At Risk First Graders in Literacy and Writing - Essay Example

RUNNING HEAD: AT RISK FIRST GRADERS LITERACY LITERATURE REVIEW At Risk First Graders in Literacy and Writing: Literature Review Name School Date At Risk First Graders in Literacy and Writing: Literature Review Studies have shown that the best time to detect and correct a literacy problem is at kindergarten when children first enter the school system. Research shows that there is a correlation between achievement in school and self-esteem (Harter, 1988). Further, Marsh has shown that high levels of school achievement lead to positive self esteem. (1990). The earlier problems are identified and intervention is started the greater the chances for the student to find success with reading and raise their reading and writing skills to a grade appropriate level. Several facts regarding at risk children have been published: "35% of American kindergarten children enter school unprepared to learn. (Carnegie Foundation's Starting Points Report 50% of low income children enter first grade up to two years behind their peers in preschool skills. (Brizius & Foster) Children from low-income homes enter school with one-fourth of the vocabulary of students from middle-class homes. (Children's Defense Fund)" ("Reading intervention" 2005, screen 1). Reading Recovery is a one on one based tutoring program which research has shown to be highly effective in assisting with at risk primary school students. According to Allington the Department of Education studies have revealed that tutoring has been found to be a more effective means that other intervention programs when dealing with literacy and reading deficiencies (2005, p. 9). Several studies have been show to support the effectiveness of this tutorial program. In a 1994 study Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer compared the Reading Recovery Program to 3 other types of early intervention. The study encompassed 40 different schools of the lowest literacy functioning 1st graders within a 10 school district area and studied 324 students. This random study compared the following groups: "Reading Recovery, a Reading Recovery-like intervention with partially trained teachers, a skills-based individual intervention, small group instruction offered by Reading Recovery teachers, or a control group." (screen 1) Measures were derived from the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test and Woodcock Reading Mastery. According to the research design which used split plots to alleviated differences between the various schools, bias was minimized and results were verified. The findings of the test revealed that "Reading Recovery subjects performed significantly better than any other treatment and comparison group on all measures" (Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer 1994, screen 1). A similar study was conducted by Schwartz in 2005. Using a RCT 37 Reading Recovery teachers were studied in a fourteen state region. Each submitted two 1st grade students who were at risk. Assignment to the control or test group was randomly assigned by the computer. The student's progress was measured throughout the school year. Additionally, two students from each of the subject's classrooms was selected, a high average student and a low average student, to compare results individually. All students were assessed at the beginning of the school year to determine the baseline, during the mid point of the year between the two reading recovery sessions and again at the conclusion of the school year. The results of the peer reviewed study showed students who received intervention during the first half of the year had markedly improved literacy improvement than did the students who received intervention during the second half of the school year. Further when comparing the students asking their peers who did not receive intervention individual students had significantly narrowed the chasm between themselves and the high average student from their respective classes. An additional finding revealed that the selection method used to identify the at risk first graders was extremely accurate in identification and utilizing the method reduced the number of children needing intensive long term literacy support from 17% to 5% of the first grade population (Schwartz 2005, p. 267). In a two year study with first grade at risk students which used quasi random methodology, two groups were assigned in 34 different schools. One group (classroom) received reading recovery intervention. A separate class was assigned as a control group where no intervention was offered. Children were placed in the two class based on pre testing using the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The same test was used as the post test in addition to the Gates-MacGinnitie Reading Test and teacher progress reports. Results of the test revealed that although both the control and test classes were virtually identical at pre-test, "at the end of the year, multivariate and univariate analyses of variance indicated that the Reading Recovery children were significantly superior to the control group children on three valid and reliable standard measures" (Quay, Steele, Johnson & Hortman 2001, p. 21). Additionally, the majority of the children in the experimental group scored higher on teacher assessments and, although it did not give percentages, the research stated that a significantly higher percentage for the experimental group were promoted to 2nd grade than were those identified at risk in the control group. Pearson Scott Foresman in 2005 launched an innovate early intervention literacy program for at risk kindergarten and 1st grade students in California. Based on a study "Project Optimize" conducted over a five year period by Doctors Kame'enui and Simmons, this program was designed to identify at risk five and six year olds and enroll them in a literacy recovery program to assist with their reading achievement and comprehension. "Research shows that 97 percent of kindergarten children who were taught with Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention experienced faster achievement rates and were able to sustain that level of achievement into second grade" ("Reading intervention" 2005, screen 1). The program called Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention (ERI) program assists teachers in identifying at risk children who have reading skill literacy issues from other cognitive issues which require special education. In addition to assisting children with the literacy recovery, the program has been purported to have saved additional money that would have gone into special education programs from misidentified children. Some of the results of this program include: "The number of children identified as at-risk in kindergarten and first grade decreased by nearly 28 percent from the beginning to the end of the 2003-2004 school year. In five Title 1 Schools in the 2002-2003 school years, 44 kindergarteners and 22 first graders were retained; while in 2003-2004, the same five Title 1 schools implementing ERI reduced retentions in kindergarten by 66 percent and in first grade by 23 per cent. In 2003-2004 school years, the number of kindergarten and first grade students retained in the District's College View Elementary School decreased 77 percent with the use of ERI." ("Reading intervention" 2005, screen 1). The program has additionally been found to be useful for kindergarten and 1st grade students where English is not the first language. Further findings through implementation of the program show that children at risk for literacy issues on average have a 5,000 word vocabulary upon entry into school while average readers have a 20,000 word vocabulary. ("Reading intervention" 2005, screen 1). University of Maine has instituted a partnership with local school districts to assist in implementing the Reading Recovery program. "Since its establishment a decade ago, Maine Reading Recovery has served approximately 16,000 students in over 260 schools and the specialized instruction enables low-achieving children to make rapid progress, catch up with their classmates and become independent learners without further remedial work" (Hyatt 2002, screen 1). A report published by the Southern Regional Education Board stated that "children who cannot read at or near grade level by the end of third grade are considered at risk of failure, quality reading instruction in the primary grades is essential to their success in school and beyond" ("Arkansas" 2000, screen 1). The report detailed the efforts in Arkansas public schools to improve literacy and on grade level reading by primary students. Arkansas since 1990 has been using a both one-on-one tutoring and small group learning in their recovery programs. Rather than promoting retention in grade which Arkansas school officials say does not work, early intervention in the kindergarten and first grade years seems to hold much more promise of ensuring success by grade three. Further contrary to what the state feared, the one-on-one tutoring has proven to be much more cost effective than traditional programming had had been previously implemented in many cases. Additional findings showed that the time to grade level attainment was much quicker and with more frequency and at risk children experience less out of classroom time for special programming which minimizes further their identification by peers as 'different' and allowed these children to participate more fully in classroom activities and special programming they had previously missed out on.. Additionally, as ancillary benefit teacher morale was improved as they saw the benefits and results of their efforts much more quickly. In 2001 a substitute teacher in Idaho saw a vast difference in kindergarten and 1st grade reading abilities as the school she substituted. Through her personal effort the school was awarded a private grant which allows kindergarten and first grade teachers to utilize consultancy services on a weekly basis with children identified at risk in reading and writing skills. "41% of the Taft kindergartners taking the Idaho Reading Indicator test last year had moved in or out of the school during the year. Research has shown that student mobility (changing schools within the year) is one of the primary handicaps facing students in all income brackets" ("An individual's 2001, screen 1) The program proved very successful and was continued by the Principal of the school. The program consists of additional training in intervention techniques for 1st and kindergarten teachers and bi-weekly consultation sessions with recovery experts. The program tracks students through the forth grade level and, to date, the program has met with much success. " Last winter, only 24% of the kindergarten students were reading at top proficiency levels on the Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI); this winter 52% are. The numbers for first grade are even more dramatic, up from 34% at the top proficiency level last winter to 80% this winter" ("An individual's 2001, screen 1). Writing can be a difficult subject to teach to first graders with no literacy issues. When literacy and reading issues are combined, the task can appear to be almost daunting. In discussing the issue one teacher stated that her school district placed all the at risk first graders in the same class for reading and writing instruction. "This class was developed so that these students would receive more instruction at their level, with the aid of a push in Reading Specialist and a smaller class size. My First Graders struggle with all areas of their literacy development. They do not like to write because it is difficult for them. One of the best ways to engage my students in the writing process is the through use of computers" ("Educators speak" 2006, screen 1). The teacher utilized the computer lab to make reading and writing activities more fun. Further she developed a program where students wrote their own books which appeared to be quite successful in developing an interest in reading for these at risk first graders. The program was expanded so each student had use of a laptop and now they edit their own work as well. The teacher from Virginia concluded from this innovative practice that "I think that all of these components, small class size, more adults, and individual laptops, all have helped to create a proficient class of authors" ("Educators speak" 2006, screen 1) Waddel a first grade teacher had a not so unique but highly challenging task. She had 32 at risk readers in her 1st grade classroom who" did not know how to read letters nor did they recognize letter sounds. The students who participated in this project were in the lower 20 percent of their class in reading scores. Sixty-three percent of the students were limited English proficient and all were eligible for the free lunch program. Intervention was a necessity if these 1st graders were to improve their English reading and writing skills. (Waddell undated, screen 1). This teacher had intensive group and individual tutoring four times a week over the course of the school year in order to assist the students in catching up to grade level. Results of her efforts revealed that: Each student made significant progress. Of the 32 students in the Reading Recovery program, 13, or 40 percent, were reading above a 2nd grade entry level with a DRA score of 18, 20 and 24. Eleven students, or 34 percent, had scored at a 1st grade exiting level of DRA 16. Four, or 13 percent, scored slightly below DRA 16 and the remaining four children scored DRA 8, which was a significant improvement from nine months previous. Overall, the program was considered a 100 percent success. . (Waddell undated, screen 1). Through review of the literature is has been noted that there is a significant need for early intervention. As demonstrated through the research literacy recovery programs need to be initiated in kindergarten and first grade in order to achieve optimum success. Further research has shown that although reading issues tend to show a positive correlation between home stability, it is more a factor dealing with temporary issues rather than permanent learning disabilities and other cognitive disorders. Reading Recovery, an intervention program, was frequently mention as being very successful in bringing at risk children up to grade level faster that other traditional forms of programming What was demonstrated over and over in the literature was that probably one of the best indicators of a student's recovery and ability to learn to love reading and writing stemmed from educators' innovative and creative solutions. Individual attention and giving a child a sense of self worth and feeling of attainment appeared to be overriding factors mention again and again in the literature. Additionally, being able to identify students with potential reading and writing deficiencies is impetrative to ensuring a successful recovery. Results of studies where one on one methods were implemented and positive feedback was given students, regardless of what the program was named, appear to be the most successful method of ensuring future academic success. References Allington, D. (2005). "How much evidence is enough evidence" Journal of Reading Recovery, 4:2, pp. 8-11. "Arkansas reading initiative boosts literacy of primary school children, says new SREB report." (2000). Southern Regional Education Board Website. Retrieved February 9, 2006, from http://www.sreb.org/programs/srr/pubs/GettingElemStudentsReady.asp "Educators speak." (2006). Houghton Mifflin Website. Retrieved February 9, 2006, from http://college.hmco.com/education/cooper/literacy/6e/instructors/educators/ch08.html Harter, S. (1990). "Issues in the assessment of the self-concept of children and Adolescents". In S. M. LaGreca (Ed.), Through the eyes of the child: Obtaining selfreports from children and adolescents (pp. 292-325). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hyatt, K. (Jun. 6, 2002). "Kids to demonstrate partnership dividends." The University of Maine Website. Retrieved February 9, 2006, from http://www.umaine.edu/News/Archives/2002/June02/Kids%20to%20Demonstrate%20Partnership%20Dividends.htm "An individual's concern results in a unique partnership." (2001). Lee Pesky Learning Center Website. Retrieved February 9, 2006, from http://www.lplearningcenter.org/News/Taft%20article.html Marsh, H. W. (1990). "Causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, pp, 646-656. Pinnell, G. S. Lyons, C.A. DeFord, D. E. Bryk, A. & Seltzer, N. (1994). "Comparing instructional models of literacy education of high risk first graders." Reading Research Quarterly, 29: pp. 8-39. Reading Recover Council of North America Website. Retrieved February 9, 2006, from http://www.readingrecovery.com/sections/research/compinstmods.asp Quay, L. C., Steele, D. C., Johnson, C. L., & Hortman, W. (2001). "Children's achievement and personal and social development in a first year reading recovery program with teachers in training." Literacy Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 5: pp. 7-25. "Reading intervention program nets startling improvement for at-risk kindergarten and first graders; school district report dramatic 77% increase in student promotions; number in special education drops sharply." (Jun. 27, 2005). Business Wire. Retrieved February 9, 2006, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_June_27/ai_n14699282 Schwartz, R. M. (2005). "Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students in the reading recovery early intervention." Journal of Educational Psychology, 97:2, pp. 257-267. Waddell, D. (Undated). "Reading recovery literacy groups." Reading Advocacy Website. Retrieved February 9, 2006, from http://www.sdfoundation.org/teachersfund/waddell.shtml Read More