachers must remember to not only look at one test score but to look at
each child’s individual growth throughout the school year.
Significance of the Study
Contributions to Our Current Knowledge
In response to NCLB (2001), teachers are learning more and more about
disaggregating data in order to close the achievement gaps among different sub groups of
students. Even though kindergarten students in the researcher’s state do not currently take
126
standardized tests, it is important that all teachers learn how to disaggregate test data and
search for ways to close the achievement gaps between different sub groups of students.
Previous research indicates reading readiness is very important to the reading
achievement of students. Although there was not a statistically significant difference
between GKAP-R literacy scores at the researcher’s school, the balanced literacy
program promoted higher GKAP-R literacy scores and higher gains throughout the
duration of instruction.
Contributions for the Classroom Teacher
The NCLB (2001) legislation demands scientifically based research practices be
used in classrooms (USDOE, 2004). Through this research study, other educators can
view and understand the impact two reading programs had on GKAP-R literacy scores of
students. The data obtained from this piece of research provides reliable evidence to
educators of how specific programs meet the needs of identified groups of students.
Rather than looking at one score, educators need to focus on the gains students
make throughout the duration of program instruction The Dr. Cupp Readers provided
students with greater gain throughout the duration of the program. The Dr. Cupp Readers
allowed students with no prekindergarten experience to achieve the largest gains of all.
The disaggregating of data was also beneficial in allowing educators to see greater gains
for various sub groups of students (African Americans, Caucasians, students with no
known disability, students with only a speech disability).
Reading textbook adoption will take place in the next school year. This research
study was important for local knowledge in the researcher’s district so that kindergarten
127
teachers understand which program is best for promoting higher achievement on the
GKAP-R literacy section. While this study did not produce perfect results, the results
may be applied to a national situation or another school district where populations or
reading programs are similar to the ones identified in this study. Others will be able to
look at this study as a demonstration study for identifying gains in programs rather than
looking at one individual score on an identified assessment.
Implications for Social Change
In this research study, four of the principles (inclusion and equity, high
expectations, a system-wide approach, and direct social justice education and
intervention) recommended by Carlisle, Jackson, and George (2006) were implemented,
allowing for social change in the researcher’s school and district. Carlisle, Jackson, and
George (2006) recommended
inclusion and equity within the school setting and larger community by
addressing all forms of social oppression…seek to counter social inequities by
creating environments that challenge oppressive attitudes and behaviors, values
multiple perspectives, and fosters community-building across social identity
groups. (p. 97)
The researcher used the first principle posited by Carlisle, Jackson, and George
(2006) when the literacy score data was disaggregated from the GKAP-R using various
subgroups (high achievers, low achievers, ethnicity, disabilities, prekindergarten
experiences, and first-time in kindergarten). This data allowed teachers to determine if a
particular reading program met the needs of the diverse group of learners in the
researcher’s school. The researcher presented this data to other kindergarten teachers in
128
order to allow them to make informed decisions when choosing reading curriculum for
their students.
Carlisle, Jackson, and George (2006) also recommended
schools provide a diverse and challenging learning environment supporting
student development; holding all students to high expectations; and empowering
students of all social identities. (p. 97)
Those students identified as EIP, based on low Bracken scores, were assessed in
the same manner as students not identified as EIP. Students were placed in learning
environments that allowed for personal growth and development. Students placed in EIP
classes received more one-on-one assistance due to the small class sizes. However, this
was done in order to provide those students with the extra support needed for academic
success in the future.
The fourth principle recommended by Carlisle, Jackson, and George (2006) stated
the mission, resource allocation structures, policies and procedures, and physical
environment, exemplify its commitment to creating and sustaining a socially just
environment between and among various constituency groups and in all areas of
the system. (p. 97)
During the 2006-2007 school year, the researcher’s school participated in the selfstudy for continued accreditation, where 10 accreditation standards were identified:
Standard 1. Beliefs and Mission: The school communicates a vision, statement of
beliefs, and mission that provide a focus for improving the performance of both the
students and the school.
Standard 2. Governance and Leadership: The school and governing board
promote the capacity of stakeholders to improve student learning by providing
appropriate leadership, governance, and organization.
129
Standard 3. Curriculum: The school offers a research-based curriculum that
supports best practices and clearly defines expectations for student learning.
Standard4. Instruction: The school employs instructional strategies and provides
services that facilitate learning for all students.
Standard 5. Assessment and Evaluation: The school uses a comprehensive
assessment system to monitor and evaluate student learning and to improve curriculum
and instruction.
Standard 6. Resources: The school has sufficient human, financial, physical, and
material resources to support its vision, mission, and goals.
Standard 7. Support Services for Student Learning: The school has a
comprehensive program of guidance and other services that supports the development
and well-being of all students.
Standard 8. Stakeholder Communications and Relationships: The school fosters
effective communications and relationships with and among its stakeholders.
Standard 9. Citizenship: The school helps students develop civic, social, and
personal responsibility.
Standard 10. Continuous Process of School Improvement: The school establishes,
implements, and monitors a continuous process of improvement that focuses on student
performance. (Self-Study for Continued Accreditation, 2006, pp. 5-14)
These standards support the Carlisle, Jackson, and George (2006) principles. The
research study focused on identifying the reading program promoting higher achievement
for students regardless of any barriers. Teachers were allowed to participate in piloting a
130
program which could promote higher achievement as well as facilitated learning for all
students, thereby providing teachers with reliable data in order to inform data-driven
decision making.
The research study also followed Ryan’s (2006) recommendation that inclusive
leadership, a promising approach to leadership, allowing teachers to work toward social
justice in their schools and communities be continued as planned in the school (p. 13).
The researcher encouraged another school in the county to pilot the Dr. Cupp Readers
and shared the results of the study with that principal and some of his teachers. The
principal in the neighboring school has undertaken a longitudinal study using the Dr.
Cupp Readers so that his teachers will have firsthand knowledge regarding how the
program has worked for them in their classrooms with their diverse student population.
Throughout this study, the researcher has been allowed to focus on becoming a teacher
leader and sharing knowledge not only with individuals in her school but also in the
county in which she teaches.
The USDOE (2004) stated appropriate teaching strategies and tools should be
used to target at-risk students to get their performance up to the desired level. The NCLB
(2001) was designed to improve student achievement and is projected to target all areas
that close the achievement gap for: all ethnic groups; all major socio economic groups; all
English-language learners; and all special education students; previously unsuccessful in
achieving the quality of education needed for future success (USDOE, 2004).
President Bush said, “We must confront the scandal of illiteracy in America, seen
most clearly in high-poverty schools, where nearly 70 percent of fourth-graders are
131
unable to read at a basic level” (USDOE, 2004, p.1). The National Assessment of
Education Progress (NAEP) found there has been no improvement in the average reading
scores of 17 year olds since the 1970s. Sixty percent of 12th graders in 1998 were reading
below proficiency (USDOE, 2004).
Acquiring the appropriate reading readiness skills in kindergarten sets a
foundation where all children become successful readers. In order to develop good
readers, teachers must be equipped with the necessary materials in order to promote
higher achievement amongst all students, regardless of socio economic barriers.
The researcher recognized social change occurring in the researcher’s school
where teachers are looking more at the growth of individual students during a school year
rather than a total score at year’s end. The group of students identified as EIP meant that
these students entered kindergarten at a definite disadvantage when compared to other
students in the comparison group. Obviously from the initial Bracken scores, one could
assume those students in the comparison group came to school with a better learning
advantage simply because of their higher Bracken scores, indicating possible
preexposure, more learning experiences, and so on. For the group of EIP students with
very low Bracken scores, which possibly means they had limited preexposure and less
learning experiences, to achieve higher average gains throughout the duration of reading
program instruction, it appears that the Dr. Cupp Readers program was highly effective
for students.
132
Dissemination of Study
The study was presented to the local board of education members, the principal of
the researcher’s school, and the kindergarten teachers at the researcher’s school, as well
as other kindergarten teachers in the researcher’s county. The data is being kept at the
researcher’s school and can be used in the next reading textbook adoption in the
researcher’s county during the upcoming school year so the most appropriate reading
curriculum may be chosen for students.
Recommendations for Further Research
Braithwaite (1999) stated
the past decades have seen considerable changes in the ways of teaching language
and literacy in early childhood classrooms. While contemporary approaches
advocate language and literacy practices that reflect a socially constructed model
of curriculum, there are large numbers of teachers who hold differing views on
how language can be taught in early childhood classrooms. (p.1)
The researcher recommends further research due to the limitations of this study.
The small sample size limitation definitely needs to be addressed in other research using
a larger sample. Even though more research conducted using equivalent groups would
probably produce similar results, the researcher recommends further research on this
particular group of students for comparison purposes. The researcher also recommends a
through review of teaching practices of specified reading curricula be integrated into
future research studies. Conducting a similar study several times over in the researcher’s
district could be beneficial to ascertain whether the results of increased gain found in this
study are consistent in a repeatable way or if these results would occur with higher
frequency than chance.
133
Concluding Remarks
The reading wars continue today as educators struggle with finding the
appropriate reading curriculum for students. Textbook companies make modifications to
textbooks every year based on current trends and practices in education. The results of
this study appear to show the balanced literacy approach is best for teaching students to
read because of the overall gains on GKAP-R literacy scores for students participating in
the Dr. Cupp Readers program, which is a balanced literacy program. The ancillary data
also suggested a balanced approach to literacy was used in that classroom as well. The
Dr. Cupp Reader program produced consistent differences in average gains made for the
identified group of EIP students. Although further research is needed because of the
limitations of this research study, the researcher expects findings to be very similar to
those identified in this research paper.
REFERENCES
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Allen, J. (1999). Words, words, words: Teaching vocabulary in grades 4-12. York, ME:
Stenhouse Publishers.
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.(4th ed.). (2004).
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Arbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building
blocks for teaching children to read: Kindergarten through grade 3. Retrieved
October 10, 2004, from
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/reading_first1.html.
Armstrong, T. D. (1994). Multiple intelligences: Seven ways to approach curriculum.
Retrieved July 15, 2006, from
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/articles/7_ways.htm.
Armstrong, T. D. (2004). Making the words roar [Electronic Version]. Educational
Leadership, 61(6), 78-81. Retrieved September 17, 2006, from
http://ebsco.waldenu.edu/ehost.
Bailey, D. B., Jr. (1994). Working with families of children with special needs. In
M. Wolery & J. S. Wilbers (Eds.), Including Children with Special Needs in
Early Childhood Programs (pp. 45-70). Washington, DC: National Association
for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved October 10,
2004, from http://www.newhorizons.org/spneeds.
Baumann, J. F., Hoffman, J. V., Moon, J., & Duffy-Hester, A. M. (1998). Where are
teachers’ voices in the phonics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of
U.S. elementary classroom teachers [Electronic Version]. The Reading Teacher,
51(8), 636-650. Retrieved June 26, 2007, from http://ebsco.waldenu.edu/ehost.
Bickart, T. S., Jablon, J. R., Dodge, D. T., Kohn, E. (1999). Building the Primary
Classroom: A Complete Guide to Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Beck, I. L., Farr, R. C., & Strickland, D. S. (2003). Harcourt Trophies. Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Publishers.
Bracken, B. A. (1998). Bracken basic concept scale-revised: Examiner’s manual.
San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace.
135
Braithwaite, J. (1999, September). Does it matter what I think? – An exploration of
teachers’ constructions of literacy and their classroom practices. Paper presented
at the European Conference on Educational Research, Lahti, Finland. Retrieved
January 7, 2005, from www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001288.htm.
Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promoting
children’s reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs
for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Carlisle, L. R., Jackson, B. W., & George, A. (2006). Principles of social justice
education: The social justice education in schools project [Electronic Version].
Equity and Excellence in Education 39, 55-64. Retrieved on June 14, 2007, from
www.questia.com.
Chall, J. S. (1967) Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate. (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Cooper, J. D. (2000). Literacy: Helping children construct meaning. New York, NY:
Houghton Mifflin.
Coyne, M. D. & Harn, B. (2006). Promoting beginning reading success through
meaningful assessment of early literacy skills [Electronic Version]. Psychology in
the Schools, 43(1), 33-43. Retrieved on June 14, 2007, from www.questia.com.
Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2001). Prevention and intervention
in beginning reading: Two complex systems [Electronic Version]. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 62-72. Retrieved June 14, 2007, from
www.questia.com.
Cupp, C. (2001). The Dr. Cupp readers’ adventure series teacher’s manual. Savannah,
GA: Cupp Publishers.
Cupp, C. (2004). The Dr. Cupp readers’ adventure series teacher’s manual. Savannah,
GA: Cupp Publishers.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Thompson, A., Yen, L., McMaster,
K. N., Svenson, E., & Yang, N. Y. (2001). K-PALS: Helping kindergarteners with
136
reading readiness: Teachers and researchers in partnerships [Electronic Version].
The Council for Exceptional Children, 33(4), 76-80. Retrieved October 10, 2004,
from http://www.kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/library/readingres.html.
Gardner, H. (1978). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Georgia Department of Education (n.d.). Georgia teacher observation instrument.
Retrieved on June 14, 2007, from http://www.glc.k12.ga.us/trc.
Georgia Department of Education. (1998). Georgia kindergarten assessment programrevised. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/curriculum/testing/gkap.asp
Georgia Department of Education. (2001). Quality core curriculum objectives. Retrieved
February 5, 2006, from www.glc.k12.ga.us/qstd-int/homepg.htm.
Georgia Department of Education. (2003). Early intervention program (EIP)
guidelines, 2003-2004. Retrieved January 18, 2006, from
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us.
Georgia Department of Education. (School Year 2006-2007). Enrollment by gender,
race/ethnicity and grade (PK-12). Retrieved May 7, 2007, from
http://app.doe.k12.ga.us/ows-bin/owa/fte_pack_ethnicsex.display_proc.
Goodman, K. (1991). Afterward: Whole language and the pedagogy of the absurd. 20th
anniversary edition. What’s whole in whole language? National Council of
Teachers of English conference notes. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kgoodman/Afterward.htm.
Goodman, K. (1998). In defense of good teaching: What teachers need to know about
the “Reading Wars”. Markham, ON: Pembroke Publishers.
Harcourt Trophies In-Service guide. (2002). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Publishers.
Harcourt. (2003). Trophies (Vols. 1-3). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Publishers.
Harcourt Trophies website. (2006). Retrieved June 17, 2006, from
http://www.harcourt.com.
Honig, B. (1997). Reading the right way: What research and best practices say about
eliminating failure among beginning readers [Electronic Version]. School
Administrator 9, 6-15.
137
Knuth, R. A. & Jones, B. F. (1991). What does research say about reading? Retrieved
January 13, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/stw_esys/str_read.htm.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2000). Fluency: A review of development and remedial
practices. CIERA report #2-008. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Improvement of
Early Reading Achievement. Retrieved on June 28, 2006, from
http://www.ciera.org/library/reports/inquiry-2/2-008/2-008.html.
Matthews, D. P., Klaassens, A., Walter, L. B., & Stewart, T. K. (1999). What is reading
readiness? Retrieved February 5, 2006, from
http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/otherresources/glossaryofliteracyterms.
Mauch, J. & Birch, J. W. (1993). Guide to the successful thesis and dissertation. In
Roberts, C.M. The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to
planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Miller, C. (2005). Dr. Cupp readers and journal writers’ research. Retrieved
January 30, 2006, from
http://www.cindycupp.com/researchsummary_july2005.htm.
Moats, L. C. (2000). Whole language lives on: The illusion of balanced reading
instruction. Retrieved May 5, 2007, from
http://www.usu.edu/teachall/text/reading/Wholelang.htm.
National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children
to read. Retrieved June 15, 2006 from
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/findings.htm.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1996). Comprehension instruction. In Handbook of
Reading Research (2). New York: Longman.
Phonics K. (2003). Norman, OK: Saxon Publishers, Inc.
Phonics K-2: An incremental development, Saxon teacher’s resource booklet. (1998).
Norman, OK: Saxon Publishers, Inc.
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. NY: International Universities
Press. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from
http://www.questia.com.
Pinnell, G. S. (2006). Ten principles in literacy programs that work. Retrieved May 5,
2007, from http://www.readingrecovery.org/sections/reading/principles.asp.
138
Random House Unabridged Dictionary. (2006). Canada: Random House Publishers.
Remillard, S. (2004). A comparison on the effectiveness of Readers Workshop and
Dr. Cupp Readers on reading achievement in kindergarten. Unpublished
dissertation, Argosy University Library.
Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception [Electronic
Version]. Science, 220, 477-478. Retrieved on June 12, 2007, from
www.questia.com.
Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership for social justice for schools [Electronic Version].
Leadership and Policy in Schools 5, 3-17. Retrieved on June 14, 2007,
www.questia.com.
Samuels, S. J., Farstrup, A. E. (1996). What research has to say about reading instruction
[Electronic Version]. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved
September 18, 2006, from
www.reading.org/publications/bbv/books/bk177/index.html.
Self-Study for Continued Accreditation (2006). School improvement planning report.
Share, D., Jorm, A., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1983). Sources of individual
differences in reading acquisition [Electronic Version]. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76, 1309- 1324. Retrieved on June 12, 2007, from www.questia.com.
Simmons, L. (1996). Phonics K. Norman, OK: Saxon Publishers, Inc.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Random House.
Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and
learning to read [Electronic Version]. New Jersey Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. Retrieved on May 5, 2007, from www.questia.com.
Smith, F. (2001). Just a matter of time [Electronic Version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(8),
572. Retrieved on May 5, 2007, from www.questia.com.
Smith, F. (2003). Unspeakable acts, unnatural practices: Flaws and fallacies in
“scientific” reading instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. A report of the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in
Young Children, National Research Council. Retrieved on October 10, 2004,
from http://www.ed.gov/inits/americareads/ReadDiff/read-sum.html.
139
Spache, G. D. & Spache, E. B. (1969). Reading in the Elementary School. (2nd ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Stahl, S. A. (1994). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Paper presented at the 44th
annual meeting of the National Reading Conference. San Diego, CA. Retrieved
on June 17, 2006, from
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3785/is_200504/ai_n13638848.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model
bases analysis. Review of Educational Research 56, 72-110.
Stahl, S. A., & Kuhn, M. R. (2000). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices. Retrieved on June 27, 2006, from
http://www.ciera.org/library/reports/inquiry-2/2-008/2-008.html.
Stanovich, K. E. & Cunningham, A. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind.
American Educator: American Federation for Teachers. Retrieved on June 17,
2006, from http://www.aft.org/pubsreports/american_educator/spring_sum98/cunninghamn.pdf.
Stebbins, L. B., St. Pierre, R. G., Proper, C. C., Anderson, R. B., Cerva, R. R. (1997).
Education as experimentation: A planned variation model. (Vol. IV-A), An
Evaluation of project follow through. Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates.
Strickland, D. (n.d). Balanced literacy: teaching the skills and thrills of reading.
Retrieved on February 4, 2002, from http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.
Sweet, R. W. Jr. (1996). Illiteracy: an incurable disease or education malpractice – essay
on the National Right to Read Foundation website. Retrieved January 20, 2007,
from http://www.nrrf.org/essay_Illiteracy.html.
Tierney, R. J. & Cunningham, J. W. (1984). Research on teaching reading
comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed), Handbook for Reading Research (pp. 609655). New York: Longman.
Turbill, J. (2002). The four ages of reading philosophy and pedagogy: A framework for
examining theory and practice. Retrieved January 2, 2007, from
http://www.readingonline.org/international/turbill4/index.html.
United States Department of Education. (2004). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
Retrieved May 31, 2005, from
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/ayp/testingforresults.html.
Von Glaserfeld, E. (1984). An Introduction to radical constructivism. In P. Watslawick
140
(Ed). The invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know?
Contributions to constructivism (pp. 17-40). New York: Norton. Retrieved on
June 12, 2007, from www.questia.com.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
APPENDIX A: PREEXISTING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF BRACKEN
ASSESSMENT
The reliability of the Bracken (Bracken Basic Concept Scale – Revised, BBCS-R) was
estimated in two ways: by examining its internal consistency and test-retest stability, and
the standards errors of measurement examination (Bracken Examiner’s Manual, 1998). In
the examiner’s manual, Estabrook, described the Bracken as “the most comprehensive
measure of basic concepts available.”
APPENDIX B: PREEXISTING VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE GKAP-R
GKAP-R activities were field-tested in three phases. Field-testing was conducted
throughout Georgia with over 200 teachers participating. Data for activities were
analyzes by Georgia Assessment Project (GAP) staff and examined by Georgia
Department of Education (GDOE) and panel members after each phase of field-testing.
Upon completion of all three phases of field-testing, each activity was reviewed by a bias
committee composed of a representative sample of kindergarten and first-grade teachers
from across the state. A bank of validated assessment activities was created. A selection
committee of educators from across the state reviewed the bank and recommended a set
of activities to GDOE personnel who made the final, official selection of 32 activities for
the GKAP-R. A panel of educators comprised of kindergarten and first-grade teachers
recommended standards for the GKAP-R as the final step in the developmental process.
The revision process was completed in June 1998. GKAP-R was fully administered for
the first time during the 1998-99 school year (GKAP-R Administration Manual, 1998).
APPENDIX C: TEACHER QUESTIONS
1. What programs did you use to teach your students to read this past year?
2. Please explain exactly how you taught reading this past year.
3. Where did you get the Dr. Cupp Reader materials?
4. How did you teach sight words?
5. What did you use the Harcourt reading series for?
CURRICULUM VITAE
KATRINA WICKER
3166 Modes Phelps Road
Cadwell, Georgia 31009
(478) 463-3506
katrinawicker@lcboe.net
EDUCATION
Doctor of Education Candidate, Teacher Leadership, Expected August 2007,
Walden University, Minneapolis, Minnesota
National Board Certification, 2005
Education Specialist, Early Childhood Education, 2002
Georgia Southwestern State University, Americus, Georgia
Masters Degree, Middle Grades Education, 1995
Georgia College and State University, Milledgeville, Georgia
Bachelors Degree, Early Childhood Education, 1991
Mercer University, Macon, Georgia
Experience
Teacher, 2000–present, Southwest Laurens Elementary School, Rentz, GA
Positions: Kindergarten teacher (3 years), Third grade teacher (2 years),
First grade teacher (2 years)
Second Grade Teacher, 1996 – 2000, Saxon Heights Elementary School,
Dublin, GA
Teacher, 1991 – 1996, East Laurens Elementary School, East Dublin, GA
Positions: Fifth grade teacher (2 years), Kindergarten teacher (3 years)
Committees
Parent Teacher Organization Executive Board, 2006-2007
Technology Committee, 2006-2007
Red Cross Blood Drive Chair, 2005-2006
Technology Committee, 2005-2006