1 / 16

The Effect of Complete Balanced Literacy Instruction on Literacy Achievement

The Effect of Complete Balanced Literacy Instruction on Literacy Achievement. Crystal Gomez Andrea Krasne Applied Theory and Research I & II Dr. O ’ Connor-Petruso Fall 2010 & Spring 2011 Final Presentation: May 5, 2011. Table of Contents. Introduction Problem Presentation

easter
Download Presentation

The Effect of Complete Balanced Literacy Instruction on Literacy Achievement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Effect of Complete Balanced Literacy Instruction on Literacy Achievement Crystal Gomez Andrea Krasne Applied Theory and Research I & II Dr. O’Connor-Petruso Fall 2010 & Spring 2011 Final Presentation: May 5, 2011

  2. Table of Contents • Introduction • Problem Presentation • Literature Review • Research Hypothesis • Participants & Instruments • Experimental Design • Threats to Internal and External Validity • Procedure • Results • Discussion & Implications

  3. Introduction • Growing 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”

  4. Problem Presentation Research 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.

  5. 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)

  6. 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.

  7. Participants & Instruments • PSX, Manhattan, NY • 3rdGrade Classroom: 26 students • PSY, Brooklyn, NY • 5th Grade Classroom: 36 students • Teachers College Reading Assessment • Fountas & Pinnel Reading Assessment • Student Reading Questionnaire • Reading Benchmarks • Balanced Literacy Model • Skill Instruction for Small Group Intervention

  8. Experimental Design • 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 • Quasi-Experimental Design • Nonequivalent Control Group Design • Two groups are pretested, exposed to a treatment (X), and post-tested (O). • Symbolic Design: OX1 O O X2 O

  9. Threats to Validity Internal Threats External Threats Ecological Validity Generalizable Conditions Pre-Test Treatment Selection- Treatment Interaction Specificity of Variables Multiple Treatments • History • Maturation • Testing • Instrumentation • Selection • Mortality • Selection-Maturation Interaction

  10. Procedure • Students are pre-tested individually • Pre-test results normed based on benchmark • Students administered questionnaire • Questionnaire 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-tested • Post-test results normed based on benchmark • Post-test results evaluated • Determine correlation – questionnaire results • Compared to pre-test results to determine effectiveness of intervention

  11. Test Results 53% of data: +/- 1 SD from mean 50% of data: +/- 1 SD from mean 66% of data: +/- 1 SD from mean 35% of data: +/- 1 SD from mean Test Score Key 1= below, 2= approaching, 3= on, 4= above

  12. Test Score Key 1= below 2= approaching 3= on 4= above Correlations -0.11rxy – no conclusive evidence -0.16rxy – no conclusive evidence 0.05rxy – no conclusive evidence 0.06rxy – no conclusive evidence

  13. Discussion Implications Small increase in average test scores – implement intervention over longer period of time Consider IEP students, and individualized Goals Modify skills instruction with multimedia and Gardner’s M.I. in mind Develop extension activities for students reading at a “3 or 4” • PSX and PSY’s average test scores increased from pre-test to post-test • Test averages for both schools showed reading struggles – “2” score is not on grade level • Reading Test can be biased: prompts, comprehension evaluation • Literacy benchmarks are a moving target • No correlation between test scores and questionnaire - consider validity of questionnaire results Are reading benchmarks realistic?

  14. Allington, 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

  15. 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 (Continued)

  16. References (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.

More Related