The Effects of a Complete Balanced Literacy Program on Literacy Achievement

1. The Effects of a Complete Balanced Literacy Program on Literacy Achievement Andrea Krasne Crystal Gomez EDU 7201T Applied Theory and Research I Dr. O’Connor-Petruso Fall 2010 - Midterm Presentation 10/19/2010

2. Table of Contents Introduction Problem Presentation Literature Review Research Hypothesis References Closing Comments & Questions

3. Introduction • Growing focus on public education and declining literacy rates • 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 With a wide variety of literacy programs available to New York City public schools and political pressure on which program is considered most effective, children are at a great disadvantage if they do not receive all the elements of an effective literacy program. With that being said, we have a growing number of emergent readers in the upper grades of elementary school where the literacy programs are not providing phonics support to tighten the gap between their reading level and appropriate grade level reading.

5. Literature Review: Phonics Teaching phonics is not the same as teaching reading, phonics is an adaptable resource and can be combined with varying instructional programs (Stahl 1992, Lapp & Flood 1997) Pros: • Phonics is a prerequisite for good readers, teaches emergent readers to derive meaning from formation of word and combination of letters (Freppon & Dahl, 1998; Griffith, P.L., & Mesmer, H.A.E., 2005-2006) • According to Chall, systematic phonics instruction produced higher scores and superior skills and letter sounds in grade one (as cited in Turner, 1989; Pressley, Rankin & Yokoi, 1996) • Systematic explicit phonics instruction is more effective then context based, or immersion strategies, and aids in pronunciation and fluency of emergent readers (Ehri, Nunes, Stahl & Willows 2001)

6. Literature Review: Phonics Cons: • Emergent literacy should not focus on word identification because it produces poor readers with isolated reading skillswhen taught in large classroom environments and ELL’s(Turner, 1989; Freppon & Dahl, 1998) • Comprehension growth with phonics instruction is limited because text samples are contrived and students vocabulary base falls off after the first grade (Lapp & Flood, 1997; Turner, 1989) • Systematic phonics instruction does not provide students with opportunity to draw upon prior knowledge of oral language to help aid in the acquisition of reading skills, many English words are not phonetically regular (McKenna, Robinson & Miller, 1990; Lapp & Flood, 1997)

7. Literature Review: Whole Language Classrooms Following the outlines of the workshop model, students learn successfully learn to read while immersed in rich literature that connects reading and writing. (McKenna, Robinson & Miller, 1990) Pro: • Educators support whole language through rich literature immersion because students learn phonics in a meaningful manner that increased comprehension as they increase in grade level (Pressley, Rankin & Yokoi, 1996) • Learning styles can contribute to the success of whole language instruction and individual learning needs are addressed (McKenna, Robinson & Miller, 1990) • Studies supported Carbo’s theory that reading comprehension is advanced by intrinsic phonics instruction through the whole language approach, out performs phonics instructional groups (Turner, 1989)

8. Literature Review: Whole Language Classrooms Con: • Effectiveness of whole language is difficult to assess, according to standardized tests, written passages are too short for students to use these holistic skills to derive meaning (McKenna, Robinson & Miller, 1990) • Emergent readers are lagging behind with phonemic awareness skills, showed deficits in word recognition and sounds of letters and blends through the middle of second grade (Turner, 1989;)

9. Literature Review: Balanced Literacy “Balanced instruction combines phonics and holistic instruction, scaffolding, personalized instruction and the use of running records, anecdotals, rubrics and portfolios to connect reading and writing in the curriculum.” (Turner, 1989) Pros: • Through literature immersion and emphases on constructing meaning from text, students learn to effectively apply phonics and making connections to the text (Turner, 1989; Bruneau, 1997) • Incorporating phonics instruction to a literature immersion program, enable students to be exposed to rich texts, while becoming strong independent fluent readers (Campbell, Shaffer & Rakes, 2000) • Through a whole-part-whole routine struggling readers are introduced to phonics to compare unknown words to known words to support decoding through the workshop model (Freppon & Dahl, 1998)

10. Literature Review: Balanced Literacy Cons: • Teachers are limited in their choice of materials for instructional practice and do not receive appropriate phonics training to make a true balanced literacy program that addresses individual students needs (Freppon & Dahl, 1998; Campbell, Shaffer & Rakes, 2000) • Research does not support one balanced literacy instructional program that will prove effective for every student population (Freppon & Dahl, 1998)

11. Research Hypothesis Using a clearly defined balanced literacy program, which incorporates phonics instruction with rich text: HR1: 27- third grade students in PS X, an urban Manhattan based public school, over a six-week period will participate in defined lessons. HR2: 28-fifth grade CTT students in PS Y, an urban Brooklyn based public school, will participate in structured lesson over a six-week period. Through these intervention programs struggling students will improve their reading ability, and will be evaluated based on a Fountas and Pinnell running record and comprehensive questions to assess reading progress.

12. Bruneau, B.J. (1997). Early childhood: The literacy pyramid organization of reading/writing activities in a whole language classroom. The Reading Teacher, 51(2), 158-160. Campbell, P., Rakes, S., & Schaffer, 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. 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. Freppon, P.A., & Dahl, K.L. (1998). Balanced instruction: Insights and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(2), 240-251. 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. References

13. 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. McKenna, M.C., Robinson, R.D., & Miller, J.D. (1990). Whole language: A research agenda for the nineties. Educational Researcher, 19(8), 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. Turner, R.L. (December, 1989). The ‘great’ debate--Can Carbo and Chall be right? The Phi Delta Kappan, 71(4), 276-283. References (Continued)

14. QUESTIONS?