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 quasi-experimental 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 t-tests 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!
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
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
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
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
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
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Pretest posttest control group design...... 66
1
1
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 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 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.
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 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 letter-sound 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.