format to APA style NEED IN 8 HOURS DEADLINE

A1Homework_01

ResearchPaperFinalDrafting.docx

Home >English homework help >format to APA style NEED IN 8 HOURS DEADLINE

Bridging the literacy gaps in Pre-Kindergarten with Mini-Lessons

Literacy Review by Amber Jones

EDMX 709 2/2018

Literature Review

Preschool education has been shown to be helpful in promoting kindergarten readiness.

Head Start and other programs have been striving to give disadvantaged children skills they need to be academically successful since 1965. Research shows that early childhood education can improve school readiness, with the majority of improvements being seen in disadvantaged children. The support of government policy helps increase the number of children entering into early childhood education, and in turn helps close learning gaps in primary school on into adulthood. (Waldfolgel, 2014). There are a variety of early childhood programs that support school readiness for disadvantaged youth. Whether Federally Funded or State Funded the efficacy of each program varies greatly. (Armor,2014)

There has been a significant increase in Preschool throughout the U.S. Pre-Kindergarten programs have grown significantly over the last 10 years. From 2001 – 2009 state spending on pre-Kindergarten nearly doubled. Pre-Kindergarten focus on the whole child as opposed to just the academic strength of the child and therefore allows each child to be successful in the area or domain in which they are strongest. (Mead , 2010)

Hindrances to Literacy Development in Pre-K

In spite of the growth in preschool and the connection between preschool education and school readiness significant gaps persist in the preschool classroom and throughout the progression of primary education. Socioeconomic status, race, language, bias of teachers, assessments, and the school structure can be linked to achievement gaps in Pre-K and throughout elementary school. It is the responsibility of the teachers to seek methods of closing the achievement gaps. There are some hindrances to prevent students from excelling in literacy in spite of Pre-Ks goals to promote school readiness. Social economic status has a direct effect on student’s academic success. Studies show that by the time a child is four years old the most advantaged children were exposed to five times as many words as disadvantaged 4 year olds. (Sylva, 2014) found that oral language at five correlated to national English assessments at age 11, and that children from low economic status families do not have sufficient language to do well in school subjects. Parent education also plays a role in academic attainment. (Sylva, 2010) Also found that children who come from families with limited education were less likely to be taken to a library which was a significant predictor of lower academic attainment at ages five, seven, and 11 years.

Why?? What troubles it can cause down the road?

Sylva (2014) demonstrated that children who come from economically disadvantaged families struggle to succeed in our society. The effects of poverty impact children before formal school begins. Cognitive scores of 4 year olds from low income families lag as much as 60% below those of their more affluent peers. Once children fall behind it is very difficult to progress to proficiency. Studies show that throughout their academic careers children from low income families continue to trail significantly behind children in higher income families socially, physically, and academically.

Early Literacy Interventions

Hilbert (2013) Found that It is important to identify and use effective emergent literacy interventions prior to kindergarten and that it directly affects children’s opportunity to become good readers. Research has shown literacy interventions produce encouraging outcomes; most times the studies used professionals instead of teachers (Lefebvre, 2011).

Some teachers use the Whole language approach to teach literacy. These practitioners support the belief that literacy/ language should not be broken down into letters of combinations of letters, Studies show that 60% of 4 year olds and 80% of 5 year olds could “read” when shown familiar environmental print such as cereal boxes and logos. ( Huang, 2014). This Practitioner will use the concept of whole language along with mini lessons and lessons focusing on individual lessons.

Mini lessons allow the practitioner to provide lessons at the individualized pace for selected students in the treatment group. Letter Knowledge is highly esteemed in Early Childhood education and is valued as a pathway towards literacy in higher grades; programs set explicit goals seeking to increase participants’ letter knowledge and understanding of letter-sound correspondences (Piasta and Wagner, 2011). Early literacy is recognized as an important part of school readiness.. Mini lessons have been used by the practitioner who has found them to be an effective method for increasing letter recognition and letter sound knowledge. Piasta and Wagner (2011) found that students who were pulled out into mini lesson groups scored higher on letter recognition and letter sound assessments.

Methods

Research Questions

This research sought to answer the following questions. With the main focus of Pre Kindergarten programs being on literacy ad school readiness, what are the factors that hinder children from excelling in literacy? To what extent do mini lessons influence letter recognition and letter sound knowledge in Pre-K students? How if at all do mini lessons help close the achievement gaps in Pre Kindergarten classrooms?

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to close the achievement gap for select students by using mini lessons. The evidence was shown in informal and formal assessments. Mini lessons allowed students who are English language learners (ell), those who struggle to focus in lare groups an dthose who benefit from slower paced instruction to gain baseline exposure before the main lesson was taught to the entire class. Mini lessons help students gain a better understanding of the subject being introduced or taught. Mini lessons can cause and increase in child engagement as students who have understanding are more likely to participate in group lessons.

Research Design

The was a mixed method experimental research design performed in a Pre-Kindergarten Classroom at an Elementary school in Chapel Hill North Carolina.

Participants

	AGE	Gender	Ethnicity	Home Language	Race	Previous Years in Pre K
AN	4 yrs	F	Hispanic	Spanish	White	1
PT	5 yrs	F	Hispanic	Spanihs	White
AM	4 yrs	F	Hispanic	English	Multiracial	1
ANG	5 yrs	M	Non-Hispanic	English	White	1
JN	4 yrs.	F	Non-Hispanic	English	Black
MB	5 yrs.	F	Non-Hispanic	Karen	Asian
JX	5 yrs.	M	Non-Hispanic	English	White
JO	5 yrs.	M	Non-Hispanic	English	Black

This study took place in a classroom of 4 and 5 year old students. I selected 8 students who scored the lowest on letter recognition and letter sound assessments. The study group consisted of five females (3 four year olds and 2 five year olds) and three 5 year old males. Five of the 8 student’s home language is English, 2 come from Spanish speaking homes and 1 student comes from a Karen speaking household. The parents identified the student’s race on an information form. The Participant racial demographics as follows: 4 students identified as white, 2 students identified as black, 1 identified as multi-racial and 1 identified as Asian. Three of the 8 students attended Pre-k the previous year.

Setting

This study took place in a Pre-K classroom of fifteen 4 and 5 year old students. The classroom was a one bathroom Modular Cabin located at an elementary school in Chapel Hill North Carolina. The classroom had one Teacher and one teacher assistant. This classroom had a combination of Head Start and Tuition placed students. Childcare subsidies were also accepted. The typical school day is 8:00am - 2:30pm. Children arrived, were greeted by teachers and classmates, and entered into play. The Teacher offered a 5 minute morning meeting after center time. Children ate breakfast in the cafeteria before cleaning up and brushing teeth. Students participated in whole group Literacy lesson and then transitioned to learning activities in centers. The focal classroom had the following centers: blocks/building; dramatic play; art/drawing; books/library; discovery/science; manipulatives /table toys; sand & water; music & movement. Learning continued for children as they played outside or participated in vigorous indoor play for an hour. After outdoor play there was a theme based whole group lesson. Students ate lunch, rested on cots, and then began departure routines before they went home.

Independent Variable

The independent variable of this study was Mini lessons. Mini lessons were given to a treatment group prior to whole group literacy lessons on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Mini lessons were taught by the classroom teacher at the round table in the science center. They consisted of a letter song, texture letter card, large sound card, keyword poster, exit ticket, Bingo, Keyword puzzle, followed by students receiving an award. This independent variable differed from the typical school day in that students in the treatment group were given a preview of the focal letter that the whole group would only interact with once that day.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variables of this study were Literacy scores of letter recognition, and letter sound knowledge. The scores were measured by students identifying letters and letter sounds on an alphabet assessment template sheet. Students were assessed individually by the Teacher and Teacher Assistant during center times.

Materials

Table

Chairs

Letter of the day song link/ laptop

Textured Letter Card and prop

Large sound Card

Key word puzzle- and storage box

Crayons

Pocket Chart

Easel,

Bingo cards and chips

“Table time” surveys

Individual letter assessments

Stickers

Keyword Poster

Alphabet assessment template sheet

Procedures

Mini lessons are one way to lessen literacy gaps. This study began with the teacher giving a pre assessment of letter recognition and letter sound knowledge prior to any interventions. The teacher simply told students we are going to have table time together. During center time I invited the four students of the treatment group over to the round table. On Mondays I began the small group by playing a 1 minute letter of the day song on my laptop facing the students. They were allowed to watch, sing along and talk if they decided during the song. After the song ended I closed the laptop and placed it out of child view. I held a Textured letter card of the lowercase focal letter and introduced the letter; “This is a (letter name”) “letter name” and instructed students “Repeat after me”. The students repeated the letter name. I traced the letter card with my index finger and said the letter name. Instructed students “Trace the letter and say “letter name”. I passed the Texture card to the student on my right. Each student traced the textured letter and said the name of the letter. We passed the textured letter card around the table counter clockwise. When each child had finished exploring the card I propped it behind me on a shelf. I then held up the large sound card. I pointed to the upper case letter and said “This is an upper case letter name and this is a lower case letter name. I said the letter, word, and sound. For example I held the large sound card and said “a – apple- /a”. I instructed the students to repeat after me. The students repeated “a – apple – a” simultaneously. I placed the large sound card in the pocket chart. I pointed to the keyword poster which was hung beside me on the left side where each student could see it. I instructed students” I’m going to point to the letter and name it when I point to you, you all will repeat. “I pointed to each letter of the alphabet in order and the students repeated after me from A-Z. Students were instructed to take a breath after every six letters. “Take a breath, and release”. To conclude the circle students were given a letter match exit ticket. I instructed them. This is an uppercase letter “A” Find the lowercase “a” and colors it in. Students colored in a square and whether right or wrong I gave them a check on the paper and a sticker as a reward. On Wednesdays I followed the same steps as Monday, when I place Wednesday’s large sound card in the pocket chart I placed it beside the Previous letter. These mini lessons lasted approximately 8 minutes.

On Fridays I invited the four students of the treatment group over to the round table. I played the letter of the day songs from the week. The texture cards from the week and upper lower case letter triangles were placed on the table for child exploration. Once all students were seated and the songs were over, I removed the texture cards and letter triangles from child view. I held the Large Sound Card from Monday and asked “What letter is this?” I paused for students to answer. I responded appropriately“Correct this is the letter “___”. Students were instructed to repeat the letter- keyword- and sound after me. I returned the card to the pocket chart. I held the large sound Card from Wednesday and asked “What letter is this?” I paused for students to answer. “Correct this is the letter “__”.Students were instructed to repeat the letter- keyword- and sound after me. I placed the card back in the pocket chart.

I held up a table time survey sheet and asked “How did you feel about the table time we’ve had this week? “If you felt happy color the happy face, if you felt medium color the medium face, and if you felt sad color the sad face. The students colored the survey sheets and handed them to me. I complimented the students. “You have been doing such a great job learning letters and sounds that we are going to play a game of BINGO. “ I placed a bingo card (with 8 letters on it) in front of each student and provided them with 8 chips. I instructed the students “When you hear me call out a letter you cover it with a chip. If you get four letters in a row you win, and everyone will have a chance to win”. I called out letters starting with the letters we have already addressed in mini lessons. I called each letter twice and then paused. I covered the letter on my master letter sheet and students covered their letters. When a student won a game I instructed them to call out their letters to me and I then gave them a sticker and they went back to centers. On the second, fourth, and sixth Friday students from the treatment and control groups were assessed on their letter recognition of lowercase letters. Each student was called over individually to sit with the teacher or teacher assistant at the round table. On the round table in front of the student was a Letter assessment template which had the 26 lowercase letters of the alphabet randomly arranged. On the right side of the practitioner there was an individual letter assessment checklist. Teachers instructed “ I’m going to point at the letter and you tell me the name of the letter”. As the practicioner pointed at a letter, the student named it. The teacher kept the checklist out of view of the child and checked off each correct letter and placed a smile beside the wrong letter .

Analysis Plan

The teachers began by recording the pre assessment scores of the letter recognition and letter sounds for the treatment and control groups. The teachers calculated the scores of the post assessments of both the treatment and control groups. The Individual child letter sound scores were also calculated for both groups. The Teachers calculated the total pre assessment scores and the total post assessment scores for the treatment group and for the control group. Scores were compared. The teachers calculated the percentage of letter recognition growth for both groups and compared them. The teachers calculated the percentage of letter sound knowledge growth for both groups and compared them. The teachers calculated individual growth of all 8 participants and attempted to correlate letter recognition and letter sound growth to pre assessment scores. The teachers calculated total attendance of students in both groups in attempts to correlate growth to attendance. The table time student survey responses were collected and entered into one dated chart. The survey responses were calculated into percent of satisfaction by week and overall satisfaction score throughout the study. Total Growth comparisons were analyzed for male and female groups. Student scores were also compared by home language.

Validity

To ensure validity the teacher used triangulation of the student satisfaction data collected from the table time survey , and the data from the letter recognition and letter sound assessments and compared the results. Data was examined using both quantitative qualitative analysis.

Results

In analyzing the data I organized the data by separating the quantitative data from the qualitative data. From the quantitative data I grouped the data of the treatment group and control group. I calculated the Pre and Post assessment scores for letter recognition and letter sound knowledge two groups. After comparing the scores by control and treatment groups in graphs; I dissected the groups by the demographics of gender and home language in order to assess the affect the intervention had on the different groups. The survey responses were analyzed through a qualitative reflective view and then were analyzed quantitatively based on the number of answers in each category.

To assess student scores I counted the letters students recognized on individual letter recognition assessments and divided them by 26 the answer was a decimal which I multiplied by 100 in order to express percentage. To assess letter sound scores I counted the number of letters for which students could identify sounds and divided that number by 26, the answer was a decimal which we multiplied by 100 to express percentage. After assessing student letter recognition and student sound knowledge scores I calculated each students total growth percent. To calculate growth I subtracted the pre assessment score from the post assessment score. The student letter recognition and letter sound growth is listed in the Individual student LR and LS Growth Chart.

Individual Student LR and LS Growth Chart

	LR	LS	Group
JN	3.8%	0%	T
MB	19.2%	11.6%	T
ANG	7.7%	3.9%	T
AN	15.4%	3.8%	T

PT	15.4%	3.9%	C
AM	3.9%	3.8%	C
JX	3.9%	7.7%	C
JO	7.6%	3.9%	C

To what extent do mini lessons influence letter recognition and letter sound knowledge in Pre-K students?

Letter recognition scores for students in the treatment group showed a higher percent of growth than students in the control group. The treatment group had a 46.1% growth increase in letter recognition. The control group had a 30.8% growth increase in letter recognition. Mini lessons influenced letter recognition by 15.3% in this study.

Letter sound knowledge scores for students in the treatment group showed the same percent of growth as the students in the control group. The treatment and control group both had a 19.3% growth increase in letter sound knowledge . Mini lessons did not influence letter sound knowledge in this study.

Within the treatment group there were certain trends of growth based on demographic. The mean of male letter recognition growth was 7.7% compared to the mean of female letter recognition growth which was 12.8% . The mean of male letter sound growth was 3.9% compared to the mean of female letter sound growth of 5.1%

The mini lessons made a higher impact on female letter recognition growth which increased 5.1% more than the males in the treatment group. You will find the data in the Growth comparison by gender chart below.

Growth Comparison by Gender Graph

Within the treatment group the average growth of LR varied among students who had different home languages. Student’s who’s home language was English had an average LR growth of 5.75%. Students whos home language was Karen had an average LR growth of 19.2%, and students whos home language was Spanish had an LR growth of 15.4%. Students who’s home language was Spanish had an average LS growth of 3.8%. English home language students had an average LS growth of 1.95%. Students whos home language was Karen had an average LS growth of 11.6%. You will find the results in the charts below.

How if at all do mini lessons help close the achievement gaps in Pre-Kindergarten classrooms?

In order to assess the closing of achievement gaps I used data collected after calculating Pre assessment and Post assessment scores for both letter recognition and letter sound knowledge

Pre assessment scores revealed a gap of 12 points in letter recognition scores with the control group having a score of 65 and the treatment group having a score of 53. Post assessment scores revealed a gap of 9 points with the Control group having 73 points and the treatment group having 64. Mini lessons helped close the achievement gap by 3 points in this study.

Pre assessment scores for letter sound knowledge revealed a gap of 15 points: The treatment group had a score of 37 and the control group had a score of 52. Post assessment scores for letter sound knowledge revealed a gap of 16 points: The treatment group had a score of 41 and the control group had a score of 57. Mini lessons did not help close or reduce the achievement gap. The gap increased by 1 point.

I combined the data from both the treatment and control groups and analyzed the data comparison between genders. Females had an average letter recognition growth of 11.5% compared to males who revealed an average growth score of 6.4%. Females had an average growth of 4.6% in letter sound knowledge compared to males who had an average growth score of 5.2%.

Table Time Survey

I wanted to look not only at the qualitative data from teacher given assessments. I wanted to find out how satisfied the students in the treatment group were with the interventions. The students rated the intervention as 87.5% satisfactory. Students seemed to find the interventions satisfactory. Seventy five percent of students said that the table time made them feel happy every week of the study. One of the four students said that the intervention made him sad 2 weeks out of 6 and that he felt regular 1 week out of the 6.

The data collected revealed strengths and weaknesses of the study. The pre and post assessments did show growth in both groups. The mini lessons were effective literacy interventions and they influenced letter recognition growth. However the intervention did not prove to be an effective method of intervention in influencing letter sound knowledge when the control group and treatment group were compared. When looking within the treatment group the intervention had a stronger influence on female letter recognition and letter sound knowledge than it did for males. Within the treatment group the average growth of LR varied among students who had different home languages. The students who had a home language other than English had higher growth rates than the students who’s home language was English. Three out of four students found the intervention to be satisfactory and rated the “table time” as an activity that made them feel happy. This data was revealing and will allow for further analyzing.

Discussion

One main purpose of this study was to find an effective method of literacy intervention to close achievement gaps in the classroom. Some of my students were having trouble progressing in literacy . In spite of the daily literacy lesson there was a noticeable achievement gap in the literacy scores .This six week study was carried out with fidelity by teachers on Mondays , Wednesdays and Fridays in order to decrease threats to validity. This mixed method experimental research study found the mini lessons to be an effective way to increase letter recognition. The demographic dynamic of the students allowed for a variety

Home language comparison of

Average LR Growth

LR Growth English Karen Spanish 5.7500000000000002E-2 0.192 0.154

Home language comparison of

Average LS Growth

LS Growth English Karen Spanish 1.95E-2 0.11600000000000001 3.7999999999999999E-2 LS Growth2 English Karen Spanish

Treatment Pre LR Post LR Pre LS Post LS 53 64 37 41 Control Pre LR Post LR Pre LS Post LS 65 73 52 57

Mean of male and female Total Growth

Sales

6.4%