Kindergarten Reading Readiness 1
KINDERGARTEN READING READINESS: AN INTERVENTION PLAN
Athesis submitted
by
Carrie Chumley Driver
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
July 27, 2011
Abstract
The purpose of this action research was to determine if a reading intervention plan would increase the basic kindergarten readiness skills of students in kindergarten. Exploring effective strategies to build letter and sound recognition, sight word recalling, and reading comprehension for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds was an important part of this study. Data collection for this study consisted of mixed-methods. Quantitative data was used for pre and post scores. A control group that did not receive the intervention plan was used for comparative data. For the qualitative portion of the study, a teacher focus group was made. The students participating in the study kept a pictograph. Through the analysis of multiple sources of data, the kindergarten reading readiness intervention proved to have gains on students’ scores on the Lexia Reading Assessment.
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………...…ii
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………...….iii
List of Tables…...………………………………………………………………………...iv
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………....1
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….1
Significance of the Problem…………………………………………………….....3
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks………………………………………....4
Focus Questions…………………………………………………………………...7
Overview of Methodology……………………………………………………..….8
Human as Researcher…………………………………………………………..….9
Chapter 2: Review of Literature…………………………………………………………10
Cognitive Development……………………………………………………….…10
School Readiness………………………………………………………………...11
Reading Readiness……………………………………………………………….11
Intervention Plans…………………………………………………………….….15
Observation and Assessments…………………………………………………....18
Student Success………………………………………………………………….19
Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………21
Research Design………………………………………………………………….21
Setting……………………………………………………………………………21
Subjects and Participants……………………………………………………...…22
Procedures and Data Collection Methods……………………………………...... 23
Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias …………………………………..26
Analysis of Data…………………………………………………………………27
Chapter 4: Results………………………………………………………………………..30
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results……………………………………...…..37
Analysis of Results...………………………………………………………….....37
Discussion………………………………………………………………………..40
Implications…………………………………………………………………...….41
Impact on Student Learning………………………………………………...……43
Recommendations for Future Research…………………………………...……..43
References……………………………………………………………………………..…44
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………….47
List of Tables
Tables
Table 3.1Data Shell………………………………………………………………...25
Table 4.1Pre Test for Intervention Group and Control Group……………….…….31
Table 4.2 Post Test for Intervention Group and Control Group……………………31
Table 4.3Intervention and Control Group Pre and Post Test Comparison ….….…32
Kindergarten Reading Readiness 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Students entering kindergarten in this day and time are doing so without the basic prior knowledge for reading development. Students who are most likely to have difficulty with learning to read in the early grades are those who start school with less basic prior knowledge and skill in related domains (Gillet, Temple, & Crawford,2004). The domains consists of “general verbal abilities, the ability to attend to sounds of language as distinct from its meaning, familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading, and letter recognition” (Gillet et al.,p.208). Kindergarten students who exhibit a lack of the basic prior knowledge reading development skills are typically the same students who perform lowest on academic achievement assessments.
Low academic achievement is closely related to lack of resources and many research studies have documented the correlation between low socioeconomic status and low academic achievement (Payne, 1996). Low socioeconomic status is defined as “the extent to which an individual does without resources” (Payne, 1996, p. #7).
Students coming to school from a low socioeconomic way of life face many academic challenges. The students walk into the classroom with a void of basic background knowledge as it relates to school. This is due, in part, because low SES students are exposed to fewer cognitive and academically stimulating activities in the home (McCartney, Deering, Taylor, & Bub, 2007).
The activities that the students miss out on range from talking to or with parents and or any type of adult, reading to or with parents and or any type of adult, visiting museums, libraries, plays, and the list could go on (McCartney et al., 2007).
Low SES students acquire language skills at a slower pace, exhibit delayed letter/sound recognition and phonological sensitivity, and most are at a high risk for reading difficulties (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). Research has revealed that oral language is the base of literacy development associated to this is development in phonemic awareness, which is a valid predictor of later reading by the end of kindergarten(MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). Early intervention cannot wait until first grade. According to MacDonald and Figueredo( 2010), early detection and intervention is extremely critical and the window of opportunity closes quickly.
In the State of Georgia, based on the Georgia Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (G-KIDS), kindergarten students are assessed on the following Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension standards: a)reads previously taught high frequency words at 30 words a minute; b)reads previously taught text with expression; c)listens to and reads a variety of literature and informational texts, d)makes predictions from pictures and titles; e)tell meaning from narrative using prior knowledge, graphics, and questions; f)begins to distinguish fact from fiction in read-aloud text; and g)retells familiar events and important facts. I have seen in my years of teaching that the low SES students do not master the standards for each of the nine week testing periods. This is due in part to their lack of basic prior knowledge of reading development. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine if a weekly intervention plan for low achieving students will improve test scores. This study will focus on the reading development aspect of low SES Kindergarten students.
Significance of the Problem
Kindergarten students enter school without the basic prior knowledge for several reasons. Family environment has most often been a reason because it is thought to be the principle contributor to differences in early language and literacy development associated with low SES (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). Research is abundant with studies looking at the relation between student academic achievement and family climates of low SES. Students with low SES have less exposure to books at home and are less likely to be read to by parents (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). An analysis completed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Early Childhood Longitudinal Study saw great differences in the cognitive abilities of children just starting kindergarten (Books, 2004). As reported in the USDOE’s study, students from wealthy families scored sixty percent (60%) higher than students from poorer families. Strong evidence indicates that socioeconomic status “accounts for more of the unique variation in cognitive scores than any other factor by far” (Books,2004, p. 102).
Kindergarten children no longer get to color, paint, play, and nap all day long. Kindergarten classes today have a curriculum that is packed with standards each nine weeks related to reading. Kindergarten reading standards are of higher expectations than in years past. Kindergarten teachers like to see students entering the doors in August having the majority of prior basic reading development skills already learned. For these students, most have a smooth sailing into letter/sound recognition, phonics, word recall, and sentence reading. The low SES students who do not have the prior basic reading development skills spend at least the first nine weeks being exposed to the basic developmental skills.By this time these students are further behind in the reading development skills area. With differentiated instruction, teachers can meet with the delayed students one-on-one or in a small group setting with reading development instruction based solely on the student’s individual need(s).
Theoretical and Conception Frameworks
Basic prior knowledge reading development can be traced back to Vygotsky’s view of cognitive development. Vygotsky believed that cognitive development is highly linked to input from others (Slavin, 2003). His most noted contribution is an emphasis on the sociocultural nature of learning. Vygotsky concluded that learning takes place when children are working in their zone of proximal development. Functions within the zone of proximal development are ones that children cannot yet do independently but could do with the assistance of a higher order thinking peer or teacher. Vygotsky’s theories have two main implications. One is the outcome of setting up cooperative learning sets among groups of students with differing levels of ability. Tutoring by teachers would be most effective in achieving growth within the zone of proximal development. Second, teachers need to put an emphasis on scaffolding, with students taking on more and more responsibility for their own learning (Slavin, 2003). This action research thesis will incorporate Vygotsky’s theories by implementing small group and individual tutor time as well as allowing students to make gains in their learning development at their own pace.
This thesis relates to LaGrange College Education Department’s (2010) Conceptual Framework,under Tenet 1 and Tenet 2. Tenet 1: Enthusiastic Engagement in Learning, Competency Cluster 1.3: Knowledge of Learners, states that teachers understand their students and how they learn. The teachers understand how to give differentiated learning opportunities based on students stages of development and that teachers understand that factors inside and outside effect students’ lives and learning. Knowing that students are made up differently and that the students learn differently is vital to this research thesis as students will be grouped to target low achieving students.
LaGrange College Educational Department’s (2010) Conceptual Framework
Tenet 2: Exemplary Professional Teaching Practices, Competency Cluster 2: Assessment Skills, states that teachers involve the students in self-assessment to help them become aware of their own strengths and needs. This allows the students to set personal goals for their learning achievement. Students like to physically see how they are achieving. Throughout this research study, intervention assessments and student made assessments will be posted as to where the student can mark and see their achievement goals
This thesis relates to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards [NBPTS] (2010) under Proposition 1 and Proposition 3. Proposition 1 states “Teachers are committed to Students and Their Learning.” Under Proposition 1 are statements that are related to this thesis:
- NBCT [National Board Certified Teachers] are dedicated to making knowledge accessible to all students. They believe all students can learn.
- They treat students equitably. They recognize the individual differences that distinguish their students from one another and they take account for these differences in their practice.
- NBCT understandhow students develop and learn.
- They respect the cultural and family differences students bring to their classroom. (para. # 1).
Proposition 3 states “Teachers are Responsible for Managing and Monitoring Student Learning.” Under Proposition 3 are statements that are related to this thesis:
- NBCT know how to assess the progress of individual students as well as the class as a whole.
- They use multiple methods for measuring student growth and understanding, and they can clearly explain student performance to parents (para. # 3).
This thesis relates to the Georgia Framework for Teaching(Georgia Professional Standards Commission, n.d.) under Domain 2 and Domain 4. Domain 2: Knowledge of Students and Their Learning states that” Teachers support the intellectual, social, physical, and personal development of all students.” Under Domain 2 are statements that are related to this thesis:
- 2.1 believe that all children can learn at high levels and hold high expectations for all.
- 2.2 understand how learning occurs in general and in the content areas
- 2.3 are sensitive, alert, and responsive to all aspects of a child’s well-being
- 2.4 understand how factors in environments inside and outside of school may influence students’ lives and learning
- 2.5 are informed about and adapt their work based on students’ stages of development, assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous development of all learners (para. # 2).
Under Domain 4 are statements that are related to this thesis:
- 4.4 involve learners in self-assessment, helping them become aware of their strengths and needs and encouraging them to set personal goals for learning
- 4.6 use assessment data to communicate student progress knowledgeably and responsibly to students, parents, and other school personnel (para. #4).
Focus Questions
As previously stated, low SES kindergarten students enter school with an absence of basic prior knowledge of reading skills. With the purpose of the study being to improve the basic reading and language skills for kindergarten students, the overarching research question of how the extra tutor time benefits low SES kindergarten students is broken down into three specific focus questions.
- What is the most effective way to implement an intervention for kindergarten reading readiness?
- What effects willan intervention have on kindergarten students’ academic achievement?
- How will the teacher and kindergarten students feel about the intervention?
Kindergarten school years are a critical period of growth for students’ emergent literacy skills (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). Oral language interventions completed during kindergarten give students an additional source of support at a critical time in their emergent literacy development. Studies that assess the effect of tutoring program interventions characteristically reported success. In most cases the lowest achieving students at the start of the intervention had the largest gains in language development. An intervention tutor program needs to be skill(s) specific and focused, not just more of the same thing over a longer time frame (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010).
Overview of Methodology
This is an action research study conducted in a kindergarten classroom of a local Title I school. The subjects of this study were three kindergarten students. They were selected because of their low scores from the Lexia Reading Assessment. The intervention was specific to each student’s needs of reading and oral language development skills. The intervention time frame was from March 2011 to May 2011. Both qualitative and quantitative data were used for measuring student outcomes of the reading and oral language development skills. The method of collecting data was a daily/weekly data checklist of the skills needed. As each student mastered a skill, he/she moved on to the next skill needed. G-KIDS assessment was performed four times throughout the year (each nine week period) to measure student gains and Lexia assessment was administered three times throughout the year (August, December, and May) to measure student gains. I kept a journal regarding the intervention process to record the research process and how students react to intervention time. Studentswere given a survey to assess their feelings on the intervention time.
Human as a Researcher
I am a Kindergarten teacher in a local Title I elementary school in Troup County. I have been teaching for nine years; teaching first grade for four years and teaching Kindergarten for the pastfive years. I feel that I am qualified to complete this thesis study because I see firsthand how Kindergarten students enter the classroom with a void of basic background knowledge of reading skills. This negatively affects their reading ability in Kindergarten. I feel that interventions to include interventions with Kindergarten Readiness and Phonics and Decoding Skills, Dolch Sight Words, and Reading Informal will greatly help the students suffering with reading and oral language skills. I want success in my classroom for all students and all students deserve to be successful.
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this action research is to determine if a differentiated intervention will strengthen the scores of Kindergarten Readiness and Phonics and Decoding Skills of students in kindergarten. This research will also determine which strategies are most effective and how the teacher and students feel about the intervention time. This chapter will reflect upon research that has been performed by others on this topic.
Cognitive Development
Vygotsky believed that students are active seekers of their own knowledge. He did not view them as solitary agents (Papadopoulos, Charalambous, Kanari, & Loiziu 2004). In his theory, rich social and cultural contexts greatly affected students’ cognitive development. Therefore, mental activity is considered uniquely human. It is the result of social learning, of the internalization of social signs and of culture and social relationships. Vygotskian educational and psychological applications offer opportunities for active participation and acceptanceof individual differences. These applications also promote assisted discovery as well. Teachers may guide students learning, tailoring their interventions to each student’s zone of proximal development in order for highest learning to take place (Papadopoulos et al., 2004). The functions of the zone of proximal development are ones that children cannot yet do alone but could do with help of a peer or teacher (Slavin, 2003). Within the Vygotskian theory lies two implications. One is the outcome of setting up cooperative learning groups with students of differing levels of ability. The other is teachers putting an emphasis on scaffolding and allowing students to take on more awareness of their responsibility of learning (Slavin, 2003).
School Readiness
School readiness is not just measured by student proficiency on academic or cognitive skills (Children Now, 2009). According to Children Now, the National Education Goals Panel (1990) determined that children’s school readiness includes five areas: (1) physical well-being and motor development, (2) social and emotional development, (3) approaches toward learning, (4) communication and language usage, and (5) cognition and general knowledge (page 2). The panel also emphasized that school readiness involves families, schools and communities. Without their collective preparation and involvement children have a difficult time being ready for school. In order to help struggling students in key development and skill areas, some states have enacted policies to help ensure children arrive in kindergarten prepared and that schools provide them the supports they need to transition successfully. Collecting and sharing of meaningful school readiness data is essential to successful kindergarten transition. School readiness data also help provide families, schools, and communities’ information to determine how to best help young students succeed (Children Now 2009).