Post on 02-Feb-2016
description
The Effect of Complete Balanced Literacy
Instruction on Literacy Achievement
Crystal GomezAndrea Krasne
Applied Theory and Research I & IIDr. O’Connor-Petruso
Fall 2010 & Spring 2011
Final Presentation: May 5, 2011
Table of Contents IntroductionProblem PresentationLiterature ReviewResearch HypothesisParticipants & InstrumentsExperimental DesignThreats to Internal and External ValidityProcedureResultsDiscussion & Implications
IntroductionGrowing focus on public education and declining literacy rates
Increased number of students labeled ‘reading deficient’ or ‘at-risk’
We are failing our students because of lack of preparation and intervention
Decline in teacher training and preparation results
Loose definition of “balanced literacy”
Problem PresentationResearch suggests that current balanced
literacy instruction is a loosely designed program, lacking efficient teacher implemented support for struggling readers. Too often educators are not trained on how to implement phonics instruction after the second grade. While phonics instruction has a tainted image because it is often associated with memorization and rote lesson planning, there are such a wide variety of instructional supplements that can be used to provide a successful phonics experience for our students. Emergent readers are the only students taught phonics explicitly. Struggling readers in the third through fifth grades would benefit from a complete balanced literacy program that provides rich literature that incorporates phonics both implicitly and explicitly.
04/22/23
Literature Review, Instructional Practice & Theorists
Great Debate – Phonics vs. Whole Language (Allington, 2002; Bruneau, 1997; Duffy-Hester, 1999; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl & Willows, 2001)
Professional Development Unsure how to accommodate students, need more training, PD
increases achievement (Bruneau, 1997; Duffy-Hester, 1999; Frey, Lee, & Tollefson, 2005; Kennedy & Shiel, 2010; Mesmer & Griffith,
2005; Willows, 2002; ; Xue & Meisels, 1998)
Phonics Pros: Chall - prerequisite for good readers, superior word
identification(Freppon & Dahl, 1998; Griffith, P.L., & Mesmer, H.A.E., 2005-2006)
Cons: readers with isolated skills, no opportunity to draw on prior knowledge
(Lapp & Flood, 1997; McKenna, Robinson & Miller, 1990)
Whole Language Pros: Carbo -rich literature immersion, phonics attained intrinsically
(Pressley, Rankin & Yokoi, 1996)
Cons: Turner - difficult to assess, deficient word recognition (McKenna, Robinson & Miller, 1990)
Balanced Literacy Pros: effective application of skills, exposure to rich text
(Bruneau, 1997; Campbell, Shaffer & Rakes, 2000; Turner, 1989)
Cons: limited materials & training, not one size fits all(Campbell, Shaffer & Rakes, 2000; Freppon & Dahl, 1998)
04/22/23
Research Hypothesis
HR – Implementing a balanced literacy program that includes phonics instruction and exposure to rich texts to students in a small group setting for thirty-minute sessions (three times a week) over a six-week period, will increase the reading scores of 26 third-grade students in PSX in Manhattan and 36 fifth-grade students in PSY in Brooklyn.
Participants & Instruments
PSX, Manhattan, NY 3rd Grade Classroom: 26 students
PSY, Brooklyn, NY 5th Grade Classroom: 36 students
Teachers College Reading AssessmentFountas & Pinnel Reading AssessmentStudent Reading QuestionnaireReading BenchmarksBalanced Literacy Model Skill Instruction for Small Group Intervention
Experimental Design
Quasi-Experimental Design
- Nonequivalent Control Group Design
- Two groups are pretested, exposed to a treatment (X), and post-tested (O).
Symbolic Design: O X1 O
O X2 O
Experimental Design Reasoning:Two schools; PSX & PSY
-3rd & 5th Grades-CTT & General Education
Both school classrooms will be
-pretested-engage in literacy intervention-post-tested
Threats to ValidityInternal Threats
HistoryMaturationTestingInstrumentationSelectionMortalitySelection-Maturation Interaction
External Threats
Ecological ValidityGeneralizable ConditionsPre-Test TreatmentSelection- Treatment InteractionSpecificity of VariablesMultiple Treatments
ProcedureStudents are pre-tested individuallyPre-test results normed based on benchmarkStudents administered questionnaireQuestionnaire results and pre-test data used to create small groups Four students to one teacher
Six week small group intervention Balanced Literacy Skill Instruction
Students post-testedPost-test results normed based on benchmarkPost-test results evaluated Determine correlation – questionnaire results Compared to pre-test results to determine
effectiveness of intervention
Test Results
35% of data: +/- 1 SD from mean
50% of data: +/- 1 SD from mean
53% of data: +/- 1 SD from mean
66% of data: +/- 1 SD from mean
Test Score Key 1= below, 2= approaching, 3= on, 4= above
Correlations
0.05rxy – no conclusive evidence
-0.16rxy – no conclusive evidence
-0.11rxy – no conclusive evidence
0.06rxy – no conclusive evidence
Test Score Key 1= below2= approaching3= on4= above
DiscussionPSX and PSY’s average test scores increased from pre-test to post-testTest averages for both schools showed reading struggles – “2” score is not on grade levelReading Test can be biased: prompts, comprehension evaluationLiteracy benchmarks are a moving targetNo correlation between test scores and questionnaire - consider validity of questionnaire results
ImplicationsSmall increase in average test scores – implement intervention over longer period of timeConsider IEP students, and individualized GoalsModify skills instruction with multimedia and Gardner’s M.I. in mindDevelop extension activities for students reading at a “3 or 4”
ReferencesReferencesAllington, R.I. (June, 2002). What I have learned about effective reading instruction from a decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. The Phi Delta Kappan, 20(1), 1-12.Baumann, J.F., et al. (May, 1998). Where are teachers’ voices in the phonics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of U.S. elementary classroom teachers. The Reading Teacher, 51(8), 636-650.Bruneau, B.J. (October, 1997). The literacy pyramid organization of reading/writing activities in a whole language classroom. The Reading Teacher, 51(2), 158-160.Campbell, P., Rakes, S., & Shaffer, G.L. (Fall, 2000). Investigating the status and perceived importance of explicit phonics instruction in elementary classroom teachers. The Reading Teacher, 51(8), 636-650.Carbo, M. (November, 1988). Debunking the great phonics myth. The Phi Delta Kappan, 70(3), 226-240.Chall, J.S. (March, 1989). “Learning to read: The great debate” 20 years later: A response to ‘debunking the great phonics myth.’ Phi Delta Kappan International, 70(7), 521-538.Duffy-Hester, A.M. (February, 1999). Teaching struggling readers in elementary school
classrooms: A review of classroom reading programs and principles for instruction. The Reading Teacher, 52(5), 480-495.Ehri, L.C., et al. (Autumn, 2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the national reading panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Education Research, 71(3), 393-447.
References References (Continued)(Continued)
Freppon, P.A., & Dahl, K.L. (1998). Theory and research into practice: Balanced instruction: Insights and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(2), 240-251.Frey, B.B., Lee, S.W., & Tollefson, N. (May, 2005). Balanced literacy in an urban school district. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 272-280.Goodman, K.S. (November, 1989). Whole-language research: Foundations and development. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 207-221.Grenawalt, V. (December, 2004). Going beyond the debate: Using technology and instruction
for a balanced reading program. Teacher Librarian, 32(2), 12-15.Griffith, P.L., & Mesmer, H.A.E. (December, 2005 – January, 2006). Everybody’s selling it: But just what is explicit, systematic phonics instruction? The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 366-376.Ivey, G., Baumann, J.F., & Jarrard, D. (Summer, 2000). Exploring literacy balance: Iterations in a second-grade and sixth-grade classroom. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(4), 291-309.Kennedy, E., & Shiel, G. (2010). Raising literacy levels with collaborative on-site professional development in an urban disadvantaged school. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 372-383.Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (May, 1997). Point-Counterpoint: Where’s the phonics? Making the case (again) for integrated code instruction. The Reading Teacher, 50(8), 696-700.Manset-Williamson, G., & Nelson, J.M. (Winter, 2005). Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper-elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 28(1), 59-74.
References References (Continued)(Continued)McKenna, M.C., Robinson, R.D., & Miller, J.W. (November, 1990). Whole language: A
research agenda for the nineties. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 3-6.Pressley, M., Rankin, J., & Yokoi, L. (March, 1996). A survey of instructional practices of primary teachers nominated as effective in promoting literacy. The Elementary School Journal, 96 (4), 363-384.Stahl, S.A. (April, 1992). Saying the “p” word: Nine guidelines for exemplary phonics instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45(8), 618-625.Stahl, S.A. (November, 1999). Why innovations come and go (and mostly go): The case of whole language. Educational Researcher, 28(8), 13-22.Stahl, S.A., Duffy-Hester, A.M., & Stahl, K.A.D. (July-August-September, 1998). Theory and research into practice: Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 338-355.Turner, R.L. (December, 1989). The ‘great’ debate-can both Carbo and Chall be right? The Phi Delta Kappan, 71(4), 276-283. Willows, D. (January, 2002). The balanced literacy diet. School Administrator, 59(1), 30-33.Xue, Y., & Meisels, S.J. (Spring, 2004). Early literacy instruction and learning in kindergarten: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study—kindergarten class of 1998-1999. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 191-229.