Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:
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 Final Presentation 11/30/2010
Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………..………………..1 Problem Presentation………………………….………………….2 Literature Review…………………………………………….…3-16 Research Hypothesis…………………………………………….17 Method Participants…………………………………………………………..18 Instruments…………………………………………………………..19 References…………………………………………………..………25-27
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”
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. The “great debate” between whole-language and phonics instruction has plagued our school system for many years. Each program suggests benefits and defects to each program used, especially in terms of the executed approach. 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.
Literature Review: The ‘Great Debate’ In the world of literacy education, there is a deep rooted debated over what classroom instructional method produces the best most efficient readers for the future. Over time, with much heated arguments, this feud has been named The ‘Great’ Debate. (Bauman, Hoffman, Moon, & Duffy-Hester, 1998; Chall, 1989; Turner, 1989) Research findings can go back and forth about the best reading program, but the goal of reading is to comprehend regardless of the instructional approach (Duffy-Hester, 1999; Stahl, Duffy-Hester, Dougherty Stahl, 1998; Manset- Williamson & Nelson, 2005; Carbo, 1988) Many argue phonics instruction vs. the whole language approach but reading context clues and deriving meaning should be done in a way where the skills are meaningful to the student and the student is taught to use these rules to independently problem solve while reading on their own this can be done (Allington, 2002; Bruneau, 1997; Duffy-Hester, 1999; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl & Willows, 2001)
Literature Review: Phonics 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., ) According to Chall, systematic phonics instruction produced higher scores and superior skills and letter sounds in grade one ( Pressley, Rankin & Yokoi, 1996; as cited in Turner, 1989) 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 (Freppon & Dahl, 1998; 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 (Lapp & Flood, 1997; McKenna, Robinson & Miller, 1990)
Literature Review: Whole Language 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) 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) 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)
Literature Review: Balanced Literacy Pros: Through literature immersion and emphases on constructing meaning from text, students learn to effectively apply phonics and making connections to the text ( Bruneau, 1997; Turner, 1989) 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) 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 (Campbell, Shaffer & Rakes, 2000; Freppon & Dahl, 1998) Research does not support one balanced literacy instructional program that will prove effective for every student population (Freppon & Dahl, 1998)
Literature Review: Professional Development Educators are not sure how to accommodate the needs of struggling readers at any grade level and feel lack of professional development in this content area does not set teachers up to best help these students become proficient and avid readers (Duffy-Hester, 1999; Xue & Meisels, 1998) Much of literacy achievement is measured through aggregated data of student reading levels and progress, teachers must also be trained on how to assess students and use data to set up their instruction for future strategy lessons (Bruneau, 1997; Kennedy & Shiel, 2010; Mesmer & Griffith, 2005) Onsite professional development programs increase effectiveness of teacher-implemented lessons, promoting higher student literacy achievement (Frey, Lee, & Tollefson, 2005; Kennedy & Shiel, 2010; Willows, 2002)
Research Hypothesis HR1 Implementing a balanced literacy program that includes phonics instruction and exposure to rich texts to students reading two levels below the benchmark for thirty-minute sessions (three times a week) over a six-week period, will increase the reading scores of 28 third grade students in PS X in Manhattan. HR2 Implementing a balanced literacy program that includes phonics instruction and exposure to rich texts to students reading two levels below the benchmark for thirty-minute sessions (three times a week) over a six-week period, will increase the reading scores of 30 fifth grade students in PS Y in Brooklyn.
Methods: Participants PS X, Manhattan, NY – 3 rd Grade Classroom: 28 students PS Y, Brooklyn, NY – 5 th Grade Classroom: 30 students Intervention will occur in small group setting, similar to guided reading, no more than 4 students to 1 teacher students reading more than two grade levels below benchmark in classroom will be pulled for this intervention implementation Dependent Variable: literacy scores on assessment Independent Variable: literacy instructional program
Methods: Instruments Teacher’s College Reading Assessment Conference and progress notes Student reading questionnaires regarding frequency and interest in genres Questionnaires for parents about their child’s reading behavior and how often they monitor child’s reading at home
References 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), 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), Bruneau, B.J. (October, 1997). The literacy pyramid organization of reading/writing activities in a whole language classroom. The Reading Teacher, 51(2), 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), Carbo, M. (November, 1988). Debunking the great phonics myth. The Phi Delta Kappan, 70(3), 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), 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), 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),
References (Continued) Freppon, P.A., & Dahl, K.L. (1998). Theory and research into practice: Balanced instruction: Insights and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(2), Frey, B.B., Lee, S.W., & Tollefson, N. (May, 2005). Balanced literacy in an urban school district. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), Goodman, K.S. (November, 1989). Whole-language research: Foundations and development. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2), Grenawalt, V. (December, 2004). Going beyond the debate: Using technology and instruction for a balanced reading program. Teacher Librarian, 32(2), 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), 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), Kennedy, E., & Shiel, G. (2010). Raising literacy levels with collaborative on-site professional development in an urban disadvantaged school. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 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), 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),
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), Stahl, S.A. (April, 1992). Saying the “p” word: Nine guidelines for exemplary phonics instruction. The Reading Teacher, 45(8), Stahl, S.A. (November, 1999). Why innovations come and go (and mostly go): The case of whole language. Educational Researcher, 28(8), 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), Turner, R.L. (December, 1989). The ‘great’ debate-can both Carbo and Chall be right? The Phi Delta Kappan, 71(4), Willows, D. (January, 2002). The balanced literacy diet. School Administrator, 59(1), Xue, Y., & Meisels, S.J. (Spring, 2004). Early literacy instruction and learning in kindergarten: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study—kindergarten class of American Educational Research Journal, 41(1),