RRVD

KINDERGARTEN READING READINESS: AN INTERVENTION PLAN
A thesis submitted
by
Carrie Chumley Driver
to
LaGrange College
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the
degree of
MASTER OF EDUCATION
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange, Georgia
July 27, 2011

Kindergarten Reading Readiness 1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Students entering kindergarten in this day and time are doing so without the basic
prior knowledge for reading development. Pupils who are most likely to have difficulty
with learning to read in the early grades are those who start school with less basic prior
knowledge and skill in related domains (Gillet, Temple, & Crawford, 2004). The domains
consists of general verbal abilities, the ability to attend to sounds of language as distinct
from its meaning, familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of reading, and letter
recognition (Gillet et al., p.208). Kindergarten students who exhibit a lack of the basic
prior knowledge reading development skills are typically the same students who perform
lowest on academic achievement assessments.
Low academic achievement is closely related to lack of resources and many
research studies have documented the correlation between low socioeconomic status and
low academic achievement (Payne, 1996). Low socioeconomic status is defined as the
extent to which an individual does without resources (Payne, 1996, p. #7).
Pupils coming to school from a low socioeconomic way of life face many academic
challenges, most especially those coming from broken family. The pupils walk into the
classroom with a void of basic background knowledge as it relates to school. This is due,
in part, because low SES students are exposed to fewer cognitive and academically
stimulating activities in the home (McCartney, Deering, Taylor, & Bub, 2007).
The activities that the students miss out on range from talking to or with parents
and or any type of adult, reading to or with parents and or any type of adult, visiting
museums, libraries, plays, and the list could go on (McCartney et al., 2007).
Low SES students acquire language skills at a slower pace, exhibit delayed
letter/sound recognition and phonological sensitivity, and most are at a high risk for reading
difficulties (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). Research has revealed that oral language is the
base of literacy development associated to this is development in phonemic awareness,
which is a valid predictor of later reading by the end of kindergarten (MacDonald &
Figueredo, 2010). Early intervention cannot wait until first grade. According to
MacDonald and Figueredo (2010), early detection and intervention is extremely critical
and the window of opportunity closes quickly.
In the State of Georgia, based on the Georgia Kindergarten Inventory of Developing
Skills (G-KIDS), kindergarten students are assessed on the following Reading Fluency and
Reading Comprehension standards: a) reads previously taught high frequency words at 30
words a minute; b) reads previously taught text with expression; c) listens to and reads a
variety of literature and informational texts, d)makes predictions from pictures and titles;
e) tell meaning from narrative using prior knowledge, graphics, and questions; f) begins to
distinguish fact from fiction in read-aloud text; and g) retells familiar events and important
facts.
Parents share on developing their childs reading and vocabulary development
through their support and guidance take a very big role on their childs development.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine the reading readiness and vocabulary
development of kindergarten children from single parent family.

Statement of the Problem
This study will be conducted to determine the reading readiness and vocabulary
development of kindergarten children from single parent family in the public elementary
school in the municipality of Dumarao.
However this study will answer the following questions:
1. What are the socio-demographic profiles of the respondents?
2. What is the level of reading readiness of kindergarten children from single parent
family?
3. What is the level of vocabulary development of kindergarten children from single
parent family?
4. Is there an association between the respondents socio- demographic factors and
their reading readiness?
5. Is there an association between the respondents socio- demographic factors and
their vocabulary development?
Hypothesis
There is no significant association between the socio-demographic profile of the
respondents and their reading readiness and vocabulary development.

Significance of the Study
The result of the study will be beneficial to the following.
The result of this study will be beneficial to the:
Teachers. This study will help the teachers in all educational institutions to better
understand and to promote understanding and support to pupils coming from
single parent family. Furthermore, teachers can make and think new tteaching
strategies and ideas to motivate children from single parent family.
Teacher Applicants. This study will give additional information on how to deal
pupils in relating to the background of pupils from kindergarten.
Department of Education. This study will give additional information to the
Department of Education to determine the impact of the parental involvement that
could help narrow the reading readiness and vocabulary development gap of the
kindergarten pupils.
The Society. This study will give additional perspective to parents on how
important the role of parents in the development of their children.
Definition of Terms
The following terms will be used operationally in this study:
Alphabet. According to The Linux Information Project (2004), the alphabet is a
standardized set of 26 letters used to print written language.
Decoding. Decoding refers to the process of translating graphemes into spoken language.
It is the knowledge of letter patterns used to figure out and pronounce unfamiliar words
(WETA, 2008).
Kindergarten evaluation. This is a process of collecting data to monitor students
academic progress and provide feedback to identify the students strengths and weaknesses
(Trochim, 2006).
Kindergarten reading readiness. According to the environmentalist theory, kindergarten
readiness is the age when children understood rules, behavior, curriculum and instruction
in a formal learning environment (Iannelli, 2007)
Learning. Learning is the ability to understand and remember information. It is a cognitive
approach that involved reasoning, critical thinking, problem solving skills and the
construction of meaning by connecting new information to previous knowledge or
experiences (Kolb as cited in Richmond & Cummings, 2005).
Literacy development. Literacy development is the beginning stages of reading and
writing. It involves listening, speaking, scribbling to imitate letters or words and reading
words in text through pictures (Araujo, 2002).
Phonemes. Phonemes are defined as the smallest parts of sound in a spoken word. They
establish the differences in the meaning of words and contain digraphs that group two or
more consonants to produce a single sound. Example of digraphs include sh\o\p, f\a\n,
m\a\n, th\i\s, and w\i\g (Armbruster, Leher, & Osborn, 2003).
Phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness is a valid predictor of students ability to learn
how to read (Adams, 1990). It allows student to analyze, separate, blend and manipulate
sounds to form rhyming words, understand the relationship between the spoken word and
print, and make the connections between letters and sounds (Kindergarten Teacher Reading
Academy, 2002).
Phonics. Phonics involves rules to be memorized and applied when putting sounds of
letters together to sound out new words (Wilber, 2003).
Reading. According to the National Reading Panel (2000), reading is the ability to develop
phonemic awareness and phonics skills in order to accurately and fluently recognize and
understand words in text.
Reading readiness. Reading readiness is the process of developing a rich vocabulary and
acquiring adequate knowledge about language and literacy. According to the U.S.
Department of Educations National Center for Education Statistics and the National Early
Literacy Panel (NELP), reading readiness involves print awareness, alphabet knowledge
and phonological awareness, environmental print, listening comprehension, visual
memory, and visual perceptual skills (Iannelli, 2007; Strickland & Shanahan, 2004).
Reading readiness deficiencies. Reading readiness deficiencies encompass the inability to
recognize letters and sounds, words, blends, syllables, and story in pictures (Leach,
Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003).
Delimitation of the Study
This study will cover all public elementary schools in the District of
Dumarao, Dumarao, Capiz. This study is limited only to the reading readiness and
vocabulary development of kindergarten children from single parent family.

Significance of the Problem
Kindergarten students enter school without the basic prior knowledge for several
reasons. Family environment has most often been a reason because it is thought to be the
principle contributor to differences in early language and literacy development associated
with low SES (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). Research is abundant with studies looking at
the relation between student academic achievement and family climates of low SES.
Students with low SES have less exposure to books at home and are less likely to be read
to by parents (Aikens & Barbarin, 2008). An analysis completed by the U.S. Department
of Educations Early Childhood Longitudinal Study saw great differences in the cognitive
abilities of children just starting kindergarten (Books, 2004). As reported in the USDOEs
study, students from wealthy families scored sixty percent (60%) higher than students from
poorer families. Strong evidence indicates that socioeconomic status accounts for more
of the unique variation in cognitive scores than any other factor by far (Books, 2004, p.
102).
Kindergarten children no longer get to color, paint, play, and nap all day long.
Kindergarten classes today have a curriculum that is packed with standards each nine
weeks related to reading. Kindergarten reading standards are of higher expectations than
in years past. Kindergarten teachers like to see students entering the doors in August
having the majority of prior basic reading development skills already learned. For these
students, most have a smooth sailing into letter/sound recognition, phonics, word recall,
and sentence reading. The low SES students who do not have the prior basic reading
development skills spend at least the first nine weeks being exposed to the basic
developmental skills. By this time these students are further behind in the reading
development skills area. With differentiated instruction, teachers can meet with the
delayed students one-on-one or in a small group setting with reading development
instruction based solely on the students individual need(s).
Theoretical and Conception Frameworks
Basic prior knowledge reading development can be traced back to Vygotskys
view of cognitive development. Vygotsky believed that cognitive development is highly
linked to input from others (Slavin, 2003). His most noted contribution is an emphasis on
the sociocultural nature of learning. Vygotsky concluded that learning takes place when
children are working in their zone of proximal development. Functions within the zone of
proximal development are ones that children cannot yet do independently but could do with
the assistance of a higher order thinking peer or teacher. Vygotskys theories have two
main implications. One is the outcome of setting up cooperative learning sets among
groups of students with differing levels of ability. Tutoring by teachers would be most
effective in achieving growth within the zone of proximal development. Second, teachers
need to put an emphasis on scaffolding, with students taking on more and more
responsibility for their own learning (Slavin, 2003). This action research thesis will
incorporate Vygotskys theories by implementing small group and individual tutor time as
well as allowing students to make gains in their learning development at their own pace.
This thesis relates to LaGrange College Education Departments (2010)
Conceptual Framework, under Tenet 1 and Tenet 2. Tenet 1: Enthusiastic Engagement in
Learning, Competency Cluster 1.3: Knowledge of Learners, states that teachers understand
their students and how they learn. The teachers understand how to give differentiated
learning opportunities based on students stages of development and that teachers

understand that factors inside and outside effect students lives and learning. Knowing that
students are made up differently and that the students learn differently is vital to this
research thesis as students will be grouped to target low achieving students.
LaGrange College Educational Departments (2010) Conceptual Framework
Tenet 2: Exemplary Professional Teaching Practices, Competency Cluster 2: Assessment
Skills, states that teachers involve the students in self-assessment to help them become
aware of their own strengths and needs. This allows the students to set personal goals for
their learning achievement. Students like to physically see how they are achieving.
Throughout this research study, intervention assessments and student made assessments
will be posted as to where the student can mark and see their achievement goals
This thesis relates to the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
[NBPTS] (2010) under Proposition 1 and Proposition 3. Proposition 1 states Teachers
are committed to Students and Their Learning. Under Proposition 1 are statements that
are related to this thesis:
NBCT [National Board Certified Teachers] are dedicated to making
knowledge accessible to all students. They believe all students can learn.
They treat students equitably. They recognize the individual differences
that distinguish their students from one another and they take account for
these differences in their practice.
NBCT understand how students develop and learn.
They respect the cultural and family differences students bring to their
classroom. (para. # 1).

Proposition 3 states Teachers are Responsible for Managing and Monitoring Student
Learning. Under Proposition 3 are statements that are related to this thesis:
NBCT know how to assess the progress of individual students as well as the
class as a whole.
They use multiple methods for measuring student growth and
understanding, and they can clearly explain student performance to parents
(para. # 3).
This thesis relates to the Georgia Framework for Teaching (Georgia Professional
Standards Commission, n.d.) under Domain 2 and Domain 4. Domain 2: Knowledge of
Students and Their Learning states that Teachers support the intellectual, social, physical,
and personal development of all students. Under Domain 2 are statements that are related
to this thesis:
2.1 believe that all children can learn at high levels and hold high expectations for
all.
2.2 understand how learning occurs in general and in the content areas
2.3 are sensitive, alert, and responsive to all aspects of a childs well-being
2.4 understand how factors in environments inside and outside of school may
influence students lives and learning
2.5 are informed about and adapt their work based on students stages of
development, assessment strategies to evaluate and ensure the continuous
development of all learners (para. # 2).

Under Domain 4 are statements that are related to this thesis:
4.4 involve learners in self-assessment, helping them become aware of their
strengths and needs and encouraging them to set personal goals for learning
4.6 use assessment data to communicate student progress knowledgeably and
responsibly to students, parents, and other school personnel (para. #4).
Focus Questions
As previously stated, low SES kindergarten students enter school with an absence
of basic prior knowledge of reading skills. With the purpose of the study being to improve
the basic reading and language skills for kindergarten students, the overarching research
question of how the extra tutor time benefits low SES kindergarten students is broken down
into three specific focus questions.
1. What is the most effective way to implement an intervention for kindergarten
reading readiness?
2. What effects will an intervention have on kindergarten students academic
achievement?
3. How will the teacher and kindergarten students feel about the intervention?
Kindergarten school years are a critical period of growth for students emergent
literacy skills (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). Oral language interventions completed
during kindergarten give students an additional source of support at a critical time in their
emergent literacy development. Studies that assess the effect of tutoring program
interventions characteristically reported success. In most cases the lowest achieving
students at the start of the intervention had the largest gains in language development. An
intervention tutor program needs to be skill(s) specific and focused, not just more of the
same thing over a longer time frame (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010).
Overview of Methodology
This is an action research study conducted in a kindergarten classroom of a local
Title I school. The subjects of this study were three kindergarten students. They were
selected because of their low scores from the Lexia Reading Assessment. The intervention
was specific to each students needs of reading and oral language development skills. The
intervention time frame was from March 2011 to May 2011. Both qualitative and
quantitative data were used for measuring student outcomes of the reading and oral
language development skills. The method of collecting data was a daily/weekly data
checklist of the skills needed. As each student mastered a skill, he/she moved on to the
next skill needed. G-KIDS assessment was performed four times throughout the year (each
nine week period) to measure student gains and Lexia assessment was administered three
times throughout the year (August, December, and May) to measure student gains. I kept
a journal regarding the intervention process to record the research process and how students
react to intervention time. Students were given a survey to assess their feelings on the
intervention time.
Human as a Researcher
I am a Kindergarten teacher in a local Title I elementary school in Troup County.
I have been teaching for nine years; teaching first grade for four years and teaching
Kindergarten for the past five years. I feel that I am qualified to complete this thesis study
because I see firsthand how Kindergarten students enter the classroom with a void of basic
background knowledge of reading skills. This negatively affects their reading ability in
Kindergarten. I feel that interventions to include interventions with Kindergarten
Readiness and Phonics and Decoding Skills, Dolch Sight Words, and Reading Informal
will greatly help the students suffering with reading and oral language skills. I want success
in my classroom for all students and all students deserve to be successful.
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The purpose of this action research is to determine if a differentiated intervention
will strengthen the scores of Kindergarten Readiness and Phonics and Decoding Skills of
students in kindergarten. This research will also determine which strategies are most
effective and how the teacher and students feel about the intervention time. This chapter
will reflect upon research that has been performed by others on this topic.
Cognitive Development
Vygotsky believed that students are active seekers of their own knowledge. He
did not view them as solitary agents (Papadopoulos, Charalambous, Kanari, & Loiziu
2004). In his theory, rich social and cultural contexts greatly affected students cognitive
development. Therefore, mental activity is considered uniquely human. It is the result of
social learning, of the internalization of social signs and of culture and social relationships.
Vygotskian educational and psychological applications offer opportunities for active
participation and acceptance of individual differences. These applications also promote
assisted discovery as well. Teachers may guide students learning, tailoring their
interventions to each students zone of proximal development in order for highest learning
to take place (Papadopoulos et al., 2004). The functions of the zone of proximal
development are ones that children cannot yet do alone but could do with help of a peer or
teacher (Slavin, 2003). Within the Vygotskian theory lies two implications. One is the
outcome of setting up cooperative learning groups with students of differing levels of
ability. The other is teachers putting an emphasis on scaffolding and allowing students to
take on more awareness of their responsibility of learning (Slavin, 2003).
School Readiness
School readiness is not just measured by student proficiency on academic or
cognitive skills (Children Now, 2009). According to Children Now, the National
Education Goals Panel (1990) determined that childrens school readiness includes five
areas: (1) physical well-being and motor development, (2) social and emotional
development, (3) approaches toward learning, (4) communication and language usage, and
(5) cognition and general knowledge (page 2). The panel also emphasized that school
readiness involves families, schools and communities. Without their collective preparation
and involvement children have a difficult time being ready for school. In order to help
struggling students in key development and skill areas, some states have enacted policies
to help ensure children arrive in kindergarten prepared and that schools provide them the
supports they need to transition successfully. Collecting and sharing of meaningful school
readiness data is essential to successful kindergarten transition. School readiness data also
help provide families, schools, and communities information to determine how to best
help young students succeed (Children Now 2009).
Reading Readiness
Children from all walks of life suffer significant difficulties in learning to read.
Countless young students begin kindergarten lacking readiness skills necessary for
successful adjustment to school (Cooke, Kretlow, & Helf, 2010). According to Tankersley
(2003), The National Reading Panel Report states that the level of phonemic awareness
that children possess when first beginning reading instruction and their knowledge of
letters are the two best predictors of how they will learn to read during the first two years
of formal reading instruction, (Tankersley, 2003, p. 6).

Oral language is the foundation of literacy development and linked to phonemic
awareness which is a valid predictor of later reading in kindergarten (MacDonald, &
Figueredo, 2010). Student interventions must occur early because kindergarten students
cannot afford to wait until first grade for intervention. The kindergarten years are a critical
period of growth for emergent-literacy and oral language interventions. This gives the
students an additional support line at a critical time when reading readiness takes place
(MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). Reading readiness skills are the important prerequisite
skills students need to master to succeed academically in later grades. These skills include
a.) physical health and motor development, b.) socioemotional development, c.)
approaches to learning, d.) language and communication development, e.) early literacy
skills, and f.) cognition and general knowledge (Cooke et al., 2010, p. #137). Six
essential threads for reading are: reading/phonics awareness, phonics and decoding,
fluency, vocabulary, and word recognition. Without having each thread present in the
tapestry of a students reading abilities becomes holes and the weave will not hold tight
and will not function for lifelong use (Tankersley, 2003, p. 2). Most states expect
kindergarten teachers to emphasize readiness skills by incorporating them into their content
standards (Cooke et al., 2010). School readiness matters in the long run and addressing
childrens developmental needs before and during their first year of school will boost their
chances of success. Sadly, most children do not attend a high-quality preschool and many
do not enter kindergarten fully prepared. These students fall behind in the knowledge of
skills that will facilitate their ability to succeed in kindergarten and beyond (Children Now,
2009). Scanlon, Vellutina, Small, Fanuele, and Sweeney (2005) provide abundant
evidence to support the premise that children who are severely impaired in reading in the
elementary grades will continue to be impaired throughout their educational career if they
do not receive appropriate remediation. However, there is also evidence to show that the
majority of the students who encounter early learning difficulties can be brought up to
grade level if they are provided with early, individualized, and intensive intervention.
There is evidence to support that interventions given in a small group format can
substantially reduce the number of students who experience long term reading problems
(Daily, Chafouleas, & Skinner, 2005).
The overall effects of interventions are certainly positive and promising. When the
outcomes for individual children are analyzed it is typically found that there are a
substantial amount of children who continue to be severely impaired in reading, despite
intensive interventions. These students are ultimately identified as learning disabled and
require special educational services (Scanlon et al., 2005). Students who struggle with
early reading lack facility with the phonological structure of the English language
(Simmons et al., 2007). These students lack sensitivity to the phonemes in words, and they
struggle with the alphabetic principle and or the ability to decode unfamiliar words.
Students who suffer from early reading difficulties cannot make the connection between
the sounds of our language and the printed counterparts that represent speech. As a result,
they face mountains of obstacles in translating print to speech and fail to develop ease and
facility with word recognition. This, in hand, limits their hold for higher level cognitive
processes related to comprehension and, ultimately, the word and word knowledge they
gain from reading (Simmons et al., 2007).
Students below pre-primer instructional level suffer from many academic issues
(Caldwell & Leslie, 2005). The issues include but are not limited to:
May not recognize the purpose for reading
Lack basic print concepts
May not know how to hold a book upright
May not know letter/sounds
Are logographic readers who do not understand that letters stand for sounds
and that words represent meaning
May not know that letters put together make a word
Not understand that reading is left to right
Sentences have words with spaces in between (Caldwell and Leslie, 2005,
p. 14)
Student interventions need to be exactly what the student does or does not know and needs
to provide experiences to move on to the next stage of the reading process (Caldwell &
Leslie, 2005). Good intervention is one that includes explicit approach to instruction in
which letters are taught in isolation and then blended to form words (Daily et al., 2005).
Many students begin kindergarten with great differences in vocabulary knowledge
(Coyne, McCoach, & Kapp, 2007). Some students enter school with thousands of hours
of exposure to books and a wealth of rich and supportive oral languages experiences peers
who have a rich vocabulary knowledge. Other students begin school with very limited
knowledge of language and word meanings. Sadly, the vocabulary gap grows larger in the
early grades as students with limited vocabulary knowledge grow more discrepant over
time from their peers who have rich vocabulary knowledge (Coyne et al., 2007).
Young students who fall behind in developing vocabulary knowledge are at a high
risk for experiencing major reading and learning difficulties and eventually are identified
as having a language or reading disability (Coyne et al., 2007). Literature suggest that
structured and supported oral language activities, such as listening to and discussing
storybooks are direct ways to promote language and vocabulary development in young
students. This type of activity is not equally effective for all students. Students who are at
risk for reading disabilities with lower initial vocabularies are less likely than their peers
with higher vocabularies to learn words incidentally while listening to stories. This is quite
possible in part because these students are less able to make use of context to infer word
meanings because of their limited vocabulary and content knowledge. Due to this finding,
researchers have acted for more intentional, teacher-directed vocabulary instruction and
intervention to complement traditional reading activities for students who are at risk for
language and reading difficulties. Students with weaker vocabularies are less likely to
learn new words from listening to stories than children with larger vocabularies. Thus,
teachers need to provide more one-on-one or small group explicit vocabulary instruction
for students with smaller vocabularies (Coyne et al., 2007).
Intervention Plans
There is certainly no disagreement that a successful early elementary school
experience is a highly predictive factor of later positive academic outcomes (Cooke et al.,
2010). Student interventions need to be based on individual needs to provide experiences
to gain knowledge in order to go on to the next stage of the reading process (Caldwell &
Leslie, 2005). Good intervention is one that includes explicit approach to instruction in
which letters are taught in isolation and then blended to form words (Daily et al., 2005).
Interventions should be stimulating, not boring. Early literacy can develop through teacher
intervention in the specific skills needed. Interventions should be focused on a level that
allows high rates of successful student performance (Daily et al., 2005).
Early intervention literatures suggest that there is a difference in opinion as to
relative importance of early academic skills and when early readiness intervention should
begin. One way of addressing both readiness skills and early intervention is to begin with
readiness skills during the first semester of kindergarten and waiting to provide
supplemental reading instruction until the second semester of kindergarten. Teachers who
have tried this method preferred the approach because it allowed students who have
problems in both areas some time to adjust to general school experiences, routines, and
expectations and full class instruction before working in small pull-out groups for early
reading interventions. However, the effect of delaying reading intervention is loss of
progress that might be made with supplementary small group instruction across the full
year (Cooke et al., 2010).
Research pertaining to interventions provides evidence that phonemic awareness,
alphabetic understanding, and decoding are in fact teachable (Simmons et al., 2007).
Individualized intervention instruction results in significant gains for most students. An
emphasis on alphabetic skills and phonological awareness positively influences both
phonemic awareness and word reading outcomes. According to Tankersley, (2003) The
National Reading Panels (2000) synthesis of experimental studies collaborated a set of
attributes of instruction as being positively related to kindergarten phonemic awareness
and phonics outcomes including:
Emphasis of a few priority phonemic awareness skills

Integration of letters with sounds
Small group instruction
Use of explicit, systematic instruction (page #5).
One validated model for providing early academic intervention is the use of tiered
instruction. In a tiered model of instruction, all students receive the core or Tier 1
instruction. Students requiring some additional help receive small group supplementary
Tier 2 instruction. Students who require intensive individualized support receive
instruction designed for tier 3. Studies using tiered models of intervention have
consistently shown that providing direct, explicit and systemic instruction in the evidence
based components of reading instruction to students at risk of reading failure in early
grades, effectively prevents many long term reading difficulties and reduces the likelihood
of referral and placement programs (Cooke et al., 2010).
Two areas make up quality intervention: Instructional Time and Instructional
Design. The most consistent educational finding is that the amount of instructional time
that children are actively engaged in results in tasks that they can perform successfully
(Simmons et al., 2007). Over four decades ago, an education researcher named J.B. Carroll
came up with a model of school leaning to guide the solution of educational problems
grounded in the economics of instruction. His model was based on the idea that only a
hand full of critical variables influence student learning, and important to this model was
time or opportunity to learn. Carroll espoused the belief that economy of learning can be
seen when time spent in learning equals time needed for learning. Going along with his
model, it is common practice to devote more time beyond typical allotments for children
who struggle to read. For the past decade, supplemental reading instruction that increases
opportunity to learn has become a common focus of educational research and practice
(Simmons et al., 2007)
Instructional Design is the way a particular domain is selected, prioritized,
sequenced, organized, and scheduled for instruction within a highly organized series of
lessons and materials that make up a course of study. Simmons et al. (2007) refer to the
instructional design as systematic process of translating principles of learning and
instruction into plans for of instructional materials and activities (p. 332).
Observations and Assessments
Developmentally appropriate observations and assessments of young students have
been supported by nationally recognized early childhood experts. In Children Now (2009),
The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National
Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (2003) gave
a joint statement about the value of knowing the needs, strengths and progress of young
children. The statement said that developmentally appropriate observation and assessment
methods can inform the three points for beneficial reasons:
1. Making solid decisions about learning and teaching
2. Identifying great concerns that may require focused intervention for individual
children
3. Helping programs improve the educational and developmental interventions (page
# 4).
By taking the guidelines into consideration, a complete kindergarten readiness
observation process can be appropriately created to measure the broad range of
development and skills associated with school readiness. Kindergarten readiness

observations should also utilize several methods to compile detailed information on
incoming kindergarten students, including an instrument for teachers to observe a child in
his/her school environment and a parent survey.
Children Now (2009) have identified at least 31 states that have some form of
Kindergarten readiness observation, survey, screening, or assessment. States vary in the
way they use the information gathered. Most commonly, teachers use individual student
data to guide their instruction. Some states are in the early stages of implementing their
kindergarten readiness observation systems according to the state standards. The state of
Georgia has some form of kindergarten observation, screening or assessment and Georgia
is required to use a tool that measures more than cognitive development skills.
Student Success
Most students enter school with self-integrated personalities and eager to learn to
read (Block, 2003). However, if success and approval are repeatedly denied, learned
helplessness (a students belief that they cannot be successful no matter how much they
try) can result. Defense mechanisms may also develop showing negative behaviors or
attitudes that divert students own as well as others attention away from their less than
desired level of literacy achievement. Persistence can arise from increased intrinsic
motivation, positive concept of self as reader, positive attitudes, interest stimulation and
productive emotions that give new cognitive commitment. Low performing students need
motivation. Motivation that is crucial to them is the impulse to initiate and direct behavior
with drive for competence that is sustained and augmented by deep feelings of self efficacy.
Self efficacy refers to the degree to which a student expects and values the successful
completion of certain task based on assessments. Student success results from ability and
effort rather than from luck. Reading intervention groups (for young students) most likely
need to be externally motivated as to where the students work for rewards from the teacher.
This will help increase interest in the literacy area. Interest has the power to arouse and
instigate behavior, give direction or purpose to behavior, and continue to allow a behavior
to persist. In order to build student interest teachers need to use open task and student
choice. Open task is allowing the students to decide which information they will use and
or what they want to read. Student choices are tasks with several available options (Block,
2003).
Tutor interventions are a key component of successful oral language and reading
skills (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). Studies on the effects of tutor interventions show
success. Students being tutored made great gains on language and reading assessments
than non tutor students. The lowest students at the beginning of the interventions ended
up making the greatest gain in language and reading development. (Macdonald &
Figueredo, 2010).
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Research Design
The purpose of this action research study was to determine if extra interventions
would improve the scores of three kindergarten students in the areas of Kindergarten
Readiness, Phonics and Decoding Skills, Dolch Sigh Words, and Reading Informal on the
Lexia Test. Action based research gives teachers an idea of which areas to focus on, collect
data, assess students on, see the results, and then be able to plan for more differentiated
instruction based on the students results (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). By using action
research, I, as the teacher, was able to see firsthand what parts of the intervention worked
and which ones did not work and or can be improved. In order to collect data, mixed
methods were used. Both quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using a t-test for
dependent and independent sample groups. Teacher and student journals were also used
to collect data.
Setting
The kindergarten intervention took place in a Title I school in rural Troup County
Georgia. This school and class were chosen because I worked there. There were 519
students from Pre-K through 5th Grades. Forty two percent of the students received free
lunch and five percent received reduced lunch. The student body was made up of 248 girls
and 271 boys. The racial breakdown was as follows: 15% African American,
77% White, .0039% Hispanic, .003% American Indian, .06% Multi-racial, 1% Asian, and
.005% other. The school had 45 certified teachers. Permission was given to conduct the
action research through the Troup County Board of Education, the principal of the school,
and the LaGrange College Institutional Review Board.
Subjects and Participants

The three subjects for the intervention research were decided upon because of their
low scores on the Kindergarten Readiness, Phonics and Decoding Skills, Dolch Sight
Words, and Reading Informal portions of the Lexia Test. Two of the subjects were six
years old and one is five years old. All three are female Caucasian students. All three
receive free lunch and are from low social economic families. The subjects are from either
divorced or broken families. Two of the students are at the correct mental age of five and
one is at a mental age of about three years old. One of the students has speech and language
disorders and is currently being served by the school Speech/Language Pathologist. The
three subjects are in an EIP Reading group and an EIP Math group together. Two of the
subjects receive 40 minutes of tutor time each week provided by middle school students.
The tutor works with the subjects on letter and sound recognitions. The third subject does
not work with a middle school tutor due to her speech/language disorder. This student does
however; work with a certified teacher for 20 minutes a day working on social and language
skills. All three students work extra time on SuccessMaker Math and Reading computer
program.
The kindergarten class that served as the control was at the same school and had
about the same make-up of the subject intervention group. Three kindergarten teachers
also participated in this study as evaluators of my instructional plan. One teacher had been
teaching for 20 years, one teacher for four years and the last teacher was on her second
year. Two of the teachers had only taught kindergarten and the other teacher had taught
first grade as well as pre-k over the years.
Procedures and Data Collection Methods

Action research for this intervention started with the creation of an instructional
plan (see Appendix A). Next, a colleague reviewed the intervention instructional plan.
Based on the test scores from the Lexia Test administered in March 2011, three subjects
had the intervention and the other kindergarten classroom did not. The purpose of this
action research was to determine if an intervention will increase scores on the May 2011
testing window. The intervention goal was to raise each students score to 25.
The intervention was incorporated into the small group reading time in which the
three subjects are grouped into together. The intervention was two 45 minute segments a
week presented by the teacher and the teacher assistant. The intervention began in March
and ended in May. The intervention consisted of using letter and sound cards, picture
cards, sight word cards, selected reading passages, letter matching game, sound/picture
game, sound tub items, phonemic awareness activities, chants recalling letter and
corresponding sounds, and motions to recall letters and sounds.
During the time of the intervention, a reflective journal was kept by me so that
thoughts, ideas, and observations would be recorded. Using journal prompts (see Appendix
B) the journal entries were a combination of the teacher and the teacher assistant. The
subjects also kept a picture journal. Based on starters provided (see Appendix C), they
wrote and colored pictures of the material they were learning and how they felt about their
progress. The purpose of the journals was to see which parts of the intervention worked,
which ones need improvement, and which ones did not work at all.
The teacher of the control group did not change her teaching methods during the
research time frame. She used the same teaching methods that she had used all year long.
At the end of the intervention, the Lexia Test was given to the three subjects and
the control group. These scores were used to determine whether or not the interventions
proved to be successful in raising the Lexia Testing scores as composed to those of the
control group.
A teacher focus group was used for this study to collect qualitative data. The focus
group consisted of the three other kindergarten teachers for the control groups. I feel that
the focus group had beneficial experience to help with this research study. The questions
asked to the focus group were developed by me based on the literature presented in Chapter
Two of this study (see Appendix D).
The procedures and data collection methods are aligned with my focus questions
and research. The data shell (see Table 3.1) shows how the focus questions, literature, and
data collection were aligned and analyzed.
Table 3.1. Data Shell

Focus Question Literature Type: Method, How are data Rationale

Sources Data, Validity analyzed?
What is the Cooke, Type of Coded for Looking for
most effective Kretlow, & Method: themes: categorical and
way to Helf (2010) Instructional Recurring repeating data
implement an Plan and IP Dominant that form
intervention for Daily, Interview Emerging patterns of
kindergarten Chafouleas, & behaviors
reading Skinner (2005) Type of Data:
readiness? Qualitative
Caldwell
(2005) Type of
Validity:
Content
What effects Block (2003) Type of Dependent T To determine if

will an Method: Lexia Independent T there are
intervention Papadopoulos, Reading Test significant
have on Charalambous, differences
students Kanari, & Type of Data: between means
academic Loizou (2004) Quantitative, from one group
achievement? Nominal tested twice,
Slavin (2003) significant
Type of differences
Validity: between means
Content from two
independent
groups
How will Block (2003) Type of Coded for Looking for
teachers and Method: themes: categorical and
students feel MacDonald & Reflective Recurring repeating data
about the Figueredo Journal, Dominant that form
intervention? (2010) Student Emerging patterns of
Pictograph, behaviors.
Papadopoulos, Focus Group
Charalambous,
Kanari, & Type of Data:
Loizou (2004) Qualitative,
Nominal
Type of
Validity:
Construct
Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias

Validity, reliability, dependability, and bias of instruments and outcomes are very
important when conducting action research. Validity is the property of an assessment tool
that shows that the tool does what it says it does (Salkind, 2010). Reliability is defined by
Salkind (2010) as whether an instrument would produce the same results consistently.
Dependability is closely related to the concepts of accuracy and consistency (Salkind,
2010). Bias is the quality of an assessment instrument that offends or unfairly penalizes a
group of individuals (Popham, 2008). Focus question
one of this action research study ask what is the most effective way to implement an
intervention for kindergarten reading readiness. The data gathering methods consisted of
an instructional plan and interview. The Lexia test was used to collect interval data from
both the intervention group and the control group. Qualitative data were used in this study.
Content validity was ensured through the comparative design of the research between and
within the intervention group and the control group. Reliability is assured using a test-
retest correlation for dependent t-test. Dependability is in tack by maintaining well
organized data and through complete and accurate supporting data. Steps have been taken
to assure absence-of-bias. Offensiveness occurs when negative stereotypes of certain
subgroup members are presented in a test (Popham, 2008). Unfair bias arises when a
students test performance is distorted because of the students group membership.
Disparate impact occurs if scores of different groups are decidedly differently (Popham,
2008). No part of the intervention or Lexia test will distort a students performance based
on bias.
The second focus question in this action research study addressees the effects that
an intervention will have on students academic achievement. The Lexia test was used to
collect pre and post test quantitative data. Content validity shows the students ability skills
of each session tested. The test shows reliability because it is a county wide standardized
test that is used by all students in grades kindergarten through fifth grade. Data collection
and treatment are kept consistent to give dependable results. There are no biases that would
affect the results of the assessment. How will
teachers and students feel about the intervention process is the goal of focus question three.
The researcher kept a journal regarding the intervention process. The students involved in
the intervention process kept a pictograph journal. A teacher focus group consisting of
three other kindergarten teachers and the speech and language pathologist was also used.
This qualitative data will show the feelings and thoughts of the teachers and the involved
students. The content matter is reliable and dependable due to the personal connections of
the teacher and students. Data collection and treatment are kept consistent. The length of
time for data collection is persistent and prolonged. There are no biases that would show
in the teacher journal or student pictograph.
Analysis of Data
Mixed methods were used to collect and analyze data for the research in this study.
For focus question one, the qualitative data of the study was collected in the form of an
instructional plan rubric and interview from three kindergarten teachers. Data from each
of these methods were analyzed by coding to establish themes that related to the study
focus questions.
Focus question two represents the quantitative data section of this study. A
dependent t-test and an independent t-test will be used to analyze the pre/post test data.
These data were collected in the form of a pre-test and a post-test that was administered to
both the intervention group and the control group. The resulting quantitative data were
analyzed in two ways. A dependent t-test for dependent means was used to determine the
change between the pre/post tests within each group. An independent t-test was used to
determine the gains from the intervention group and the control group. The gains of the
intervention group were analyzed and compared to the gains of the control group. An effect
size analysis will be used on both t-test.
Focus question three data was collected through qualitative data. Qualitative data
were looked at and analyzed by looking at the attitudes and feelings of the intervention
group through student pictographs and a reflective journal by the teacher. The pictographs
and reflective journal added to the results of the pre-test and post-test for the intervention
group. A teacher focus group provided details regarding feelings, experiences, and overall
thoughts regarding interventions. Data collection from each of these methods were
analyzed by coding to establish themes that relate to the focus question.
Validation of this study was determined by the faculty review process. Eisner
(1991) calls the faculty review process a Consensual Validation meaning that the study
was approved by faculty. Results of this action research study were tied to the theories
from the review of literature in chapter two ensuring consistency. Denzin and Lincoln
(1998) describe the cycling back to the literature review and comparing information as
Epistemological Validation.
Credibility for this study is noted through the use of multiple data sources.
Instructional plan, interviews, reflective journal, student pictograph, and the Lexia test are
included in this study. Eisner (1991), calls this process Structural Corroboration, in
where a confluence of evidence comes together to form a compelling whole. Data was
presented fairly throughout the entire study using opposing points of view. Great care was
taken to ensure precision and accuracy so that the researcher can present a solid argument,
coherent case and have strong evidence to assert judgments. Eisner (1991) refers to this as
Rightness of Fit.
The transferability of the intervention plan and strategies that were proven
beneficial to learning outcomes for the students and the teacher are passed on to others to
be used in their classrooms. The intervention process should begin at the beginning of the
school year to guarantee the best results. This process is defined as Referential Adequacy
according to Eisner (1991).
Transformational outcomes are expected from this study. Kinchloe & McLaren,
(1998) stated that Catalytic Validity is the degree to which you anticipate an action
research study to change and transform the participants, subjects, and or school. The
changes brought on by this study will be positive and rewarding for all the individuals
involved. The results will be shared with school personnel and school officials.
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
In this chapter, the results from this action research study will be explained and
presented. Results from the data collection will be organized and presented within each
focus question.
Implementing a Kindergarten Readiness Intervention Program
A kindergarten reading readiness intervention program was implemented into a
small group of kindergarten students over a time period of eight weeks. The Lexia Reading
Assessment (session four) pre-test was given to the students in the intervention group and
to the students in the control group prior to beginning the intervention process.
During the intervention the students were shown flash cards containing nonsense
words (words students must sound out), sight words, and story samples. The intervention
students used games and chants/songs to learn how to sound non-sense words. The
students were involved in activities that reinforced the use of sight words by sight word
coloring pages, writing the sight words, and using the sight words in sentences. The
students also practiced reading sample reading passages from Full Circle Reading Program.
The students used their intervention materials two sessions a week at one hour per
session. Two of the students also received an extra twenty minutes a day from fifth grade
tutors. The third student received an extra forty- five minutes a week from the speech and
language pathologist. At the end of the intervention, a post test was given to both groups.
The post test was the Spring session of the Lexia Reading Assessment.
The intervention group showed gains from the pre test to the post test. Data also
shows a small gain in the control group from pre test to post test. The following tables
show data analysis of the intervention group from pre test to post test and the control group
from pre test to post test.
Table 4.1:
Pre Test for Intervention Group and Control Group
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Intervention Control
Group Group
Mean 3.666666667 3.916667
Variance 14.06060606 18.81061
Observations 12 12
Pooled Variance 16.43560606
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 22
t Stat -0.15105071
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.440656101
t Critical one-tail 1.717144335
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.881312202
t Critical two-tail 2.073873058
Table 4.2:
Post Test for Intervention Group and Control Group
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances
Intervention Control
Group Group
Mean 5.583333333 4.666666667
Variance 19.71969697 22.96969697
Observations 12 12
Pooled Variance 21.34469697
df 22
t Stat 0.486006489
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.315884142
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.631768285
Table 4.3:
Intervention and Control Group Pre and Post Test
Comparison
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Intervention Intervention
Group(Pre test) Group (Post test)
Mean 3.666666667 5.583333333
Variance 14.06060606 19.71969697

Observations 12 12
Pearson Correlation 0.940858828
df 11
t Stat -4.244464616
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000689247
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001378495
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Control Group Control Group

(Pre test) (Post test)
Mean 3.916666667 4.666666667
Variance 18.81060606 22.96969697
Observations 12 12
Pearson Correlation 0.991324742
df 11
t Stat -3.446737588
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.00272969
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00545938
An independent t-test was performed to compare the gains of the intervention group
with those gains of the control group (refer to table 4.3). Significant gains were found from
the pre test to the post test. The control group also showed gains from the pre test to the
post test. An effect size calculation was also used to determine gains. Effect size is the
degree to which the statistic is significant. The intervention group had an effect size of .22
which shows gains. The control group has an effect size of .08 which shows a small gain.
This indicates much more significant gain by the intervention group.

Qualitative data was gathered in the form of a teacher journal, teacher observations,
teacher focus group, and student pictographs. The journal entries were written the day of
an intervention group meeting. The student pictographs were completed weekly. The data
from these measures were analyzed by coding to establish themes that related to the focus
questions.
Effects of an Intervention Program
During the intervention all three students learned all of the capital and lowercase
letters, and all consonant letter sounds. This was a great milestone for the students. They
were (finally) able to add their name to the I know all of the Letters banner that hangs in
the room. Knowing all of the letters and sounds is the first building block of kindergarten
readiness. Students must know all sounds and letters in order to begin sounding out words
and reading words. Students are also able to sound out words by individual sounds and
write them. Students must be able to sound out and write their words by the second half of
the kindergarten year. We teachers rarely spell the words for them. For the intervention
group being able to sound out and write their words was a big accomplishment.
Two of the students mastered three sections of the non-sense words portion of the
test. One student did not master the skill due mainly to her speech and language disorders.
The same can be said for the sight word portion of the test. Two students read most, if not
all of the sight words that they were shown. One student did not read any of the words
correctly. The intervention students showed great gains on the reading informal section of
the test. Two students read to the third pre-primer reading passage with 81% and 79%
correct word recognition. The other student read only the first pre-primer reading passage
with 56% correct word recognition. This is in comparison of the pre test when all three
students only read the first pre-primer story with correct word recognition scores of 0%,
6%, and 56%.
The intervention students started recognizing their sight words as they saw them in
their Full Circle Reading program, around the room, school building, computer programs,
and in their library books. They were excited to recognize them in their surroundings. I
also noticed a difference in their daily class journal writing. Two of the students would
use their learned sight words in their writings. They were proud to know that they could
write words independently.
Students and Teachers Feelings Toward Interventions
The students enjoyed their intervention time with me and the teacher assistant. This
was most likely the only time that they got to sit down with an adult who cared about them
and tried to help them learn. They saw that we were helping them and they so desperately
wanted to learn the sounds and words like the other students in the room. When the
students came to our tables for reading groups they knew it was time to learn.
The students enjoyed the songs and chants, reading passages and sight word cards.
They also enjoyed the games and paper activities that we used to reinforce the skills. They
were not so fond of the non-sense word cards. I believe that they did not like the non-sense
words because they have to sound the words out. The intervention students do not have
high skills of sounding words out. Therefore this skill remained difficult for them during
the eight weeks of the intervention time period. Students that were not in the intervention
group were very curious as to what our groups were doing during the intervention times.
They noticed the intervention group learning and having fun. They too wanted in on the
fun learning.
My assistant and I had mixed feelings going into the intervention plan. We knew
we had a tough job ahead of us. I had high hopes that the intervention plan would work.
She was a little skeptical. She is not as trained on differentiation as I am. Working with
very low academic achieving students and trying to get them to learn new and challenging
material was new to her. By the end of the intervention time frame both my assistant and
I had learned so much about teaching to low achieving students. We have to keep in mind
that all students can learn we just have to present the information in various ways and
styles.
A focus group consisting of three kindergarten teachers and our school speech and
language pathologist was also a source of data collection for this action study. The teachers
were asked questions about my intervention instructional plan and if they thought
interventions would help raise Lexia Reading Assessment scores.
The focus group began with the question, Do you think kindergarten students can
raise their Lexia scores through an intervention program? All four teachers said Yes.
Teacher 1 stated that an intervention program isolates skills with which the students are
struggling. I then asked the teachers Do you think students should learn the material like
everyone else and raise their scores on their own? All agreed and said No.
Teacher 2 explained that students need to be given initial instructional before expecting
them to do it on their own. Why should teachers want to intervene and help raise students
scores? The schools speech and language pathologist stated that it is our responsibility to
differentiate our curriculum and instruction so that all students have the opportunity to be
successful. If students need specific interventions to raise their scores, then the teacher
should be willingly and gladly in order to help their students be successful. Lastly I asked
my teachers if they thought my intervention plan will be successful. The three kindergarten
students stated yes while the speech and language pathologist stated that I may have a
difficult time with one student due to her speech and language disorder.
Summary
The quantitative results of this action research study proved that an intervention for
reading readiness did help raise students scores on the Lexia Reading Assessment. The
students were presented the material more frequently than the control group and therefore
retained much more of the information. A dependent t-test and an independent t-test were
done on both the intervention group and the control group to compare pre and post tests
data.
The qualitative results of this action research study were in the form of teacher
observation, teacher journal, student pictograph, and a teacher focus group. The data
gathered from this part of the research provided insight and strategies for improving
reading readiness in kindergarten students.
CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The purpose of this action research was to determine if a reading intervention plan
would increase the basic kindergarten readiness skills of students in kindergarten.
Exploring effective strategies to build letter and sound recognition, sight word recalling,
and reading comprehension for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds was an
important part of this study. Results from comparable data did show that the intervention
had gains on increasing letter and sound recognition, sight word recalling, and reading
comprehension. In this last chapter, results from the action research will be analyzed and
discussed.
Analysis of Results
The object of focus question one is what is the most effective way to implement an
intervention for kindergarten reading readiness. The reading readiness intervention was
implemented into three kindergarten students small group reading time for a period of
eight weeks. Three other kindergarten students in another classroom served as the control
group. Both groups were given a pre-test (Lexia Session 4) before the intervention and a
post-test (Lexia Spring Session) after the intervention time frame.
Cooke et al., (2010) states that substantial research supports the need for early
intervention efforts for students at risk for failure. In the study, a group of kindergarten
students received small group reading intervention across the full school year. The other
group began the same intervention mid-year. Students with a full year of intervention
outperformed those who had only half year of intervention. The early emphasis on
academic skills has been recommended by national committees and organizations such as
The National Research Councils Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in
Young Children and the National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Results of experimental studies also support the need for early academic intervention for
students at risk for reading failure to ensure academic success in later grades (Cooke et al.,
2010). Knowing that the kindergarten years are a critical time of growth for students
emergent-literacy skills, reading readiness interventions placed during the course of the
kindergarten year give students an additional source of support at a critical time in their
development (MacDonald & Figueredo, 2010). MacDonald and Figueredo (2010) state
that An intervention program must be specific and focused, not just the more of the same
thing over a longer period of time (p. #405).
Knowing this effective information I, the researcher, will start my intervention
program with at risk students at the beginning of the upcoming school year. I feel that the
students from the intervention group of my study benefited greatly. Their sight word and
reading skills improved and this helped prepare them for first grade. I am interested to see
the effects of implementing my intervention program at the beginning of the school year
and following through with it to the end of the school year.
The object of focus question two is what effects an intervention will have on
kindergarten students academic achievement. Quantitative data was analyzed through
different test. A t-test for dependent means was used to determine the intervention and
control groups scores before the intervention began. A t-test for dependent means was
used to determine the intervention and control groups scores after the intervention. Lastly,
an independent t-test was used to compare pre and post test from both groups during the
intervention time frame.
Data results of the dependent t-test showed that the intervention group showed
gains from pre test to post test. The gains were significant at the P<.06 level. The control
group showed a small gain between the pre and post test according to the data. The
independent t-test showed that the intervention group and more significant gains than those
of the control group. The effect size of the intervention group was .22. The effect size of
the control group was .08. Effect size is defined as the degree to which the statistic is
significant (Salkind, 2010). A small effect size can range from 0 to .20. A large effect size
can be any number above .50. According to the numbers the intervention group made gains
greater than the control group.
During action research studies, validity and reliability of instruments and outcomes
are most important. Validity is an instrument that measures what it is suppose to measure.
Reliability is whether an instrument can produce the same results consistently. A
correlation for test/retest reliability reinforced the reliability of the pre/post test data. The
matching design of the research between and within the intervention and control groups
secured criterion validity. Three kindergarten colleagues reviewed the pre and post test
instrument to rid any concerns of bias. The testing instrument is used yearly and teachers
are very familiar with testing program.
The object of focus question three is how the teachers and intervention students will
feel about the intervention. Teacher observations and a reflective journal were used by the
researcher and teacher assistant to collect qualitative data. The intervention students kept a
pictograph to express their feelings toward the intervention. A teacher focus group of three
other kindergarten teachers and the speech-language pathologist was used to share
thoughts and suggestions regarding my intervention plan.
Each member of the focus group said they would like to implement the intervention
plan for the upcoming school year. As a team we decided that we would start the
intervention in September and continue it to December. At this time we will collect data
via Lexia assessment. Students not meeting set requirements will remain in the
intervention program until the end of the year. Having a teacher focus group allowed me
to share my intervention plan and ideas to others on my teaching team.
Discussion
The reading readiness intervention plan produced positive gains through multiple
reasons. First and foremost, I and my assistant teacher worked tirelessly with the
intervention group. We worked hard at providing fun, engaging learning materials and
plans for the students. We knew that in order for the intervention to be effective we had to
have effective plans and materials. Our relationship with the intervention group grew
strong. They loved having the comfort of two people who were willing to help them in
any way possible.
The findings of the intervention program show that interventions are successful.
Previous data and this intervention data help make the point that knowledge of the subject
matter and practice with the subject matter turns into success. After much reading and
researching about interventions, I became aware of an abundant amount of new
information. I plan to take the new found information and apply it to future at-risk students.
Credibility for this action research was ensured by the use of several data sources
in response to the focus questions. Data were collected for the first focus question by an
Instructional Plan Rubric and Interview, along with the implementation of the intervention
program. For focus question two, The Lexia Reading Assessment data was used in all tests.
The dependent t-tests showed gains from the pre-test to the post-test for both groups and
the independent t-test showed comparable data for the two groups. For focus question
three, a teacher focus group, reflective journal, and student pictographs served as
qualitative data. Data from this study were compared to previous studies on interventions
that were discussed in chapter two. Combining all data sources together to form a large
body of evidence is called epistemological validity (Eisner, 1991).

The analysis of data for this action research included all data including that which
did not express the views of the researcher. Data was shown to be fair in all aspects.
Quantitative data were presented in the form of results from dependent t-test and
independent t-test. Qualitative data was recorded in written form and also compared to
previous studies. Precision was secured and the results were established based on the
evidence drawn from the analysis. All evidence and analysis of data proves that a reading
readiness intervention had a major effect on the increase of letter/sound recognition, sight
word recall, and reading comprehension. This is referred to as rightness of fit according
to Eisner.
Implications
The information from this action research study confirms that a kindergarten
reading readiness intervention can increase a students ability to recall letters and sounds,
sight words, and reading comprehension skills. Based on the quantitative data from this
study, I plan to use the intervention with more students for the upcoming school year. I
feel that the intervention would be very helpful for students scoring at the bottom fifty
percent of the class. The three other kindergarten teachers on my team will also be
incorporating the intervention into their classrooms as well. This strategy is known as
referential adequacy according to Eisner (1991). I have also shared this intervention
study with kindergarten teachers at other local schools. They too liked the idea of
beginning a reading readiness intervention at the beginning of school instead of waiting
until mid-year. The process of the intervention is explained in great detail in the
Instructional Plan. Any teacher interested in incorporating the intervention into her
classroom can be guided through the plan.

Based on the student pictographs, the intervention group enjoyed our learning
sessions. They drew themselves and their teachers on most of the pages looking very
happy. Other drawings showed pictures of new words that they had learned and drawings
of the reading passages that they had mastered to read.
Students in the intervention group changed for the better during their intervention
time. As they mastered a skill they were rewarded. The intervention brought on much
needed self-confidence that they had previously lacked. The students were more confident
in other areas as well such as independent writing, morning work, and speaking to their
peers. Students not in the intervention group took note of the intervention groups fun
learning and they too wanted to join in. Due to their notion and excitement of learning I
plan to begin the intervention with more students at the beginning of the year.
I had no idea that this research study would engage not only the students as learners
but also me. I am very intrigued at a students learning process. I feel that this research
study helped me be more aware of differentiation among students as it relates to students
reading readiness skills. Catalytic Validity occurred as a result of both teacher and
children witnessing what the power of reading skills can do and how much can be learned
through such a circumstance. I believed the intervention in this action study benefited the
students because it allowed then to take in material and then apply it to their everyday
classroom assignments.
Impact on Student Learning
Based on the quantitative data presented in this study it is proven that a reading
readiness intervention does work. The post test scores of the control group were not much
lower than that of the intervention group. However, the intervention group did make
drastic changes. Altering the way we approach the diversity of our students is not an easy
job. Looking at our students critically does not happen overnight, rather it is an ongoing
journey. Through working with the intervention group and conducting research on
intervention I am more apt to providing and sharing information regarding interventions
and how they can work.
Recommendations for Future Research
The topic of reading readiness interventions could be researched further. An
intervention plan could be implemented into first grade for the students that had the
intervention in kindergarten. It would be interesting to see their Lexia scores at the end of
first grade after receiving two years of intervention. I learned a tremendous amount of
knowledge regarding intervention thought out this study. I will implement the intervention
plan into my upcoming class and many more classes to come.
References
Aiken, N.L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories:

The contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 235-251. Retrieved from:
doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0663.100.2.235
Block, C. C. (2003). Literacy difficulties: Diagnosis and instruction for reading
specialists and classroom teachers (end ed.). Boston: Allyn and Boston.
Books, S. (2004). Poverty and schooling in the U.S.: Context and consequences.
Cladem Heights, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Caldwell, J. S., & Leslie, L. (2005). Intervention strategies to follow informal reading
inventory assessment: So what do I do now? Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Children Now. (2009). Kindergarten Readiness Data: Improving childrens success in
school. Education policy Brief, 1-17.
Cooke, N.L., Kretlow, A.G., & Helf, S. (2010). Supplemental reading help for
kindergarten students: how early should you start? Preventing School Failure, 54
(3), 137-144. doi: 10.1080/10459880903492924
Coyne, M.D., McCoach, B., & Kapp, S. (2007, Spring). Vocabulary intervention for
kindergarten students: comparing extended instruction to embedded instruction
and incidental exposure. Learning Disability Quarterly, (30), 74-88.
Dailey, E. J., Chafouleas, S., & Skinner, C.H. (2005) Interventions for reading problems:
Designing and evaluating effective strategies. New York: Guilford Press.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). The fifth moment. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),
The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues (pp. 407-430).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye. New York: MacMillan.
Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research competencies for
analysis and applications (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Georgia Professional Standards commission [GAPSC] (n.d.). Georgia Framework for
Teaching. Retrieved from
www.gapsc.com/EducatorPreparation/GeorgiaFramework.asp
Gillet, J.W., Temple, C., & Crawford, A.N. (2004). Understanding reading problems:
Assessment and instruction (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (1998) Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.
In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscaper of qualitative research:
Theories and issues (pp 260-299). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
LaGrange College Education Department. (2010). The Conceptual Framework.
LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College.
MacDonald, C., & Figueredo, L. (2010). Closing the gap early: Implementing a literacy
intervention for at-risk kindergartens in urban schools. The Reading Teacher,
63(5), 404-419. doi:10.1598/RT.63.5.6
McCartney, K., Dearing, E., Taylor, B.A., & Bub, K.L. (2007). Quality child care
supports the achievement of low-income children: Direct and indirect pathways
through caregiving and the home environment. Journal of Applied Development
Psychology, 28 (5-6), 411-426. Retrieved from
doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2007.06.010
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2010). NBPTS-Five Core
Propositions. Retrieved from: http://www.nbpts.org/the standards/the five core
propositions
Papadopoulos, T.C., Charalambous, A., Kanari, A., & Loizou, M. (2004). Kindergarten
cognitive intervention for reading difficulties. European Journal of Psychology of
Education, XIX (79-105).
Payne, R.K. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty (4th revised ed.). Highlands,
TX: aha! Process, Inc.
Popham, W. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.).
Boston: Pearson, Allyn, & Bacon.
Salkind, N.J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (Excel 2nd Ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scanlon, D.M., Vellutino, F.R., Small, S.G., Fanuele, D.P., & Sweeney, J.M. (2005).
Severe reading difficulties-can they be prevented? A comparison of prevention
and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13(4), 209-227.
Simmons, D.C., Kameenui, B.H., Coyne M.D., Stoolmiller, M., Santoro, L.E., Smith,
S.B., Beck, C.B., & Kaufman, N.K. (2007). Attributes of effective and efficient
kindergarten reading intervention: An examination of instructional times and
design specificity. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 40(4), 331-347.
Slavin, R.E. (2003). Educational Psychology: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Tankersley, K. (2003). The threads of reading: Strategies for literacy development.
Notchess,VI: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Appendix A
Kindergarten Reading Readiness Intervention

Instructional Plan
Standard Essential Question(s) Activity Materials Vocabulary
Week 1 ELAKR3 What are consonants? Students will be shown the letter Saxon Phonics letter cards Uppercase and
b. Recognizes and names all cards and will call out the letter Alphamotion cards lowercase
uppercase and lowercase letters name. Full Circle Reading Book letters
of the alphabet Students will point to a letter
when called out by teacher.
Week 2 ELAKR3 What are vowels? Students will be shown the Saxon Phonics letter cards Short vowels
b. Recognizes and names all vowel cards and will call out the Alphamotion cards
uppercase and lowercase letters vowel name. Full Circle Reading Book
of the alphabet Students will point to vowel
when called out by teacher.
Week 3 ELAKR3 What are the consonant Students will identify letter Consonant letter sound tubs Consonant
c. Matches all consonant and letter sounds? sound by choosing correct item Saxon Phonics letter cards letter sounds
short vowel sounds to from sound tub. Full Circle Reading Book
appropriate letters
Week 4 ELAKR3 What are the vowel letter Students will identify vowel Vowel letter sound tubs Vowel letter
c. Matches all consonant and sounds? sound by choosing correct item Saxon Phonics letter cards sounds
short vowel sounds to from sound tub. Full Circle Reading Book
appropriate letters
Week 5 ELAKR2 How do I know which Students will sound out CVC Saxon Phonics letter cards Sounds
b. Identifies component sounds sounds are in a word? word, match it to picture, and Letter tiles and Picture Cards
(phonemes and combinations of pick out letters to spell word. Full Circle Reading Book Words
phonemes) in spoken words Phonemic Awareness Kit
Week 6 ELAKR2 How do I know which Students will sound out CVC Saxon Phonics letter cards Sounds
b. Identifies component sounds sounds are in a word? word, match it to picture, and Letter tiles and Picture Cards
(phonemes and combinations of pick out letters to spell word. Full Circle Reading Book Words
phonemes) in spoken words Phonemic Awareness Kit
Week 7 ELAKR2 How do I blend sounds to Students will be introduced to Cupp Cards (blends) Blending
c. Blends and segments make words? blends. Blending letter cards and picture sounds
syllables in spoken words Students will put two letter tiles cards
together to make a blend. Full Circle Reading Book
Week 8 ELAKR2 How do I blend sounds to Students will put two letter tiles Cupp Cards (blends) Blending
c. Blends and segments make words? together to make a blend. Blending letter cards and picture sounds
syllables in spoken words Students will look at a blend cards
picture and determine what the Full Circle Reading Book
blend is.
Week 9 ELAKR3 How do I learn new The student will read simple Sentence Strips Sounds
e. Applies learned phonics words? sentences using picture clues to Full Circle Reading Book
skills when reading words and help. Words
sentences in stories
Week ELAKR3 How do I learn new The student will read simple Sentence Strips Decodable
10 e. Applies learned phonics words? sentences using CVC words. Full Circle Reading Book words
skills when reading words and
sentences in stories
Week ELAKR4 How do I learn new The student will be shown Sight Sight Word Cards (various Sight Words
11 a. Reads previously taught high words? Words on cards. decks)
frequency words at the rate of 30 The student will be shown Sight Word Picture Cards
words correct per minute picture Sight Word cards is (various decks)
needed. Full Circle Reading Book
Week ELAKR4 How do I know what The student will be shown Sight Sight Word Cards (various Sight Words
12 a. Reads previously taught high words mean? Words on Cards. decks)
frequency words at the rate of 30 The student will read as many as Sight Word Picture Cards
words correct per minute possible in a minute. (various decks)
Full Circle Reading Book
Week ELAKR4 How do I read with The student will listen to the Reading A-Z Readers Expression
13 b. Reads previously taught expression? teacher read a short story. The Sample reading passages from
grade-level text with teacher will describe voice Lexia Fluency
appropriate expression changes to show expression. Full Circle Reading Book
Week ELAKR4 How do I read with The student will echo read a Reading A-Z Readers Expression
14 b. Reads previously taught fluency? short passage with the teacher. Sample reading passages from
grade-level text with The student will read the same Lexia Fluency
appropriate expression passage independently using Full Circle Reading Book
expression.
Kindergarten Reading Readiness Intervention

Evaluation Rubric for Instructional Plan
1. Do you think kindergarten students can raise their Lexia scores through an intervention program?
2. Do you think the students should learn the curriculum and raise scores on their own?
3. Why should teachers want to intervene and help raise students scores?
4. Do you recommend any other materials and or technology to aid in my intervention?
5. Do you have an intervention program that you implement on students who are lacking in kindergarten readiness skills? If so
what do you do?
6. As a teacher do you think my intervention plan will be successful?

Appendix B
Reflective Journal Questions
1. What were three main things I learned from this weekly intervention session?
2. What did we not cover that I expected we should?
3. What was new or surprising to me?
4. What have I changed my mind about as a result of this intervention?
5. One thing I learned in this weekly intervention session that I may use in the future
is
6. I am still unsure about
7. Ideas for action based on this weekly session
8. What I most liked about this session was
9. What I most disliked about this session was
10. Miscellaneous interesting facts I learned from the intervention

Appendix C
Pictograph Journal Starters
1. Draw your thoughts on how you feel about our session today.
2. Draw how you feel after naming all letters of the alphabet.
3. Draw how you feel after matching all sounds to their letters.
4. Draw how you feel after reading your set of sight words.
5. Draw a picture of the word
6. Draw a picture of the story you mastered reading.
7. Write a new sight word that you have learned to spell.
8. Draw a picture of the sight word.
9. Write a sentence using one sight word.
10. Draw a picture of your sentence.

Appendix D
Questions for Focus Group
1. Do you think kindergarten students can raise their Lexia scores through an
intervention program?
2. Do you think the students should learn the curriculum and raise scores on their
own?
3. Why should teachers want to intervene and help raise a students scores?
4. Do you recommend any materials and or technology to aid in my intervention?
5. Have you ever implemented a reading readiness intervention into your
classroom?
6. If so what was your instructional plan for the intervention?
7. Why do you think students enter kindergarten lacking readiness skills?
8. Should Pre-K standards be higher in order to prepare students for the more
rigorous standards facing kindergarten students?
9. After receiving an intervention program in kindergarten, do you think it would
be beneficial for students to carry their intervention plan with them to first
grade?
10. Would you be interested in implementing my intervention program into your
classroom?

RRVD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RRVD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KINDERGARTEN READING READINESS: AN INTERVENTION PLAN

Carrie Chumley Driver

the requirement for the

Curriculum and Instruction

July 27, 2011

lowest on academic achievement assessments.

Low academic achievement is closely related to lack of resources and many

extent to which an individual does without resources (Payne, 1996, p. #7).

base of literacy development associated to this is development in phonemic awareness,

and the window of opportunity closes quickly.

In the State of Georgia, based on the Georgia Kindergarten Inventory of Developing

Reading Comprehension standards: a) reads previously taught high frequency words at 30

Parents share on developing their childs reading and vocabulary development

development of kindergarten children from single parent family.

Statement of the Problem

school in the municipality of Dumarao.

However this study will answer the following questions:

1. What are the socio-demographic profiles of the respondents?

3. What is the level of vocabulary development of kindergarten children from single

4. Is there an association between the respondents socio- demographic factors and

their reading readiness?

5. Is there an association between the respondents socio- demographic factors and

their vocabulary development?

There is no significant association between the socio-demographic profile of the

respondents and their reading readiness and vocabulary development.

Significance of the Study

The result of the study will be beneficial to the following.

The result of this study will be beneficial to the:

understand and to promote understanding and support to pupils coming from

strategies and ideas to motivate children from single parent family.

pupils in relating to the background of pupils from kindergarten.

Department of Education. This study will give additional information to the

Department of Education to determine the impact of the parental involvement that

important the role of parents in the development of their children.

The following terms will be used operationally in this study:

Alphabet. According to The Linux Information Project (2004), the alphabet is a

standardized set of 26 letters used to print written language.

Kindergarten evaluation. This is a process of collecting data to monitor students

Kindergarten reading readiness. According to the environmentalist theory, kindergarten

in a formal learning environment (Iannelli, 2007)

Learning. Learning is the ability to understand and remember information. It is a cognitive

construction of meaning by connecting new information to previous knowledge or

experiences (Kolb as cited in Richmond & Cummings, 2005).

Literacy development. Literacy development is the beginning stages of reading and

words in text through pictures (Araujo, 2002).

m\a\n, th\i\s, and w\i\g (Armbruster, Leher, & Osborn, 2003).

Phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness is a valid predictor of students ability to learn

letters together to sound out new words (Wilber, 2003).

understand words in text.

and phonological awareness, environmental print, listening comprehension, visual

Reading readiness deficiencies. Reading readiness deficiencies encompass the inability to

Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003).

Delimitation of the Study

vocabulary development of kindergarten children from single parent family.

Significance of the Problem

principle contributor to differences in early language and literacy development associated

delayed students one-on-one or in a small group setting with reading development

instruction based solely on the students individual need(s).

Theoretical and Conception Frameworks

Basic prior knowledge reading development can be traced back to Vygotskys

view of cognitive development. Vygotsky believed that cognitive development is highly

This thesis relates to LaGrange College Education Departments (2010)

Conceptual Framework, under Tenet 1 and Tenet 2. Tenet 1: Enthusiastic Engagement in

learning opportunities based on students stages of development and that teachers