Erika Newton Fall 2017

FSA 651 FINAL PAPER FORMAT

Introduction of Topic

When New York State adopted the Common Core Standards in 2010, the school district where

I work adopted the EngageNY Math and English Language Arts modules. At that time, the

administration mandated that teachers use the modules in their entirety as the Math and ELA

curriculum. To enforce the use of the NYS ELA and Math Modules across district, administration put a

policy in place where all teachers were required to use the modules in their entirety. Administration

did not ask for input in the decision to use the modules nor was there professional development

provided on the use of the modules before the administration implemented them as the new

curriculum. Because of these drastic changes in curriculum, there was major push back from

educators, especially from teachers working with the ELA modules. The ELA modules proposed more

difficulties because of the rigorous nonfiction texts, lack of variety in the texts, and length of each

lesson and units which impeded the ability for teachers to teach all the material. Now, 7 years later,

the district has a new Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Instruction and is in search of

a new Kindergarten-5th grade ELA curriculum. At the end of the 2016-2017 school year with new

administration, the Superintendent sent out an updated policy stating that teachers are not required

to use the modules as their primary ELA curriculum. The district is considering a phonics and

phonemic awareness based curriculum for K-5 because of the extensive brain research that links

reading to phonemic awareness (Nelson, 2008). According to Nelson (2008), “we are in an era where

non-education disciplines, such as neuroscience and language pathology, help us explore how the

brain works when reading” (p. 46). Scientists can use MRI’s to see how the brain works while in the
Erika Newton Fall 2017

process of reading. The study checked for brain activation patterns during reading tasks that required

phonological analysis (Nelson, 2008). Therefore, I want to know, how will a phonemic awareness

English Language Arts reading program backed by brain research increase the number of students

reading on or above grade level and produce a love for reading.

How will a phonemic awareness English Language Arts reading program backed by brain research

increase the number of students reading on or above grade level and produce a love for reading?

Introduction of the Researcher

My name is Erika Newton and I am a 5th grade teacher. I am in my third year of teaching 5th

grade. In my school, we departmentalize and I am required to teach all fifth graders Reading, Writing,

and Science. We have two sections of 5th grade, one homeroom has 21 students and the other has

22 students. In district, I also coach JV field hockey and am on the Elementary Reading Committee.

The Elementary Reading Committee has met 3 times, once during the spring of 2017 and twice

throughout summer 2017. Throughout fall 2017, the committee met three other times, the first time

to narrow down the rubric that will be used to score the vendors presenting their reading programs,

the second time to meet with vendors and a third time to meet with one vendor for a full day

workshop. The rubric includes information that the committee decided as a whole should be present

in the new program. The committee is looking for a program that is highly engaging, is reproducible,

has an RTI program, is appropriate for students with disabilities, is research based, and aligns to the

NYS Common Core Standards. Each of these characteristics are included in the rubric. The second

time the committee met they met with five different vendors. Vendors had an hour to present and
Erika Newton Fall 2017

the committee used the rubric to score them. From there, the committee decided they wanted to

learn more about the program SuperKids published by Zaner-Bloser which is only a K-2 program

("Superkids Reading Program"). All K-2 teachers on the committee, principals, and assistant

superintendent for instruction met with Superkids for a full day presentation and workday. The

committee as a whole consists of teachers (K-5), elementary principals and the assistant

superintendent of instruction. There are 16 professionals on the committee. As our timeline stands,

we are looking to pilot a new curriculum in February 2018.

I am also in my final year of SUNY Cortland’s Teaching Students with Disabilities graduate

program and will graduate with a Master’s Degree in May 2018. In addition, I completed my

undergraduate work from SUNY Cortland in 2014 with a Bachelor’s Degree in Early Childhood and

Childhood Education.

Throughout the past couple of years teaching, my philosophy has become more teacher

centered with student input, opposed to being extremely student centered when I was in college. I

believe my philosophy has changed because of being in the classroom; I have learned students learn

best through a gradual release of responsibility theory (Fisher & Frey, 2014). The gradual release of

responsibility shifts the cognitive instruction from the teacher, to joint responsibility of teacher and

learner to independent practice and then application by the student (Fisher & Frey, 2014). As for a

reading program, I do not believe the reading program itself can change a child’s ability to read, I

believe that it is the teacher showing students a love for reading, writing, and a commitment to

learning. I hope the new reading program will be engaging, cover all the bases of literature and allow

teachers to sprinkle in their own creativity along with having appropriate supports for students with

disabilities. Teaching is an art. It should not matter how teachers get students to read, it matters that

the students are reading and have a love for reading.

Erika Newton Fall 2017

Review of the Literature

A literacy curriculum can improve the amount of students reading on grade level with explicit

instruction, phonemic awareness and summer reading. When a child is able to make sense of literacy

and engage in reading, writing, listening and speaking, the child is literate in a language, even children

who cannot speak are literate (Alber, 2010). Often, a reading intervention program, which is

supplementary to an existing literacy curriculum, provides students with additional, explicit, and

small group literacy instruction ("Definition of Reading Intervention”, n.d.).

Initially, researchers investigate how literacy curriculum with an intervention program can

increase the number of students reading on grade level. An extensive amount of research further

focuses on how an intervention of a reading program increases students with a disability ability to

read on grade level. Research has shown that three things are particularly important, phonemic

awareness, explicit instruction, and summer reading. These major components, phonemic awareness,

explicit instruction, and summer reading lay the foundation for a successful literacy curriculum.

Phonemic Awareness

The first component of an effective reading intervention program is phonemic awareness.

Using a phonemic based approach shows positive results in student growth. Researchers study how

the McGraw-Hill Phonemic Awareness program evaluates the effects of an intervention on the

phonemic awareness skills of children with developmental disabilities (Isakson, Marchand-Martella, &

Martella, 2011). Phonemic awareness requires listeners to hear, identify, and manipulate phonemes,
Erika Newton Fall 2017

which are the smallest units of sound that have meaning. In the McGraw-Hill intervention, the

program has a progress monitoring tool which measures child performance before, during, and after

the program. The study focuses on five preschool children with developmental disabilities. The study

conducted for 2.5 hours, 4 days a week, for 5 months. The participants have developmental and

communication delays and evidence shows that all 5 participants in the McGraw-Hill summer

intervention program (2011) show improvements in phonemic awareness skills when comparing each

child's pretest and posttest.

Another finding shows that with more studies on literacy curriculum and explicit instruction,

general education and special education teacher can play a more active role in intervention

implementation. (Lane, Little, Redding-Rhodes, Phillips, & Welsh, 2007). According to Rodriguez

(2007), research shows that a well-utilized literacy curriculum or intervention will directly affect state

test scores. In a middle school in California, researchers tracked the Accelerated Readers Program

(ARP) test scores of 180 students. Findings to support the claim of increased test scores includes that

high Accelerated Reading (AR) participation plays a role in improving California state Test ELA reading

comprehension cluster scores (Rodriguez, 2007). Through reading proactively, students who engaged

in high AR participation were able to outperform a group of high reading levels with less AR

participation (Rodriguez, 2007). Rodriguez’s results showed that high AR participation plays a role in

improving ELA state test scores.

Explicit Instruction

Positive outcomes are more likely when educators provide explicit instruction (Dardenne, et

al., 2013). Perhaps, if one goal is to improve vocabulary outcomes, interventions should implement
Erika Newton Fall 2017

explicit instruction of high utility words (Kim & Quinn, 2013). When teacher instruction and skills of

the child matches, children can make the most reading progress because of the explicit instruction.

Vernon-Feagans, et al., (2010) found that it is important to match teacher instruction to the skills of

the child in the regular education classroom.

Summer Reading

Students showed an increase in literacy development when a summer reading intervention is

conducted. Through the evaluation of classroom or home based reading intervention, effects of a

measure of reading achievement provided sufficient empirical information to compute an effective

size (Kim & Quinn, 2013). The study included 41 classroom in a home-based summer reading

intervention for students in grades K-8. Evidence shows an increase of literacy achievement in

children’s results after the intervention. Summer reading interventions have larger benefits for

children from low-income families than with children from a mix or high income (Kim & Quinn, 2013).

Evidence from the, Kim and Quinn (2013) study proves that positively impacted classrooms were

because of the home based summer reading intervention. Furthermore, students living in low-income

residents showed an increase in reading comprehension development. Even though this study proves

that children of low socioeconomic background show improvement when provided with a summer

reading intervention program, more research should focus on understanding how and why student

income effects a summer reading intervention (Kim & Quinn, 2013).

Data Collection Plan

Erika Newton Fall 2017

Although the literature review presented findings in quantitative data collection, I began my

data collection using a qualitative measure, an interview. I conducted a structured formal interview

as part of the data collection efforts (Mills, 2018). I interviewed my school district's Assistant

Superintendent for Instruction because she is the head of the current reading committee seeking a

new reading program for our district. Interviewing M. Smith (pseudonym) will help to answer the

research question, “How can a literacy curriculum increase the number of students reading on grade

level?,” Throughout the formal interview, an audio recorder captured the interview responses in her

office, a private place. The interview was one-on-one notes taken during the interview were recorded

on paper as well as a voice recorder. I began this research topic with the goal of becoming more

knowledgeable and fluent in understanding what the important parts of a successful literacy

curriculum are. The structured interview format asked the participant the same series of questions

and in the future, additional data will be collected as the same series of questions will be used to

interview other members of the reading committee. The data collected will help in the analysis of this

study.

Interview Questions

1. Tell me a little bit about your current position.

2. What drew you to Oneida City School District

3. Can we start at the decision that was made to change the Elementary Literacy Curriculum?

4. Can you walk me through how you found brain research and reading important?

5. I am interested in the phonemic awareness approach and why we are leaning towards a

program with this focus.

6. Are there things that a community likes or dislikes when a new program is introduced?
Erika Newton Fall 2017

7. What is your hope for this new reading program in regards to higher student achievement?

8. I am going to switch gears to focus on students with disability. Can you talk to me about

finding a program with an adequate intervention program?

Data Analysis Plan

Qualitative data analysis, “is potentially the most important step in the action research

process as we try to understand what we have learned through our investigations” (Mills, 2017,

p.134). When analyzing an interview, researchers should analyze a transcript from the audio

recording of the interview. An annotated interview between the researcher and interviewee will

present data for the researcher. The researcher can analyze and find themes or commonalities that

emerge in the data collection (Mills, 2017). Action researchers should then look for patterns and

meaning in the themes through the interview transcripts. According to Mills (2017), an “in-depth

intimate knowledge and examination of the data allows teacher researchers to categorize themes

and ideas that will contribute to their understanding of the phenomenon under investigation (p. 137).

Conclusions and Recommendations

At this point, the research suggests that, in the end it does not matter which literacy

curriculum is used, but what does matter are the components of the curriculum: explicit instruction,

phonemic awareness and summer reading. Based upon the literature review, the researchers should

continue to study and analyzing findings especially in brain research. The findings were explicit

instruction, phonemic awareness, and summer reading all show success in student reading
Erika Newton Fall 2017

achievement. There was not significant research on any particular literacy program; however,

programs with high explicit or direct instruction, a focus on phonemic awareness, and

encouragement in summer reading resulted in an increase of student reading ability. Through my

own data collection and analysis, there is discussion of the connection between student readability

and brain research. Therefore, recommendations are to conduct further research on the connection

between reading and brain research. I also found myself asking, should we have grade levels based

on age or have grade levels based on student ability? Why do we move children along on a school

wide scale based on their age especially when we know that all children develop at different speeds.

As the district continues to search for a reading curriculum, our main focus has been on how can we

get more students reading on grade level, but I do not believe that we should have grade levels based

on age. Maybe school should has grade levels more based on ability. Furthermore, the findings

presented that it is not the program, or script, or magic reading pill that gets children to read on

grade level, it is the teacher and the environment the child is in. Teaching a child to read can be done

with direct instruction in phonics, and high engagement materials, intervention programs, and

summer reading, but a child needs someone to foster their love for reading to have them be a

lifelong reader.

Reflection of the research process

I enjoyed the data collection and analysis part of the research process. It was interesting

hearing another person's point of view on the topic and I am interested in asking more participants

the same questions and finding commonalities between their answers. I look forward to the second
Erika Newton Fall 2017

research course as I am leaving this class with many unanswered questions. I am excited to connect

more scholarly information on brain research and the ability to learn to read.
Erika Newton Fall 2017

References

Alber, R. (2010, August 04). How Important is Teaching Literacy in All Content Areas? Retrieved

November 16, 2017, from

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/literacy-instruction-across-curriculum-importance

Dardenne, C., Barnes, D. G., Hightower, E. S., Lamason, P. R., Mason, M., Patterson, P. C., . . .

Erickson, K. A. (2013). PLCs In Action: Innovative Teaching for Struggling Grade 3-5

Readers. The Reading Teacher. doi:10.1002/trtr.1180

Definition of Reading Intervention. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2017, from

http://classroom.synonym.com/definition-reading-intervention-6166835.html

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2014). Better learning through structured teaching: a framework for the

gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Kim, J. S., & Quinn, D. M. (2013). The Effects of Summer Reading on Low Income Children's

Literacy Achievement from Kindergarten to Grade 8: A Meta Analysis of Classroom and Home

Interventions. Review Of Educational Research, 83(3), 386-431.

http://libproxy.cortland.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&

db=

eric&AN=EJ1104660&site=eds-live
Erika Newton Fall 2017

Isakson, L., Marchand-Martella, N., & Martella, R. C. (2011). Assessing the Effects of the McGraw

Hill Phonemic Awareness Program with Preschool Children with Developmental Delays: A

Case Study. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(3), 373-387. doi:10.1353/etc.2011.0022

Lane, K. L., Little, M. A., Redding-Rhodes, J., Phillips, A., & Welsh, M. T. (2007). Outcomes of a

Teacher-Led Reading Intervention for Elementary Students at Risk for Behavioral Disorders.

Exceptional Children, 74(1), 47-70. doi:10.1177/001440290707400103

Mills, G. E. (2018). Action research: a guide for the teacher researcher. NY, NY: Pearson.

Nelson, A. H. (2008). Reading and Brain Research. Journal Of Reading Education, 33(2), 45-47.

http://libproxy.cortland.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue

&AN=508026029&site=eds-live

Rodriguez, S. (2007). The Accelerated Reader Program's Relationship to Student Achievement on the

English-Language Arts California Standards Test. Reading Matrix: An International Online

Journal, 7(3), 191-205.

Superkids Reading Program. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2017, from

http://www.superkidsreading.org/

Vernon-Feagans, L., Gallagher, K., Ginsberg, M. C., Amendum, S., Kainz, K., Rose, J., & Burchinal,

M. (2010). A Diagnostic Teaching Intervention for Classroom Teachers: Helping Struggling

Erika Newton Fall 2017

Readers in Early Elementary School. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4),

183-193. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00316.x