Action Plan
Enhancing Individual Student Learning
The purpose of my study was to determine if the use of purposeful word study activities within guided reading would increase reading achievement. Prior to this study, 44% of my students performed below grade level in the area of phonological awareness on the Fall MAP (Measure of Academic Progress) test and 36% of my class scored below the grade level score of 141 on the Fall MAP test across four strands: phonological awareness, writing, comprehension, and vocabulary. After reviewing these scores and various other data collections, I concluded that my students would benefit from intervention in word study in order to target phonics, phonological awareness, and phonemic awareness skills and increase overall reading achievement.
Throughout my study, I implemented four research-based instructional strategies, within guided reading, during the word study portion of the lesson. These lessons addressed phonics, phonemic awareness, and phonological awareness. In my classroom, guided reading took place in small groups in fifteen minute increments. Within my guided reading block, there was a schedule that was consistent across all groups. First, we began by rereading the book from the day before while I conducted a running record with one student. Then, I introduced the new book, listened to students read, and asked comprehension questions. Last, we completed word study. This portion of the lesson was when I implemented my research.
In my classroom, I had 25 students and four guided reading groups. In order to meet the needs of each student and create developmentally appropriate guided reading lessons and word study activities, students were divided into groups based off of their approximate reading level based on data from the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System.
Group 1 consisted of students that were reading at a level “Pre-A” and met with me daily. Group 2 consisted of students reading at a level “A” and also met with me daily. Group 3 consisted of students that were reading at a level “B” and met with me three times a week. Lastly, group 4 consisted of students that were reading at a level “C” or higher and met with me twice a week. During my time with these groups, I implemented four research-based instructional strategies.
The purpose of my study was to determine if the use of purposeful word study activities within guided reading would increase reading achievement. Prior to this study, 44% of my students performed below grade level in the area of phonological awareness on the Fall MAP (Measure of Academic Progress) test and 36% of my class scored below the grade level score of 141 on the Fall MAP test across four strands: phonological awareness, writing, comprehension, and vocabulary. After reviewing these scores and various other data collections, I concluded that my students would benefit from intervention in word study in order to target phonics, phonological awareness, and phonemic awareness skills and increase overall reading achievement.
Throughout my study, I implemented four research-based instructional strategies, within guided reading, during the word study portion of the lesson. These lessons addressed phonics, phonemic awareness, and phonological awareness. In my classroom, guided reading took place in small groups in fifteen minute increments. Within my guided reading block, there was a schedule that was consistent across all groups. First, we began by rereading the book from the day before while I conducted a running record with one student. Then, I introduced the new book, listened to students read, and asked comprehension questions. Last, we completed word study. This portion of the lesson was when I implemented my research.
In my classroom, I had 25 students and four guided reading groups. In order to meet the needs of each student and create developmentally appropriate guided reading lessons and word study activities, students were divided into groups based off of their approximate reading level based on data from the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System.
Group 1 consisted of students that were reading at a level “Pre-A” and met with me daily. Group 2 consisted of students reading at a level “A” and also met with me daily. Group 3 consisted of students that were reading at a level “B” and met with me three times a week. Lastly, group 4 consisted of students that were reading at a level “C” or higher and met with me twice a week. During my time with these groups, I implemented four research-based instructional strategies.
Four Instructional Strategies
Small Group Instruction |
Kinesthetic Activities |
Constant Time Delay |
Investigation |
First, I implemented word study in small groups. Small groups are a typical instructional method for guided reading. Research showed that small group instruction with an adult was more effective when compared with whole group instruction or students working independently. They also provided an opportunity to conduct targeted lessons that meet the needs of the specific needs of the students in the group.
The implementation of small groups was important for my classroom. It was an alternative to whole group instruction and served as a time for differentiation. Students in my classroom also responded better in small groups due to fewer distractions and more attention from myself. With a large class of 25 students and limited time, the implementation of word study within small groups provided me with an opportunity to grasp a better picture of their performance on a daily basis. Within our guided reading portion of the day, 16 of my 25 students were pulled from the classroom for a variety of services one or more times. In order to coordinate with these schedules, small groups were the only way I could schedule lessons so that I could meet with each of my students during this time and ensure that they were not missing any important content.
Next, by implementing word study within small groups, I was able to design specific activities that were developmentally appropriate for each group. Within each of my four small groups, I differentiated activities based on that group’s specific needs. For example, Group 4 was working with digraphs while Group 1 was focusing on syllables, rhyming, and initial sounds.
The second instructional method that I implemented was kinesthetic activities. These activities included body movement, working with clay, and unifix cubes that students were able to touch and manipulate. Multi-sensory activities such as using clay can be successful with students who learn best through movement, manipulation, and spatial thinking. Specifically, clay activities have shown an increase in understanding, recall, and recognition.
My kindergarten students did not do well with simple “sit and listen” methods of instruction. For learning to be effective in my classroom, it had to be interactive and exciting. Kinesthetic activities allowed my students to move their bodies and manipulate objects, which in turn increased engagement and participation. Also, with a large class, I had a wide array of learning styles in my classroom. By incorporating these activities, I wanted to meet all of the unique learning styles within my classroom and expose students to different modalities of learning. I had a few students who required alternative seating in the classroom due to their need for movement. These students, in particular, benefited from activities that involved movement of some kind.
On the Unit 1 Reading test, 52% of my students scored 60% or lower on the phonological awareness section, further demonstrating that my students were in need of intervention in regards to syllables specifically. Kinesthetic activities were one way I planned on addressing this concern. Through manipulatives such as cubes and clay, students were able to symbolically represent syllables of words and see them visually. I provided a word orally, such as “apple,” students then clapped out the syllables, and then chose the correct number of cubes or pieces of clay (for apple, two). This was also used for segmenting as well as blending. Cubes could be separated to show the different parts, and pushed together to blend the syllables together into one word. Through activities similar to this one, students were able to identify syllables, the number of syllables, as well as blend syllables and segment words into syllables.
Similarly, cubes were also utilized for phonemic activities such as identifying the number of phonemes in a word, segmenting phonemes, blending phonemes and phoneme deletion or substitution. Groups were asked to show the appropriate number of cubes for the corresponding sounds (phonemes) in a word. Similar to the syllables activities, cubes could be pulled apart or pushed together depending on the activity. Cubes were also used to demonstrate onset and rhyme. By providing my students with a manipulative and providing words orally I engaged students using kinesthetic instruction, phonological awareness, visual aids, and phonemic awareness when applicable.
At the beginning of the school year, 9 of my students performed in the beginning range in regards to letters and sounds, some knowing zero letters or sounds. One way I addressed these needs was through clay activities. Students were asked to create letters with clay after being provided the letter or the sound for the letter. This was a phonics-based activity as it included the printed letters. Clay was also used for teaching consonant blends such as /fr/. Students produced one ball of clay to represent the /f/ sound, another ball of clay will represent the /r/ sound, and students “blended” the clay together to create the blend /fr/. Clay was also utilized to spell sight words and other CVC words.
The third instructional method that I implemented was Constant Time Delay (CTD). CTD is a method of wait time that begins with zero wait time and increases to 3-10 seconds of wait time for students. When a student is asked a question, there are many steps involved before the student answers orally. They have to think about the question, their answer, and how to communicate the answer. By providing wait time, I ensured that students were allowed a chance to answer before I provided the answer to them. Research has shown that the use of CTD is effective in regards to phonics and phonemic awareness.
By incorporating CTD into my classroom, my students had opportunities to answer questions without the teacher interrupting or providing the answer before they had a chance. For me specifically, wait time was an area of growth on which I was focused. I wanted to improve my wait time in order to provide my students with opportunities to answer and show their learning. In my classroom, I had a wide variety of ability levels. Some students needed more wait time than others. By providing wait time consistently, I was able to meet the needs of students who needed more processing time. For my higher ability students, wait time was also implemented to challenge their thinking and allow them to think deeper about the question and their answer. CTD was implemented daily throughout each of the other instructional strategies.
Lastly, the fourth instructional method that I implemented was what I called “investigation.” Investigation activities were utilized to investigate rhyming words and word families such as taking a word the students know, such as “hat” and using that knowledge to decode words of similar word families, such as “cat.” Research has stated that the sole use of typical phonics instruction can be insufficient when teaching about word families.
On the Unit 1 Reading benchmark described previously, 52% of my students performed at a 60% or below in phonological awareness, including rhyming words. By using investigation, students were able to take what they already knew and apply it to unknown words. This provided them with the chance to identify patterns and similarities between words, such as rhyming words.
Similarly, cubes were also utilized for phonemic activities such as identifying the number of phonemes in a word, segmenting phonemes, blending phonemes and phoneme deletion or substitution. Groups were asked to show the appropriate number of cubes for the corresponding sounds (phonemes) in a word. Similar to the syllables activities, cubes could be pulled apart or pushed together depending on the activity. Cubes were also used to demonstrate onset and rhyme. By providing my students with a manipulative and providing words orally I engaged students using kinesthetic instruction, phonological awareness, visual aids, and phonemic awareness when applicable.
At the beginning of the school year, 9 of my students performed in the beginning range in regards to letters and sounds, some knowing zero letters or sounds. One way I addressed these needs was through clay activities. Students were asked to create letters with clay after being provided the letter or the sound for the letter. This was a phonics-based activity as it included the printed letters. Clay was also used for teaching consonant blends such as /fr/. Students produced one ball of clay to represent the /f/ sound, another ball of clay will represent the /r/ sound, and students “blended” the clay together to create the blend /fr/. Clay was also utilized to spell sight words and other CVC words.
The third instructional method that I implemented was Constant Time Delay (CTD). CTD is a method of wait time that begins with zero wait time and increases to 3-10 seconds of wait time for students. When a student is asked a question, there are many steps involved before the student answers orally. They have to think about the question, their answer, and how to communicate the answer. By providing wait time, I ensured that students were allowed a chance to answer before I provided the answer to them. Research has shown that the use of CTD is effective in regards to phonics and phonemic awareness.
By incorporating CTD into my classroom, my students had opportunities to answer questions without the teacher interrupting or providing the answer before they had a chance. For me specifically, wait time was an area of growth on which I was focused. I wanted to improve my wait time in order to provide my students with opportunities to answer and show their learning. In my classroom, I had a wide variety of ability levels. Some students needed more wait time than others. By providing wait time consistently, I was able to meet the needs of students who needed more processing time. For my higher ability students, wait time was also implemented to challenge their thinking and allow them to think deeper about the question and their answer. CTD was implemented daily throughout each of the other instructional strategies.
Lastly, the fourth instructional method that I implemented was what I called “investigation.” Investigation activities were utilized to investigate rhyming words and word families such as taking a word the students know, such as “hat” and using that knowledge to decode words of similar word families, such as “cat.” Research has stated that the sole use of typical phonics instruction can be insufficient when teaching about word families.
On the Unit 1 Reading benchmark described previously, 52% of my students performed at a 60% or below in phonological awareness, including rhyming words. By using investigation, students were able to take what they already knew and apply it to unknown words. This provided them with the chance to identify patterns and similarities between words, such as rhyming words.
This process was also used with consonant blends, digraphs, vowel sounds, and more. Investigation was utilized to explore digraphs with students. For example, after being taught the digraph /th/ and the two sounds the digraph makes, students listened to a list of words and identified which word also had the /th/ sound. Students were able to take digraphs they had learned and apply them to unfamiliar words. This process allowed for more opportunities for students to recognize digraphs and decode words appropriately when reading. Similar processes were applied and included a variety of activities, including phoneme substitution, deletion, or addition, where students identified the part of the word that remained and investigated how words changed when one sound was altered.
As beginning readers, some students expressed the question of “Why?” Why are things spelled that way? Why is that letter silent? Investigating words was a method of answering those questions. While the investigation techniques used were simplified when compared with older students, it was a method of inquiry that enhanced the learning of word study.
These four instructional strategies were best for my students in regards to word study. By implementing word study in small groups, utilizing Constant Time Delay, incorporating kinesthetic activities, and encouraging investigation, I hoped to see an increase in phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, and overall reading ability.
The link below is a calendar of proposed activities that were implemented throughout the course of the study. Each day describes the instructional strategies that were implemented, as well as what groups were seen that day, and what the word study focus was for that specific group. All activities were differentiated for each group based on reading level and word study scores from pre-test data. Also noted in the calendar is whether the activity was phonics based (includes writing), phonological awareness based (only oral activities), or phonemic awareness based (sound manipulation).
As beginning readers, some students expressed the question of “Why?” Why are things spelled that way? Why is that letter silent? Investigating words was a method of answering those questions. While the investigation techniques used were simplified when compared with older students, it was a method of inquiry that enhanced the learning of word study.
These four instructional strategies were best for my students in regards to word study. By implementing word study in small groups, utilizing Constant Time Delay, incorporating kinesthetic activities, and encouraging investigation, I hoped to see an increase in phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, and overall reading ability.
The link below is a calendar of proposed activities that were implemented throughout the course of the study. Each day describes the instructional strategies that were implemented, as well as what groups were seen that day, and what the word study focus was for that specific group. All activities were differentiated for each group based on reading level and word study scores from pre-test data. Also noted in the calendar is whether the activity was phonics based (includes writing), phonological awareness based (only oral activities), or phonemic awareness based (sound manipulation).
Diverse Learning Needs
Best teaching practices include differentiation of instruction and developmentally appropriate goals. In order to meet the needs of my students, there were several layers involved in the development of lessons and methods of instruction. As previously stated, each group received differentiated instruction based on reading level.
Best teaching practices include differentiation of instruction and developmentally appropriate goals. In order to meet the needs of my students, there were several layers involved in the development of lessons and methods of instruction. As previously stated, each group received differentiated instruction based on reading level.
For Group 1, their activities focused on the initial and fundamental word study skills and then progressed as necessary based on performance and progress. These included (but were not limited to): letter sounds, rhyming words, syllables, initial, medial, and final sounds, uppercase and lowercase letters and phoneme substitution.
|
For Groups 2 and 3, activities included those that were developmentally appropriate for the time of school year. These included (but were not limited to): word families, consonant blends, phoneme substitution and deletion, phoneme segmenting and blending words with 2-3 phonemes, initial, medial, and final sounds, and onset and rime.
|
Lastly, for Group 4, activities included advanced word study topics. These included (but were not limited to): consonant blends, digraphs, initial and final phoneme deletion, VCe patterns, initial, medial, and final phoneme substitution, phoneme addition, onset and rime, and phoneme segmenting and blending words with 4 phonemes.
|
By implementing kinesthetic activities, CTD, investigation activities, and small groups, my instruction supported diverse learning styles. By implementing strategies that encouraged differentiation, I applied my instruction in a variety of ways to accommodate a variety of learning perspectives.
By implementing word study in small groups rather than through whole group instruction, I was able to determine the needs of a small group of students at a time and alter my instruction as necessary for that specific group. This was more effective than trying to alter instruction to meet the needs of 25 students at the same time. When working with groups of 5-8 students, there was more attention given to each student and differentiation was quickly implemented.
Kinesthetic activities provided opportunities for students who learned best through movement, manipulatives, and spatial thinking. After reflecting on the students in my classroom, I knew that these activities would suit many students. I had students who learned best through movement, and these strategies increased their engagement. But also, with young children, movement was a necessity in keeping their focus and excitement about the task at hand. All of my students enjoyed activities that got them moving and out of their chair.
Investigation techniques supported the students who were deep-thinkers and wanted to understand the “why” behind written and oral language. This technique was incorporated into activities that include many learning styles. Oral activities benefited auditory learners, phonics-based activities with written words and/or letters benefited visual thinkers, and kinesthetic activities were combined with investigation for kinesthetic learners.
These instructional strategies also supported the students in my class who received special education services. My three students with Autism enjoyed the variety of activities and showed an increase in engagement and focus when participating in activities, such as clay. Two of these students also needed work with fine motor development. Working with clay, cubes, and writing provided a time to practice these skills. A few of my students received occupational therapy services and are working on gross-motor development. Kinesthetic activities that involved whole body movement allowed these students to practice skills, such as balance. My students that received speech services benefited from oral activities that promoted the use of speech and provided opportunities to practice their language articulation.
Culturally Responsive Practices
These four research-based instructional strategies also positively impacted student learning in the classroom as a culturally responsive teaching practice. First, this study fostered equity and accessibility among all students in the classroom. This study analyzed 23 students in my classroom and all students learned through the same instructional strategies. While the specific activities were differentiated between groups, all students had the opportunities to experience and learn with clay, cubes, and body movement. All students had instruction in small groups with the utilization of Constant Time Delay and investigation techniques. By implementing my research with the entirety of my class, I ensured that all students had opportunities to experience the four instructional strategies.
As mentioned, it is culturally responsive to understand that each child is different; their learning style is different, their communication styles are different, their personalities are different, how they show frustration is different, and so on. Rule, Dockstader and Stewart expressed their belief that teaching with only one approach will most likely not address the needs of all students in a classroom (2006). In order to best meet the needs of my students, I collected and combined the ideas of scholars that best reflected the students in my classroom. These perspectives, along with my own, allowed me to meet the diverse learning needs explained previously. Each instructional strategy chosen was supported by scholarly research with evidence of effectiveness.
Small group instruction was chosen due to scholars Noltemeyer, Joseph and Kunesh’s explanation that small group instruction was equally effective to whole group or one-on-one instruction (2013). These scholars also described the importance of small group instruction in regards to students who were at risk of failing. Noltemeyer, Joseph and Kunesh expressed that small group instruction could increase achievement with “at-risk” students. I chose to incorporate small group instruction for a variety of reasons. First, I had a complex schedule during guided reading time, so small group instruction was the best way to reach all of my students. Second, I had several students that I defined as “at-risk” who, without intervention, would not be reading at the appropriate level by the end of the year. Third, small groups were a great way to differentiate lessons that suited the needs of all students, rather than a whole group lesson that may not be developmentally-appropriate for all students.
Next, kinesthetic activities were chosen after researching several scholars. Many scholars expressed that kinesthetic activities that are integrated into word study activities can show an increase in word acquisition and decoding skills (Carson & Storin, 2018; Rule, Dockstader & Stewart, 2017). Rule, Sockstader and Stewart’s research showed an increase in performance when activities including body movement and tactile objects were used with lower-performing students (2017).
Another kinesthetic activity that I implemented was the use of clay. Carson and Storin researched the use of clay within word study and explained that phonics is hardly ever seen as an artistic or creative process (2018). Artistic expression, spatial thinking, and tactile activities are ways that some of my students learned best. By incorporating clay, I created a multi-sensory approach that could show an increase in understanding, recall, and recognition as well as provide opportunities for fine motor control and increased confidence (Carson & Storin, 2018).
Due to the research of these scholars and their findings, I chose to implement body movement, clay, and manipulation with cubes in hopes to see similar results such as an increase in performance and an increase in confidence. These kinesthetic activities were chosen due to the many students within my classroom that required movement in order to focus, as well as the evidence of effectiveness throughout research.
The third instructional strategy, Constant Time Delay, was researched by Bradley and Noell. Through their research of CTD, Bradley and Noell found that giving students wait time could be especially effective as an intervention for phonics and complex phonemic constructions (2018). Wait time, in general, was also “critical in supporting their language development” as stated by Wasik (2018, p. 369). All three scholars demonstrated an increase in literacy success when wait time of some sort was used. I chose to implement this in my small groups for several reasons. First, the research showed that CTD and wait time were effective in regards to language, vocabulary, and word study. Second, I recognized that some of my students needed more processing time than others. Finally, it was easy to implement in small groups. It required little planning to perform with students. By providing wait time to all students, I wanted to encourage students to process and respond to questions. This process was important to me because it provided opportunities for students to apply the knowledge they had learned through other word study activities. By implementing CTD, I hoped to see an increase in word study skills and application.
The fourth and final strategy that I implemented was what I called “investigation.” My interpretation and ideas were derived from Bowers and Bowers’ research regarding hypothesis and Structured Word Inquiry (SWI). Bowers and Bowers’ research of SWI included “generating hypotheses about how the system works” with the goal of increasing a child’s awareness of why words are spelled the way they are (2017, p. 125). SWI showed an increase in spelling accuracy (Bowers & Bowers, 2017).
Most activities and hypotheses described by Bowers and Bowers seemed to apply best with older students who already held a foundational understanding of the English language. With my students, they were still discovering and learning the “rules” of spelling, and some were still learning letter sounds. However, I liked the idea of analyzing spelling patterns in order for students to take the knowledge they already knew and apply it to unknown words. I chose to implement this strategy with all of my students. It was an important activity with my lower-performing students as well as my highest-performing students. With my lower-performing students, investigation was a great way to further develop the foundational skills necessary to progress through various word study skills. My highest-performing groups were able to partake in investigation activities in a way that promoted critical thinking and developed advanced word study skills that would help prepare them for first grade and beyond. I used this technique with all of my students and I hoped to see an increase in spelling accuracy as well as decoding skills. I also believed that these activities would expand their thinking beyond rote memorization and would show an increase in the understanding of word relationships.
By integrating strategies that had been researched by scholars, I exhibited a culturally responsive practice by ensuring that my students were taught with a variety of instructional strategies that suited the various learners in my classroom. Through differentiated lessons, I also met the academic needs of each group within my classroom and provided lessons that were appropriate for those groups. Lastly, through developmentally-appropriate goals, each group focused on word study skills that were appropriate for their current learning ability and progressed as necessary. All of these things were important to me, as an educator, so that all of my students received a balanced educational experience and were learning in the best way for them, as individuals.
By implementing word study in small groups rather than through whole group instruction, I was able to determine the needs of a small group of students at a time and alter my instruction as necessary for that specific group. This was more effective than trying to alter instruction to meet the needs of 25 students at the same time. When working with groups of 5-8 students, there was more attention given to each student and differentiation was quickly implemented.
Kinesthetic activities provided opportunities for students who learned best through movement, manipulatives, and spatial thinking. After reflecting on the students in my classroom, I knew that these activities would suit many students. I had students who learned best through movement, and these strategies increased their engagement. But also, with young children, movement was a necessity in keeping their focus and excitement about the task at hand. All of my students enjoyed activities that got them moving and out of their chair.
Investigation techniques supported the students who were deep-thinkers and wanted to understand the “why” behind written and oral language. This technique was incorporated into activities that include many learning styles. Oral activities benefited auditory learners, phonics-based activities with written words and/or letters benefited visual thinkers, and kinesthetic activities were combined with investigation for kinesthetic learners.
These instructional strategies also supported the students in my class who received special education services. My three students with Autism enjoyed the variety of activities and showed an increase in engagement and focus when participating in activities, such as clay. Two of these students also needed work with fine motor development. Working with clay, cubes, and writing provided a time to practice these skills. A few of my students received occupational therapy services and are working on gross-motor development. Kinesthetic activities that involved whole body movement allowed these students to practice skills, such as balance. My students that received speech services benefited from oral activities that promoted the use of speech and provided opportunities to practice their language articulation.
Culturally Responsive Practices
These four research-based instructional strategies also positively impacted student learning in the classroom as a culturally responsive teaching practice. First, this study fostered equity and accessibility among all students in the classroom. This study analyzed 23 students in my classroom and all students learned through the same instructional strategies. While the specific activities were differentiated between groups, all students had the opportunities to experience and learn with clay, cubes, and body movement. All students had instruction in small groups with the utilization of Constant Time Delay and investigation techniques. By implementing my research with the entirety of my class, I ensured that all students had opportunities to experience the four instructional strategies.
As mentioned, it is culturally responsive to understand that each child is different; their learning style is different, their communication styles are different, their personalities are different, how they show frustration is different, and so on. Rule, Dockstader and Stewart expressed their belief that teaching with only one approach will most likely not address the needs of all students in a classroom (2006). In order to best meet the needs of my students, I collected and combined the ideas of scholars that best reflected the students in my classroom. These perspectives, along with my own, allowed me to meet the diverse learning needs explained previously. Each instructional strategy chosen was supported by scholarly research with evidence of effectiveness.
Small group instruction was chosen due to scholars Noltemeyer, Joseph and Kunesh’s explanation that small group instruction was equally effective to whole group or one-on-one instruction (2013). These scholars also described the importance of small group instruction in regards to students who were at risk of failing. Noltemeyer, Joseph and Kunesh expressed that small group instruction could increase achievement with “at-risk” students. I chose to incorporate small group instruction for a variety of reasons. First, I had a complex schedule during guided reading time, so small group instruction was the best way to reach all of my students. Second, I had several students that I defined as “at-risk” who, without intervention, would not be reading at the appropriate level by the end of the year. Third, small groups were a great way to differentiate lessons that suited the needs of all students, rather than a whole group lesson that may not be developmentally-appropriate for all students.
Next, kinesthetic activities were chosen after researching several scholars. Many scholars expressed that kinesthetic activities that are integrated into word study activities can show an increase in word acquisition and decoding skills (Carson & Storin, 2018; Rule, Dockstader & Stewart, 2017). Rule, Sockstader and Stewart’s research showed an increase in performance when activities including body movement and tactile objects were used with lower-performing students (2017).
Another kinesthetic activity that I implemented was the use of clay. Carson and Storin researched the use of clay within word study and explained that phonics is hardly ever seen as an artistic or creative process (2018). Artistic expression, spatial thinking, and tactile activities are ways that some of my students learned best. By incorporating clay, I created a multi-sensory approach that could show an increase in understanding, recall, and recognition as well as provide opportunities for fine motor control and increased confidence (Carson & Storin, 2018).
Due to the research of these scholars and their findings, I chose to implement body movement, clay, and manipulation with cubes in hopes to see similar results such as an increase in performance and an increase in confidence. These kinesthetic activities were chosen due to the many students within my classroom that required movement in order to focus, as well as the evidence of effectiveness throughout research.
The third instructional strategy, Constant Time Delay, was researched by Bradley and Noell. Through their research of CTD, Bradley and Noell found that giving students wait time could be especially effective as an intervention for phonics and complex phonemic constructions (2018). Wait time, in general, was also “critical in supporting their language development” as stated by Wasik (2018, p. 369). All three scholars demonstrated an increase in literacy success when wait time of some sort was used. I chose to implement this in my small groups for several reasons. First, the research showed that CTD and wait time were effective in regards to language, vocabulary, and word study. Second, I recognized that some of my students needed more processing time than others. Finally, it was easy to implement in small groups. It required little planning to perform with students. By providing wait time to all students, I wanted to encourage students to process and respond to questions. This process was important to me because it provided opportunities for students to apply the knowledge they had learned through other word study activities. By implementing CTD, I hoped to see an increase in word study skills and application.
The fourth and final strategy that I implemented was what I called “investigation.” My interpretation and ideas were derived from Bowers and Bowers’ research regarding hypothesis and Structured Word Inquiry (SWI). Bowers and Bowers’ research of SWI included “generating hypotheses about how the system works” with the goal of increasing a child’s awareness of why words are spelled the way they are (2017, p. 125). SWI showed an increase in spelling accuracy (Bowers & Bowers, 2017).
Most activities and hypotheses described by Bowers and Bowers seemed to apply best with older students who already held a foundational understanding of the English language. With my students, they were still discovering and learning the “rules” of spelling, and some were still learning letter sounds. However, I liked the idea of analyzing spelling patterns in order for students to take the knowledge they already knew and apply it to unknown words. I chose to implement this strategy with all of my students. It was an important activity with my lower-performing students as well as my highest-performing students. With my lower-performing students, investigation was a great way to further develop the foundational skills necessary to progress through various word study skills. My highest-performing groups were able to partake in investigation activities in a way that promoted critical thinking and developed advanced word study skills that would help prepare them for first grade and beyond. I used this technique with all of my students and I hoped to see an increase in spelling accuracy as well as decoding skills. I also believed that these activities would expand their thinking beyond rote memorization and would show an increase in the understanding of word relationships.
By integrating strategies that had been researched by scholars, I exhibited a culturally responsive practice by ensuring that my students were taught with a variety of instructional strategies that suited the various learners in my classroom. Through differentiated lessons, I also met the academic needs of each group within my classroom and provided lessons that were appropriate for those groups. Lastly, through developmentally-appropriate goals, each group focused on word study skills that were appropriate for their current learning ability and progressed as necessary. All of these things were important to me, as an educator, so that all of my students received a balanced educational experience and were learning in the best way for them, as individuals.
Collaborators & Stakeholders
Reading Specialist CADRE Associate Principal CADRE Cohort UNO Professors |
In order to provide the best learning experiences for my students, I collaborated with many internal and external stakeholders in order to broaden my knowledge on the subject of my research and the effects it could have in the classroom.
In the beginning stages of my research, I consulted with internal stakeholders to better understand the area of word study that I was choosing to research. I met with the reading specialist in my building. She was able to explain her opinions, knowledge, and beliefs regarding word study and methods that were effective and ineffective. She also was a great resource when I had questions about specific strategies I had researched, as well as how I could implement activities (small group, whole group, or one-on-one). My reading specialist was, and continued to be, a great resource that understood the field of reading and shared a multitude of resources with me including textbooks, activity books, and other materials that she used as intervention programs. |
I also collaborated with my CADRE associate. My CADRE associate spent at least 5 hours a week in my classroom and had a solid understanding of the type of students I was working with daily. When I told her my idea of focusing on word study, we were able to discuss the benefits and why we thought it was the best area of focus for my classroom. She showed me how to analyze MAP scores and assisted me in constructing data points for my rationale prior to implementing research. Within the classroom, she assisted me with collecting pre-test and post-test data, as well as completing the Fountas and Pinnell benchmark assessment with each student, and progress monitoring. As the sole kindergarten teacher in my building, I did not have a grade-level teammate to reach to for advice. My CADRE associate was a great resource that I was able to discuss ideas with.
My principal also served as a collaborator throughout the study. After sharing my purpose for research with her, she made sure to let me know that if I needed any assistance that she was available. I was able to share my ideas with her and the instructional strategies that I chose to implement with students. My principal gave me the idea to research “wait time” as it was one of my goals from my formal observation, which led me to find Constant Time Delay.
I also had great discussions with fellow CADRE teachers that were pursuing similar research topics. We were able to discuss our rationales, activities, schedules, and brainstorm methods of data collection. We discussed a variety of data collection methods such as Fountas and Pinnell reading levels, running records, student interviews, reading accuracy and comprehension abilities. Through these discussions I was able to narrow down my data collection methods and created a system that would analyze a variety of reading skills, including reading level, phonics, phonological awareness, and phonemic awareness.
My UNO professors also assisted me in designing and implementing my research. My Capstone professor assisted me in narrowing my ideas to create a well-rounded and specific purpose for research that would benefit my students. She also assisted me in creating a rationale for research with qualitative and quantitative data points. Through our discussions, I was able to finalize some topics of interest for instructional strategies that I wanted to implement. Lastly, through our collaboration I was able to finalize the methods of data collection and how I would analyze the data to show how my study impacted student learning.
My principal also served as a collaborator throughout the study. After sharing my purpose for research with her, she made sure to let me know that if I needed any assistance that she was available. I was able to share my ideas with her and the instructional strategies that I chose to implement with students. My principal gave me the idea to research “wait time” as it was one of my goals from my formal observation, which led me to find Constant Time Delay.
I also had great discussions with fellow CADRE teachers that were pursuing similar research topics. We were able to discuss our rationales, activities, schedules, and brainstorm methods of data collection. We discussed a variety of data collection methods such as Fountas and Pinnell reading levels, running records, student interviews, reading accuracy and comprehension abilities. Through these discussions I was able to narrow down my data collection methods and created a system that would analyze a variety of reading skills, including reading level, phonics, phonological awareness, and phonemic awareness.
My UNO professors also assisted me in designing and implementing my research. My Capstone professor assisted me in narrowing my ideas to create a well-rounded and specific purpose for research that would benefit my students. She also assisted me in creating a rationale for research with qualitative and quantitative data points. Through our discussions, I was able to finalize some topics of interest for instructional strategies that I wanted to implement. Lastly, through our collaboration I was able to finalize the methods of data collection and how I would analyze the data to show how my study impacted student learning.
Summary
Through the implementation of the four research-based instructional strategies (small groups, Constant Time Delay, kinesthetic activities, and investigation) I hoped to see an increase in phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, and overall reading achievement. Each of my four groups participated in developmentally-appropriate activities and had equal opportunities to experience all four instructional strategies. Each strategy allowed me to differentiate and meet the diverse learning needs of my classroom.
Lastly, through collaboration with both internal and external stakeholders, I developed my understanding on the topic of word study and was able to discuss various strategies and their effectiveness. With the help of peers, coworkers, and professors, I was able to design an instructional plan and finalized data collection methods that would provide opportunities for analysis at the end of the study.
Through the implementation of the four research-based instructional strategies (small groups, Constant Time Delay, kinesthetic activities, and investigation) I hoped to see an increase in phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, and overall reading achievement. Each of my four groups participated in developmentally-appropriate activities and had equal opportunities to experience all four instructional strategies. Each strategy allowed me to differentiate and meet the diverse learning needs of my classroom.
Lastly, through collaboration with both internal and external stakeholders, I developed my understanding on the topic of word study and was able to discuss various strategies and their effectiveness. With the help of peers, coworkers, and professors, I was able to design an instructional plan and finalized data collection methods that would provide opportunities for analysis at the end of the study.