Corrections

Table of Contents Abstract 11 Role of the Researcher 12 Permission to Conduct Research 13 Ethical Considerations 13 Chapter One: Introduction 14 Chapter Two: Literature Review 21 Chapter Three: Procedures 22 Chapter Four: Findings 32 Chapter Five: Recommendations 33 References 34 Appendix A 37 Appendix B 38

Begin abstract here…

Begin role of the researcher here…

Begin permission to conduct research here…

Begin ethical considerations here…

Overview

The purpose of this qualitative study is to identify the current proficiency rate of reading at Meadowfield Elementary School from the students to the district and to determine how the problem of below-average reading proficiency can be solved. The problem is that students at Meadowfield Elementary School in South Carolina demonstrate a below-average reading proficiency rate of 41%, which falls below the district and state benchmarks for grade-level reading performance (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025). This chapter comprises the Organizational Profile, Introduction to the Problem, Significance of the Research, Purpose Statement, Central Research Question, Definitions, and Summary.

Organizational Profile

Meadowfield Elementary School is a public Title I elementary school located at 525 Galway Lane in Columbia, South Carolina, within Richland County School District One (RCSD 1). The school serves approximately 615 students in pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. The student population is predominantly African American, and 100% of students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, reflecting the high-poverty context of the school community. Meadowfield is led by Principal Dr. Timothy Blackwell and is a National Paideia Model School offering gifted and talented programs, STEM, and visual and performing arts (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025).

Overall, the Meadowfield Elementary School population is similar to the South Carolina urban public-school population in terms of concentrated poverty and racial isolation. The school is the state's top 25 most economically disadvantaged elementary schools (Elementary Schools.org, 2024), with 100% of its 610 students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Richland County School District One (RCSD 1), which is home to 50 schools and caters to roughly 24,000 students, is a Title I district, and Meadowfield is a Title I, Part A federally funded school for high-poverty schools designed to help schools meet academic achievement standards (Richland One, 2025). While this type of funding is critical for a school such as Meadowfield, research has shown that funding alone is not a panacea for the instructional difficulties of persistently large classes in low-resourced schools (Opatrny et al., 2023). The school's per-pupil spending is about $22,848, which is 59% higher than the national average per-pupil spending, but this higher expenditure has not resulted in consistently strong academic achievement, as evidenced by below state averages in math proficiency (40%) and reading proficiency (41%) (Public School Review, 2025).

Meadowfield is an institutionally challenged school from a staffing and operational perspective. In the last five school years, the school's teacher population has decreased by about 7%, while the number of students has stayed relatively stable at approximately 610 children, indicating that the teacher-to-student ratio has been deteriorating over time (SchoolDigger, 2025). Chronic absenteeism is also a growing problem: In recent years, the school's chronic absenteeism rate has ranged from 22.3% to 31.1%—well above the national average of 20% in 2023-2024 (SchoolDigger, 2025; Malkus, 2025). High levels of absenteeism and low teacher staffing directly affect class size: when the number of absentees is high, and the number of teachers is low, classroom enrollment patterns are irregular, and instructional consistency is lacking, which can worsen the impact of large classes. Meadowfield faces a structural problem in the form of large class sizes, a problem that is not an independent entity, but rather is part of a larger ecology of inequity that requires targeted and evidence-based intervention (SchoolDigger, 2025; South Carolina Department of Education, 2025).

Introduction to the Problem

Reading proficiency is a fundamental academic skill that serves as the foundation for learning across all content areas. When students fall below grade-level reading benchmarks, they face compounding academic difficulties that can persist throughout their educational careers (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). At Meadowfield Elementary School in South Carolina, data from the South Carolina Department of Education consistently show that students are reading below the proficiency levels expected by the state and district. This persistent gap signals an urgent need to understand the scope of the problem and to identify evidence-based strategies to address it. Comment by David Schaaf: This should follow the format for the Problem Statement in Claxton and Michael. This Problem Statement should be identical to the Problem Statements in the Abstract and each Chapter Overview and Chapter Summary. Comment by David Schaaf: This citation should support that this is the problem at the school.

Meadowfield Elementary School's classroom size issue needs to be addressed as part of the context of the state of South Carolina's class size legislation. While the General Assembly has mandated student-teacher ratios for the elementary grades, it has historically allowed waivers of those ratios due to budgetary pressures, which individual districts have opted to pursue in response to those pressures (South Carolina Legislature, 2023). The average number of students in each Meadowfield classroom is 24.1, which falls outside the range of the most effective teaching strategies and approaches the tipping point suggested by recent large-scale international research, which indicates that student outcomes decline non-linearly beyond that point (Antoniou et al., 2024). In a recent meta-analysis, Opatrny et al. (2023), released as a CEPR Discussion Paper and subsequently accepted for publication in the Journal of Labor Economics, combined evidence from hundreds of studies and uncovered a significant negative association between class size and achievement, particularly in economically disadvantaged schools, which are the schools served by Meadowfield. Such findings underscore the need to consider class size as more than just an administrative statistic; it is a crucial factor to explore that influences instructional equity and opportunity for students.

In addition to the academic literature, outcome data from the school level support the problem at Meadowfield. For the 2023-2024 school year, Meadowfield's proficiency rate at grade 3 in ELA was 62.5% compared to Richland 01 at 53.9% and the state at 61.8%, while proficiency rates at grade 5 in mathematics ranged from 34.1% to 51.9% and consistently underperformed both district and state benchmarks (SchoolDigger, 2025). The chronic absenteeism rate of 22.3%-31.1% also suggests that a substantial share of the student body is not attending school often enough to reap the benefits of any instructional time provided, and when teachers serve 24 or more students, they are not able to monitor and address each student's individual learning gaps (Malkus, 2025). Instructional responsiveness—the ability of a teacher to adjust instruction as it happens in real time to student needs—is a critical factor in the link between class size and student learning and decreases sharply with class sizes greater than 20 in high-poverty settings (Cartwright et al., 2023). The combination of these contextual and empirical factors makes Meadowfield Elementary School a ripe and appropriate location to explore the effect of large classes on student learning.

Significance of the Research

This research is significant for multiple stakeholders connected to Meadowfield Elementary School. Students are the primary beneficiaries, as identifying the scope of the reading proficiency problem and implementing evidence-based solutions can directly improve their academic outcomes and long-term life chances. Teachers also stand to benefit, as clearer understanding of the barriers to reading proficiency can inform targeted instructional support, professional development, and resource allocation that reduces the burden on classroom educators.

School administrators and district leaders within Richland County School District One will benefit from the actionable recommendations generated by this study. Evidence-based guidance on improving reading proficiency can inform budgeting decisions, program selection, staffing strategies, and policy changes. Additionally, findings from this study can contribute to the broader educational research literature on reading achievement in high-poverty elementary schools, supporting equity-focused reform efforts across South Carolina and beyond.

Nationally, reading proficiency at the elementary level is a recognized indicator of school quality and a predictor of future student success. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) emphasizes the importance of evidence-based interventions for schools that persistently underperform, and Meadowfield qualifies as such a school. This study fills a critical local knowledge gap by providing school- and district-specific data and recommendations, grounded in the Meadowfield context, that can guide evidence-based action to improve reading proficiency outcomes for all students.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative study is to identify the current proficiency rate of reading at Meadowfield Elementary School from the students to the district and to determine how the problem of below-average reading proficiency can be solved. Data will be gathered using three qualitative methods: (a) qualitative interviews with teachers and school leaders; (b) a qualitative survey using a Likert scale to assess participant perceptions of reading instruction and student proficiency; and (c) qualitative observations of classroom reading instruction across selected grade levels. Comment by David Schaaf: This should follow the format for the Purpose Statement in Claxton and Michael. This Purpose Statement should be identical to the Purpose Statements in the Abstract and each Chapter Overview and Chapter Summary.

Central Research Question

How can the problem of below-average proficiency in reading be solved at Meadowfield Elementary School?

Definitions Comment by David Schaaf: The definitions below should be bullet points, not a numbered list.

1. Below-average proficiency: A reading performance level that falls below the grade-level benchmark established by the South Carolina Department of Education on state reading assessments.

2. Reading proficiency: The ability of a student to read, comprehend, and apply grade-level text with accuracy and understanding, as measured by standardized state assessments.

3. Evidence-based reading instruction: Reading instructional practices that are supported by rigorous scientific research and have been shown to improve student reading outcomes.

4. Reading intervention: Targeted, supplemental instructional support provided to students who are reading below grade level, designed to accelerate growth and close proficiency gaps.

5. Literacy: The integrated set of skills encompassing reading, writing, speaking, and listening that enable students to communicate and comprehend effectively across academic contexts.

6. Proficiency gap: The measurable difference between a student’s current reading performance level and the grade-level proficiency standard set by the state or district.

Summary

The purpose of this qualitative study is to identify the current proficiency rate of reading at Meadowfield Elementary School from the students to the district and to determine how the problem of below-average proficiency rates of reading can be solved. The problem is that students at Meadowfield Elementary School demonstrate a below-average reading proficiency rate of 41%, which falls below the district and state benchmarks for grade-level reading performance (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025) in reading compared to district and state benchmarks (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025). In this chapter, the Organizational Profile, the Introduction to the Problem, the Significance of the Research, the Purpose Statement, the Central Research Question, and the Definitions were discussed.

Overview

The aim of this qualitative study is to find out the level of proficiency that the students are at in reading at Meadowfield Elementary School at the moment and how to resolve the issue of low reading proficiency in the district. Meadowfield Elementary School (MFSHS) has a below district and state grade level benchmark reading proficiency rate of 41%, which is lower than the district and state grade level benchmark for reading proficiency (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025). This chapter is an overview of the literature that has been published on EP and concludes with a theoretical model for this study.

Narrative Review

Overall, the literature suggests that reading achievement will differ between students (poverty and absenteeism), at the instructional level (whether intensive intervention is used or not and the fidelity of implementation), and on a systemic level (limited capacity to implement intensive intervention). There are several solutions that have been discovered prior to this such as MTSS and structured phonics, but these have not been maintained and sustained in under-resourced schools. The present research builds on that to examine the dynamics of this phenomenon as they unfold in Meadowfield Elementary School from the perspective of those teachers who work there on a day-to-day basis.

These barriers to reading achievement have not been studied to determine how they are experienced and understood in the classroom teachers' schools. Many of the studies that have been done involve standardized assessment measures and/or a researcher-implemented intervention that is not the one the teacher, reading specialist or administrator is implementing on a daily basis. The International Literacy Association (2024) has explicitly called for locally relevant, practitioner-based research as well as quantitative, large-scale studies to better address the unique instructional, staffing and community context of the school being studied to arrive at effective solutions to the challenge of reading proficiency. This qualitative research aims to fill this void by collecting interview, survey, and observation data directly from Meadowfield educators.

Previous solutions that have been identified in the literature have been implemented in schools and districts, though some have proven successful. Multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) in which struggling readers are offered increasingly intensive small-group or 1-to-1 intervention that builds on the work they do in their core classroom assignments have been found to positively impact reading outcomes for at-risk elementary students, especially when the interventions are delivered with fidelity and monitored with frequent progress data monitoring (Neitzel et al., 2022). Additionally, students who are reading below grade level have benefited most from structured and systematic phonics instruction over less structured phonics instruction (Pressley et al., 2023). However, such interventions consume a significant amount of staff time, require regular staff training and rely upon systems to monitor student progress, which is often challenging in high-poverty schools such as Meadowfield, thereby limiting their effectiveness in narrowing the gap in proficiency.

Another reason cited in the literature is that teachers' instructional methods for teaching children to read vary from one to the next. Despite the fact that some practices in reading intervention have been proven to be less effective, Hall et al. (2023) systematically reviewed 40 years of reading intervention literature to discover many elementary classrooms were still implementing non-research-supported approaches, especially in classrooms with students at risk for reading difficulties (SRD). While the skills of decoding and language comprehension are important for the Active View of Reading, these skills are not as explicitly taught in teacher preparation programs or as frequently emphasized in ongoing professional development, thus limiting the pedagogical content knowledge of many practicing teachers when it comes to diagnosing and remediating specific reading challenges in real time (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

A theme which has surfaced in the literature is that of the cumulative effects of poverty on early literacy development. Vocabulary and print exposure are related: Students' vocabulary in kindergarten is correlated with the amount of print exposure – the gap between students in high- and low-poverty schools widens rather than narrows across the elementary grades (Sun et al., 2021). Cumulative/sequential learning is a specific disadvantage of chronic absenteeism, as students fall further behind in the expectations for them to achieve grade level learning and lose more and more of instruction each time they miss. (Donegan & Wanzek, 2021). These structural factors, which exist in all of these schools, including Meadowfield, where 100% of children are eligible for free meals and absenteeism is higher than the national average, may help explain the below-average levels of proficiency in the presence of the instructional resources.

The problem of reading failure has been a national problem for more than 20 years and there has been considerable literature during the past five years concerning the causes of reading failure and the types of instruction which are most effective in correcting reading failure. For many years, a balanced literacy framework was used to design U.S. early literacy policies, which prioritized the exposure to authentic texts over systematic and explicit instruction in foundational skills, but more recent research under the umbrella of the "science of reading" has called that into question and redefined phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension as essential and interrelated elements of reading proficiency (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). To grasp the significance of this change in the research base, it is helpful to see why such instructional changes are not bearing fruit at schools, such as Meadowfield elementary, after more than a few years.

Theoretical Framework

The structure provided by the framework is suitable for the current study, as it allows for the interpretation of the broad spectrum of instructional and contextual variables that the data gathered from interviews, surveys and observations are anticipated to capture. The evidence from teacher interviews with students in relation to word recognition and language comprehension instruction, the survey items related to classroom practice and student engagement, and the classroom observations of teacher practice are all evidence of the enactment of the different parts of the model in the Meadowfield classroom environment. This emphasis will inform the study's recommendations for instruction in Chapter Five, and in turn will create a theoretically informed understanding of what proficient reading is and what it is lacking from in the classrooms.

While Word Recognition (phonological awareness, decoding, and sight recognition) and Language Comprehension (vocabulary, background knowledge, and verbal reasoning) are integral to Active View of Reading, a third dimension is introduced – learning bridges: Reading Fluency, Strategy Use, and Active Self-regulation – that links decoding and comprehension in real reading tasks; in addition, motivation and engagement are included as learning bridges between decoding and language comprehension (Duke & Cartwright, 2021). The model also highlights the distinct and different ways that these components evolve and interact across diverse instructional and contextual settings in which students learn to read, such as the quality of classroom instruction, opportunities for practice, and the overall school and community context.

This study is guided by the theoretical framework, the Active View of Reading, which is an extension of the original Simple View of Reading (Gough and Tunmer, 1986) and updated by Duke and Cartwright (2021). The Simple View of Reading proposed that reading comprehension depends on two factors: (1) word recognition and (2) language comprehension, and that accurate word recognition and an accurate rate of language comprehension are essential for reading comprehension. This original model was modified by Duke and Cartwright (2021) to take into account 30 years of further research indicating that skilled reading is not just a sum of decoding and language comprehension.

Summary

The purpose of this qualitative study will be to find the actual proficiency level of reading students at Meadowfield Elementary School to the district, and to identify how the issue of below average reading proficiency can be addressed. The difficulty is that the reading proficiency rate of the Meadowfield Elementary school students is below the district's grade-level proficiency in reading (SC Department of Education, 2025) of 51% or more.The challenge is that the reading proficiency rate for Meadowfield Elementary school students is below the district's grade-level proficiency rate for reading (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025) of 51% or higher. A literature review, conducted in the form of a narrative research, was conducted in this chapter on the causes of and the previous solutions to below-average achievement in elementary reading that served as the basis for this study. Comment by David Schaaf: Add space before this word.

Overview

The purpose of this qualitative study is to identify the current proficiency rate of reading at Meadowfield Elementary School from the students to the district and to determine how the problem of below-average reading proficiency can be solved. The problem is that students at Meadowfield Elementary School demonstrate a below-average reading proficiency rate of 41%, which falls below the district and state benchmarks for grade-level reading performance (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025). This chapter outlines the three qualitative data collection methods used in this study: qualitative interviews, a qualitative Likert-scale survey, and qualitative classroom observations.

Interview Procedures

The first qualitative data collection method in this study is a semi-structured interview conducted with classroom teachers, reading specialists, and school leaders at Meadowfield Elementary School. Qualitative interviews were selected because they allow the researcher to gather in-depth, firsthand accounts of participants’ experiences with and perceptions of reading instruction and student proficiency, and to explore contextual factors that quantitative measures cannot capture (Creswell & Guetterman, 2021). Open-ended interview questions will be used to explore teacher perceptions of current reading proficiency levels, instructional strategies in use, barriers to reading achievement, and recommendations for improvement. Interview data will be analyzed thematically to identify patterns and key themes across participant responses (Creswell & Guetterman, 2021).

Purposive sampling will be used to recruit interview participants, selecting classroom teachers, reading coaches, and administrators at Meadowfield Elementary School who have direct experience with reading instruction and student proficiency data. An estimated eight to twelve participants will be recruited across grade levels and roles to ensure diverse perspectives. Recruitment will be conducted via an official request through the school administration with the principal’s written approval. Interviews will be audio-recorded with participant consent and transcribed verbatim for analysis.

Each interview will be conducted individually in a private setting at the school, lasting approximately 30 to 45 minutes. A semi-structured interview protocol will guide each session, allowing for consistent coverage of core topics while permitting follow-up probing questions based on participant responses. Transcribed data will be coded using open and axial coding procedures, and emergent themes will be identified and verified through member checking to enhance credibility and trustworthiness (Creswell & Guetterman, 2021).

Interview Questions and Rationales Comment by David Schaaf: This should be a Level 2 heading.

The following interview questions are open-ended and grounded in the research literature on elementary reading proficiency. They are designed to gather qualitative insight from teachers, reading specialists, and school leaders regarding the current state of reading instruction at Meadowfield Elementary School, the barriers to student proficiency, and potential solutions.

7. In your experience, what are the primary factors contributing to below-average reading proficiency among students at Meadowfield Elementary School? Comment by David Schaaf: Interview questions should be left justified. Comment by David Schaaf: The questions should be numbered starting with 1.

Hall et al. (2023) found that the causes of reading difficulty vary by school context, making educator perspective essential for identifying which factors are most salient at Meadowfield. Comment by David Schaaf: Provide rationale why this question is important to your research.

8. What reading instructional strategies are you currently using in your classroom, and how effective do you believe they are for your students? Comment by David Schaaf: You should ask only one question at a time. You may ask a follow-on question during the interview. I recommend merging these questions and ask “What reading instructional strategies are effective for your students?”

The Active View of Reading emphasizes that word recognition and language comprehension instruction must be explicit and systematic to be effective (Duke & Cartwright, 2021); this question surfaces which strategies teachers perceive as working.

9. What barriers do you encounter when trying to implement evidence-based reading instruction in your classroom?

Pressley et al. (2023) note that classroom-level barriers, including time, materials, and training, often prevent evidence-based reading instruction from being implemented with fidelity. Comment by David Schaaf: Provide rationale for this question.

10. How do you currently identify and support students who are reading below grade level?

Neitzel et al. (2022) found that the effectiveness of reading intervention depends heavily on how consistently at-risk readers are identified and matched to appropriate levels of support. Comment by David Schaaf: Rationale

11. What role, if any, do you believe chronic absenteeism plays in your students' reading proficiency?

Donegan and Wanzek (2021) identified lost instructional time as a significant contributor to reading underachievement among elementary students, making this a key line of inquiry at Meadowfield.

12. What professional development, coaching, or resources would help you improve reading outcomes for your students? Comment by David Schaaf: This should be three separate questions. Allow the teacher to identify what is needed in each of these categories.

The International Literacy Association (2024) calls for practitioner-informed research to identify the specific supports teachers need, rather than relying solely on generic recommendations.

13. What recommendations would you make to school and district leaders to improve reading proficiency at Meadowfield Elementary School? Comment by David Schaaf: There are only 7 interview questions. You must have at least 10 interview questions.

Gathering forward-looking recommendations directly from educators strengthens the practical relevance of the recommendations produced in Chapter Five of this study. Comment by David Schaaf: Every rationale must have a citation. Comment by David Schaaf: I would avoid referencing Chapter Five here. You are asking the teacher for their insight into improving reading proficiency.

Survey Procedures

The second qualitative data collection method in this study is a Likert-scale survey administered to classroom teachers at Meadowfield Elementary School. A five-point Likert-scale survey was selected because it allows a larger number of teachers to report their perceptions of reading instruction and student reading proficiency than interviews alone would allow, while still capturing the nuance of teacher perception rather than only standardized outcome data (Dillman et al., 2022). Survey data will be analyzed qualitatively alongside the interview and observation data to identify convergent and divergent themes regarding reading proficiency at Meadowfield.

Purposive sampling will be used to recruit survey participants, targeting all classroom teachers at Meadowfield Elementary School who provide reading instruction, an estimated 20 to 25 teachers across pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. The survey will be distributed electronically through the school administration and will take approximately 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Teachers will be asked to respond to a brief set of demographic questions (grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and role) followed by the content items below, each rated on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Responses will be analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies and means) and reviewed alongside interview and observation findings during thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022).

Survey Questions and Rationales Comment by David Schaaf: Level 2 heading.

The following items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree and are grounded in the research literature on elementary reading proficiency reviewed in Chapter Two.

14. My students receive reading instruction that is explicit and systematic in foundational skills such as phonics and phonemic awareness. Comment by David Schaaf: The survey questions should start with number 1. Comment by David Schaaf: This a double-barreled question. Use only one of these words.

This item assesses teacher-reported alignment with evidence-based, systematic reading instruction as described in the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

15. I have received adequate training to teach foundational reading skills effectively.

Hall et al. (2023) found that gaps in teacher preparation for foundational reading instruction are a recurring barrier to student reading proficiency; this item measures teachers' self-reported preparedness.

16. Students at Meadowfield who are reading below grade level receive timely, targeted intervention. Comment by David Schaaf: Double barreled question.

Neitzel et al. (2022) found that the timeliness and targeting of intervention are strong predictors of reading gains for struggling readers, making this a key item for this study. Comment by David Schaaf: Which element is the focus of this question?

17. I have sufficient instructional time each day dedicated to reading instruction.

Instructional time is a foundational resource for reading development, and insufficient time has been linked to lower reading proficiency in high-poverty schools (Donegan & Wanzek, 2021).

18. Chronic student absenteeism negatively affects my students' reading progress.

This item directly assesses teacher perception of the link between absenteeism and reading proficiency identified in the literature (Donegan & Wanzek, 2021).

19. I have access to a reading specialist, interventionist, or literacy coach when I need support. Comment by David Schaaf: I recommend grouping these together as “specialized reading support personnel” in this question, too.

Access to specialized reading support personnel is associated with more consistent implementation of evidence-based reading intervention (Pressley et al., 2023). Comment by David Schaaf: You may include the specific staff mentioned above in this rationale.

20. I use ongoing, formative reading assessment data to guide my day-to-day instruction. Comment by David Schaaf: Double-barreled question.

Frequent progress monitoring is a core component of effective, tiered reading intervention systems (Neitzel et al., 2022).

21. Family engagement in reading activities supports my students' reading development at home.

Home literacy environment and family engagement are recognized contributors to language comprehension, a core component of the Active View of Reading (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

22. Meadowfield Elementary School should prioritize additional resources for reading intervention programs.

This item gathers teacher perspective on resource allocation to directly inform the recommendations developed in Chapter Five. Comment by David Schaaf: Avoid referencing Chapter Five here.

23. I feel confident in my ability to improve reading proficiency among my students this school year.

Teacher self-efficacy is associated with instructional persistence and improved student outcomes, making this an important closing measure of teacher perception (Duke & Cartwright, 2021).

Observation Procedures

Structured non-participant classroom observations are the third type of data collection and will be performed in a few grade-level classrooms in Meadowfield Elementary School. An observational methodology was selected due to its ability to enable the researcher to directly and methodically record teacher instructional behaviors, teacher-student interactions, and student engagement indicators in the naturalistic school environment (Creswell & Guetterman, 2021). Direct observation can offer a raw account of classroom dynamics, unlike self-reported data, such as surveys, and therefore is a useful source for triangulating and validating the other two data-collection methods (Creswell & Guetterman, 2021).

The researcher will also seek written permission from the principal before any observations are made and will schedule with each participating teacher. Informed consent will be obtained in writing from all teachers whose classrooms are under observation, and parents or guardians of students in observed classrooms will be informed in writing by the school administration at least two weeks before any scheduled session (Creswell & Guetterman, 2021). These plans are designed to make everything as transparent as possible for all stakeholders and reduce interference with teaching activities.

The observations will be made in six or eight classrooms (at least two grade bands, the primary (kindergarten through second grade) and the intermediate (third through fifth grade)) to ensure that possible differences in the appearance of large class-size effects are captured by developmental level. The two observations in each classroom will be noted, and each session will take one full instruction time (about 45 to 60 minutes) of core instruction in either English Language Arts or Mathematics. The entire observation will be planned between February and April 2026, during regular school hours. The researcher will record the date, time, grade level, classroom identifier, and the number of students present at the beginning of each session. Comment by David Schaaf: Remove this. Until your proposal is approved, do not specify time periods.

A standardized observation protocol will be used to gather data through five focal dimensions: (a) frequency and quality of teacher-initiated interactions with students; (b) student on-task and off-task behavior at every 5 minutes using time-sampling; (c) frequency of classroom management occurrences; (d) percentage of students visibly engaged in the assigned academic task at each time; and (e) physical classroom organization compared to the number of students The researcher will be a non-participant observer in the classroom where he will sit in a fixed and peripheral position to reduce observer effects on natural classroom behaviour (Creswell & Guetterman, 2021). Field notes will be taken by hand during every session and elaborated into detailed descriptive text within 24 hours to maintain accuracy and contextual detail. Comment by David Schaaf: Some of these elements appear to be quantitative measures. I would provide only qualitative measures here. Avoid using descriptors such as frequency, percentage. Also, time sampling at five-minute intervals would create quantitative data. Comment by David Schaaf: Insert period at the end of the sentence.

The analysis of observational data will be conducted within a deductive coding procedure implemented with respect to the extended field notes, based on a framework derived from the main research question that will be the focus of the study (Braun and Clarke, 2022). Interval-based behavioural coding tallies will be converted to percentages to provide a standardized comparison across classrooms and grades. Chapter Four will involve triangulation of the observation findings and survey data to enhance the overall validity and credibility of the study conclusions (Creswell & Guetterman, 2021).

Summary

The purpose of this qualitative study is to identify the current proficiency rate of reading at Meadowfield Elementary School from the students to the district and to determine how the problem of below-average reading proficiency can be solved. The problem is that students at Meadowfield Elementary School demonstrate a below-average reading proficiency rate of 41%, which falls below the district and state benchmarks for grade-level reading performance (South Carolina Department of Education, 2025). This chapter presented the Interview Procedures, Survey Procedures, and Observation Procedures used in this qualitative study.

Overview

Begin overview here…

First Data Collection Method Findings

Begin first data collection here…

Second Data Collection Method Findings

Begin second data collection here…

Third Data Collection Method Findings

Begin third data collection here…

Discussion

Begin discussion here…

Summary

Begin summary here…

Overview

Begin overview here…

Recommendations

Begin recommendations here…

Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders

Begin roles and responsibilities here…

Resources Needed

Begin resources here…

Timeline

Begin timeline here…

Summary

Begin summary here…

Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2021). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.

Hall, C., Dahl-Leonard, K., Cho, E., Solari, E. J., Capin, P., Conner, C. L., Henry, A. R., Cook, L., Hayes, L., Vargas, I., Richmond, C. L., & Kehoe, K. F. (2023). Forty years of reading intervention research for elementary students with or at risk for dyslexia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 58(2), 285–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.477 Comment by David Schaaf: All URLs must be active links to the article.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.

Castillo-Montoya, M. (2021). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement framework. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 811–831. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2016.2337

South Carolina Department of Education. (2025). South Carolina school report cards. https://screportcards.com

Richland County School District One. (2025). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.

ElementarySchools.org. (2024). Meadowfield Elementary in Columbia, South Carolina. https://elementaryschools.org/directory/sc/cities/columbia/meadowfield-elementary/450336001303/

Donegan, R., & Wanzek, J. (2021). Effects of reading interventions implemented for upper elementary struggling readers: A look at recent research. Reading and Writing, 34(8), 1943–1977. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-021-10123-y

López-Martín, E., Gutiérrez-de-Rozas, B., González-Benito, A. M., & Expósito-Casas, E. (2023). Why do teachers matter? A meta-analytic review of how teacher characteristics and competencies affect students’ academic achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 120, 102199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2023.102199

Duke, N. K., & Cartwright, K. B. (2021). Teacher-student ratio and job performance of teachers in government universal secondary education schools in Bukedea town council, Bukedea district, Uganda [Doctoral dissertation, Kampala International University]. KIU Institutional Repository.

Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95, 129 Stat. 1802 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177

Public School Review. (2025). Meadowfield Elementary School profile. https://www.publicschoolreview.com/meadowfield-elementary-school-profile

SchoolDigger. (2025). Meadowfield Elementary School. https://www.schooldigger.com/go/SC/schools/0336001303/school.aspx

Slater, P., & Hasson, F. (2024). Quantitative research designs, hierarchy of evidence and validity. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 32(1), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.13135

Sun, Y., Wang, J., Dong, Y., Zheng, H., Yang, J., Zhao, Y., & Dong, W. (2021). The relationship between reading strategy and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 635289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635289 Comment by David Schaaf: All references must have a hanging indent of one-half inch.

Pressley, T., Allington, R. L., & Pressley, M. (2023). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (5th ed.). Guilford Press.