1. The Affect 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
Andrea to open presentation

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
Andrea

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”
Crystal

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.
Crystal

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., )
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)
Crystal
4/26/2017

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.
Crystal
4/26/2017

7. Participants & Instruments
PSX, Manhattan, NY
3rd Grade 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
Crystal

8. 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
Andrea

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

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
Andrea

11. Test Results 53% of data: +/- 1 SD from mean
Andrea
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. Correlations -0.11rxy – no conclusive evidence
Test Score Key
1= below
2= approaching
3= on
4= above
-0.11rxy – no conclusive evidence
-0.16rxy – no conclusive evidence
Crystal
0.05rxy – no conclusive evidence
0.06rxy – no conclusive evidence

13. Discussion Implications
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
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”
Are reading benchmarks realistic?
Andrea

14. 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),
Crystal

15. 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),
Crystal

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),
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),