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.