Research Compendium - Pearson Education

2y ago
16 Views
2 Downloads
2.08 MB
80 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Matteo Vollmer
Transcription

Research Compendium

SSRW Research CompendiumTable of ContentsSing, Spell, Read & Write Research CompendiumTABLE OF CONTENTSI.Introduction.1Overview .1The Sing, Spell, Read & Write (SSRW) Program.2About the Compendium .3II.National Reading Panel .5III.San Francisco Study .7IV.Memphis Study Citation . 27V.SSRW Research Paper. 31VI.School Score Reports. 47Alabama . 48Fayette County Schools. 48Arkansas. 49Earle Elementary School . 49Jonesboro School. 50West Clay County Elementary School . 51Wynne Primary School. 52California . 53Fenton Avenue Elementary School, LAUSD. 53Washington Primary School, Berkeley . 54Colorado. 55Christian Heritage Elementary School. 55Florida . 57Century Elementary School. 57Ernest R. Graham Elementary School . 58Freeport Elementary School. 60Tice Elementary School . 63Georgia. 64Bleckley County Schools . 64D.D. Crawford Primary School . 66Mississippi . 67Aberdeen and Taylorsville Schools . 67New Jersey . 68Mahwah Elementary School. 68Schull School . 69Traphagen School . 70New York . 71P.S. 138, Queens . 71Oklahoma . 73Eugene Fields Elementary School . 73Tennessee . 75Tusculum College Study, East Tennessee. 75Texas . 76Kerens Elementary School. 76Lone Oak Elementary School . 77Valley View Elementary School. 78Virginia. 80Chesapeake Self-Contained Learning Disabilities Study . 80

SSRW Research CompendiumIntroductionINTRODUCTIONOverviewThis program presents an orderly and graduatedsequence of multisensory language arts instructiondesigned to reach every avenue of the brain. Importantphonics concepts are taught with recorded songs thathave accompanying wall charts. These songs andcharts provide the motivational practices that reinforcethe correlated lessons in reading, writing, and spelling.In 1997, Congress asked the National Institute forChild Health and Human Development (NICHD), incollaboration with the Secretary of Education, toconvene a National Reading Panel to review a vastcollection of research pertaining to reading instruction.In 2000, the panel issued a report pinpointing fiveessential components necessary for reading success:phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development,fluency, and comprehension.Sing, Spell, Read & Write is psychologically andacademically effective because the method requirestotal participation. Every student must respondindividually to each step in the program. Students eachtake turns playing games, singing songs, and takingpart in a wide variety of multisensory activities.Children learn to read as early as kindergarten, andthey can achieve complete decoding, fluency, andcomprehension skills by the end of first grade.Also in 2000, the National Assessment for EducationalProgress (NAEP) in The Nation’s Report Card showedthat more than 85 percent of fourth graders in highpoverty schools scored below the proficient readinglevel. Clearly, many students were advancing throughthe school system without having mastered the basicskills associated with reading.Another unique characteristic of Sing, Spell, Read &Write is that the program creates an environment wherelearning is fun. Interesting games allow for neededrepetition and provide a non-threatening atmosphere tomaster beginning skills.In January 2002, President George W. Bush reinforcedthe Panel’s findings about reading instruction when hesigned into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.Among other things, the No Child Left Behind Actrepresents a commitment to literacy by emphasizingthe need to make sure every child can read by the endof third grade. To achieve this goal, a comprehensiveeffort called “Reading First” has been put into place.This 900 million state grant program promotes the useof high-quality reading instructional materials based onscientific research for grades K-3.The multimodal strategies incorporated into theprogram were developed and classroom testedfor more than 25 years. The program incorporates theresearch-based principles of reading instruction includingphonemic awareness; phonological awareness; phonicsinstruction; decodable texts; multiple readings (oral andsilent, individual and shared) to provide practice andbuild fluency; and comprehension strategies designedto build higher-order thinking skills. The components– phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabularydevelopment, fluency, and comprehension – provide anunprecedented and research-based roadmap forclassroom instruction. Sing, Spell, Read & Writesupports all five of the components identified by theNational Reading Panel.Reading First grants are awarded at the state level anddispersed via subgrants to local education agencies.Grant recipients implement instructional strategies thathelp young children – particularly those from lowincome families – attain the skills needed for optimalreading development.Sing, Spell, Read & Write is an ideal component of theReading First initiative at the early grades. It is aunique 36-step learning-to-read curriculum that utilizescarefully sequenced, systematic, explicit phonicsinstructional strategies to build fluent independentreaders. Using look, listen, point, sing-along, and echoroutines along with gross-motor and fine-motoractivities, the program actively engages the senses andeffectively reaches all types of learners. This approachis strongly supported by current research on brainfunction, language acquisition, and reading.Current research clearly states that systematic andexplicit phonics instruction is the most effective way toencourage a child’s growth in reading. Systematic andexplicit phonics instruction does two things. First, itintroduces students to various letter-sound relationships ina clearly defined sequence. Second, it provides studentsan opportunity to apply their knowledge of suchrelationships as they begin to read and write.1

IntroductionSSRW Research CompendiumSing, Spell, Read & Write Level 1 combines movementand music with carefully sequenced instruction to helpstudents quickly master phonics skills. With Sing, Spell,Read & Write Level 1, you can:Sing, Spell, Read & Write is a multisensory, multimodalprogram designed to make students independent readersand writers. It takes students in pre-kindergarten throughsecond grade on a journey that incorporates catchy singalong songs, games, phonetic storybook readers, andhands-on activities. Using a variety of gross-motor andfine-motor activities, Sing, Spell, Read & Writeengages the senses and effectively reaches all types oflearners.The Sing, Spell, Read & Write ProgramSing, Spell, Read & Write Pre-K Readiness Programhelps children develop the readiness and early literacyskills they need with developmentally appropriateactivities. With Sing, Spell, Read & Write Pre-K, youcan: Combine sing-along songs, rhythm, and movement– the most effective teaching strategies forpreschoolers. Make reading meaningful through shared readingexperiences, classroom materials that presentwords and symbols, and hands-on print activities. Provide a creative, non-threatening learningenvironment that engages every learning style andstimulates brain activity. Expose students to the concepts of letter andnumber recognition, visual and auditorydiscrimination, phonemic awareness, and letter/sound correspondences.Deliver powerful multisensory learning experienceswith catchy sing-along phonics songs, interactivepoint-and-learn charts, activities, and games. Involve every child in every step of each activity toensure individual understanding and success. Use repetition, rhyme, rhythm, and music to fostermemory and skill mastery.Teach phonics and decoding concepts through look,listen, point, and sing-along charts, songs, and echoroutines. Reach every child using built-in multimodal teachingstrategies. Provide opportunities for building listening, speaking,reading, and writing vocabulary. Assist students in developing fluency and accuracy. Teach comprehension strategies to build betterreaders.Sing, Spell, Read & Write Level 2 provides phonicsskills review and provides a transition to informationaltexts using a series of storybooks authored by children.With Sing, Spell, Read & Write Level 2, you can:Sing, Spell, Read & Write Level K uses phonics songsand interactive charts and games to teach thealphabetic principle, phonemic awareness, letter/soundcorrespondences, short vowel sounds, and blending.By the end of the year, students can apply their newskills when they read, fully decodable storybooks withsingle-syllable, short-vowel words. With Sing, Spell,Read & Write Level K, you can: Review phonics skills. Evaluate students’ reading skills and provideintervention. Provide students with a transition to informationaltexts. Assess students’ language arts skills. Assist students in developing fluency andaccuracy. Teach comprehension strategies to build betterreaders. Provide opportunities for building listening,speaking, reading, and writing vocabulary. Develop strong writers.Sing, Spell, Read & Write is published by PearsonLearning Group. Through its imprints of ModernCurriculum Press, Celebration Press, Globe Fearon,Dale Seymour Publications, and Good Year Books,Pearson Learning Group provides high-qualityresearch-based and validated products for pre-Kthrough grade 12. Please visit the web site atwww.pearsonlearning.com for more information.2

SSRW Research CompendiumIntroductionAbout the Compendiumthe five essential components necessary for readingsuccess. Sing, Spell, Read & Write supports phonemicawareness, phonics, vocabulary development, fluency,and comprehension.This document is a compendium of research on theSing, Spell, Read & Write program. Included in thecompendium are a variety of studies conducted overthe last several years. Types of research include: fullstudies, historical test score analyses, research baseanalysis, and summaries of studies.Also included in this compendium are score reportsfrom schools throughout the country that are usingSing, Spell, Read & Write.The National Reading Panel report of 2000 cited astudy showing the effectiveness of Sing, Spell, Read& Write in kindergarten through second grade. Adescription of this meta-analysis of phonicsprograms is included in the compendium.Throughout the compendium, there is evidence ofprogram success among various student populations.Students with Limited English Proficiency in SanFrancisco and Valley View, Texas showed benefitsfrom the Sing, Spell, Read & Write program.Schools with lower socioeconomic status using Sing,Spell, Read & Write in New York City (P.S. 138,Queens) and Texas (Valley View Elementary) hadgains in reading equal or greater to those of schoolswith higher socioeconomic status that used Sing,Spell, Read & Write. Low achieving students whohad failed a grade or were having difficultieslearning to read improved their skills using the Sing,Spell, Read & Write program in East Tennessee(Tusculum College Study) and Eugene Fields,Oklahoma.Sing, Spell, Read & Write was used as anintervention curriculum in the San Francisco UnifiedSchool District. The full report of this study isincluded in the compendium.An article is included highlighting a study of Sing,Spell, Read & Write used in the Memphis CitySchools, pointing to very high levels of success inkindergarten students, followed by second grade,and then first grade.The Sing, Spell, Read & Write Research Paperdocuments the research base of the programsupporting the National Reading Panel’s findings on3

SSRW Research CompendiumNational Reading PanelNATIONAL READING PANELcontrol group. Control groups utilized other methods ofreading instruction, such as basal readers, regularcurricula, whole word programs, or whole languageapproaches.Comparison of Reading ProgramsUtilizing Phonics InstructionIn December 2000, the National Reading Panelpublished a study that examined the effectiveness ofdifferent reading programs utilizing systematic phonicsinstruction. Several types of programs were examined.One type is systematic synthetic phonics, whichteaches students to transform letters into phonemes andblend the sounds to form words. Sing, Spell, Read &Write falls in this category.The study found that the mean overall effect size for allphonics programs was d 0.44, indicating that phonicsprograms were significantly more effective than thecontrol conditions in teaching children how to read.Also, phonics programs were found to be a moreeffective intervention for kindergarteners and firstgraders than for students in later grades, and especiallyfor at-risk students in these lower grades.The effectiveness of all programs was reported ineffect sizes, which indicate the amount by which theperformance of the treatment group exceeded that ofthe control group. Effect sizes greater than zeroindicate that the treatment group outperformed thecontrol group. The higher the effect size, the greaterthe performance of the treatment group relative to theResults for the Sing, Spell, Read & Write program forkindergarten, first grade, and second grade areillustrated below. The program was most effective atthe kindergarten level.From the National Institute for Literacy, Report of the National Reading Panel – Teaching Children to Read:Report of the Subgroups, December, 2000.5

SSRW Research CompendiumSan Francisco StudyThe Use ofSing, Spell, Read & Writeas Intervention CurriculumAnalysis of a Four-WeekSummer School Pilot Programin Ten Elementary Schools in theSan Francisco Unified School DistrictAnalysis by:Rowlette Research Associates, Inc.7

San Francisco StudySSRW Research CompendiumSan Francisco StudyTABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction.9The No Child Left Behind Act.9Four-Week Summer School Pilot Program .9Evaluation Questions .9The Sing, Spell, Read & Write Curriculum and Program Implementation.10Data Analysis & Findings.10Achievement Outcomes .11Summary & Conclusions .18Appendix: Additional Graphs .19Endnotes.258

SSRW Research CompendiumSan Francisco StudyINTRODUCTIONThe No Child Left Behind ActTable 1Student ClassificationBy Grade LevelThe 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Education Actidentified five essential components of teaching readingthat should be incorporated through explicit and systemicinstruction:KindergartenFirst GradeSecond Grade1. Phonemic Awareness;2. Phonics;3. Vocabulary Development;n790258282250A description of the students by English languageproficiency status is provided in Table 2:4. Reading Fluency, including oral reading skills; and5. Reading Comprehension strategies.Table 2Student ClassificationBy English Language ProficiencyThese components are to be implemented by state andlocal educational agencies, using scientifically-basedreading research to ensure that every student is reading atgrade level or above by the end of third grade. Thedevelopment of effective instructional materials andprograms that can be proven to prevent or remediatereading failure is an important part of the implementationof these policies.Non-English ProficiencyLimited English ProficiencyEnglish ProficiencyFluent English ProficiencyNo Language Proficiency IdentifiedThis study was conducted to assess the impact of PearsonLearning Group’s Modern Curriculum Press Sing, Spell,Read & Write (SSRW), a beginning reading program, inthe San Francisco Unified School District. The purpose ofthe study was to examine the effectiveness of the SSRWprogram as a reading intervention curriculum.n79012827214923218SSRW was the primary curriculum of the summer pilotprogram. The pilot program was four weeks in duration,with sessions five days a week for four hours a day,providing a total of 80 hours of instruction as themaximum number of hours possible for studentparticipants during the period.Four-Week Summer School PilotProgramEvaluation QuestionsSpecific evaluation questions were developed to guide theanalysis of the San Francisco Unified District SummerSchool Program. These questions were:This report examines the impact of the SSRW curriculumin a four-week summer school program conducted duringthe 2000 academic year. The program was implementedin ten elementary schools, involving 51 kindergarten, first,and second grade elementary teachers and 790 students inthe San Francisco Unified School District. The elementaryschools involved in the study were: Bryant, Carver,Chavez, Cleveland, Golden Gate, Gordon Lau, Monroe,E. R. Taylor, Visitation Valley, and Webster.A description of the students by grade level is provided inTable 1.9 What were the achievement outcomes for thekindergarten, first, and second grade studentparticipants across school sites? To what extent was the SSRW curriculumeffective for the given varying levels of EnglishLanguage Proficiency? To what extent was the SSRW curriculumeffective across relevant demographic analyses?

San Francisco StudySSRW Research CompendiumTHE SSRW CURRICULUM AND PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATIONSue Dickson1, veteran educator and the author of SSRW,designed an integrated program for teaching spokenlanguage, reading, spelling, and writing. The curriculumis a program of carefully sequenced, systematic, explicitphonics instruction to build fluent, independent readers.Implementation of the curriculum employs the use ofmusic and movement with multimodal teaching strategies.Using look, listen, point, sing-along, and echo routines,along with gross motor and fine motor activities, theprogram actively engages the senses and is designed to beeffective for all types of preferred learning styles. Themultimodal teaching strategies employed are stronglysupported by current research on brain function, languageacquisition, and reading.2,3,4,5Program Training of ElementaryTeachersSeveral techniques were used to enhance the pedagogicconsistency across school sites. Prior to the summerschool implementation, an eight-hour in-service forteachers was conducted. Each teacher was given theappropriate manual, either kindergarten or first grade, withkey parts pre-tabbed for ease of implementation. Thetrainers provided a mock classroom, showing the setup forthe materials, and used student-teacher role-playingtechniques to enhance the experience. Each of theprogram techniques was demonstrated, with any questionsregarding implementation addressed.Teachers were provided with a daily schedule for the 80hour pilot program as well as a checklist of components.Videos demonstrating each one of the program techniqueswere shown as the materials were presented. Teacherswere coached post-video by individual trainers and giventhe opportunity to practice.The SSRW CurriculumThe SSRW curriculum includes many interactive andmultimodal stimuli, including charts, books, audiocassettes, and games. Teachers’ manuals are provided topromote consistency in methodology and include lessons,reproducibles, musical scores, and recommendations forrelevant follow-up work. In the Level 1 Curriculum,students can chart their progress in the program by using aracecar chart. The program stresses intensive systematicphonics, vocabulary development, comprehension,spelling, and grammar. Lessons use sing-along phonicssongs, interactive point-and-learn charts, and motivatingpractice to move readers to the next skill level.Once the pilot program began, assistance was provided forall the pretesting, and again for the posttesting process.Consultants visited the classrooms during the summersessions and, when needed, modeled key techniques forthe teachers.DATA ANALYSIS & FINDINGSPretest and posttest scores from the various curriculumareas were calculated and electronically entered into adatabase, along with the following information: Student identification number Name of the school Name of the teacher Grade level Language proficiency level: English proficient;Limited English proficient; Fluent English; NonEnglish proficient, and not identified.used to determine the variance between pretest andposttest means and level of significance for each databasesubset of students. Effect sizes were calculated and aBinomial Effect Size Differential (BESD) provided intables for each student category findings. A pooledkindergarten and first grade sample was used to increasestatistical power for subset analyses because both gradeswere given the same pretest/posttests. Second gradestudents were given a different set of pretests andposttests.Findings are presented in terms of the specific evaluationquestions posed at the beginning of the study.Data were analyzed using statistical analysis software.T-tests by grade level and language proficiency level were10

SSRW Research CompendiumSan Francisco StudyACHIEVEMENT OUTCOMESThe first evaluation question examined was: “What werethe achievement outcomes for the kindergarten, first, andsecond grade student participants across school sites?”In this study, effect sizes were calculated to measure theimpact of the program on student achievement. Effect sizeis a numerical representation of the impact of instructionon the experimental group relative to the control group.The data clearly showed that the curriculum produced aneducationally significant effect 6,7,8 of .33 on the overallskill level of the kindergarten/grade 1 student participants.The sample size is almost twice that necessary forstatistical power p .05, as can be seen in Table 3.power for significance at p .05 as can be observed inTable 6.Table 6Second Grade Overall SampleEffect 0.44Total PretestTotal PosttestDifferencen540540540Overall PretestOverall p-26.52 0.0001Table 4Kindergarten SampleTotal PretestTotal ng at the BESD for the overall outcomes forkindergarten, first grade, and second grade populations inthis summer school pilot study, we find the followingintervention impact demonstrated in Table 7.SDtp26.9 -19.77 0.000133.921.2Table 7Kindergarten/First Grade and Second GradeBinomial Effects Size DifferentialTable 5First Grade SampleEffect 0.33n282282282Total PretestTotal PosttestDifferenceDifferenceBetween Means -19.8Mean89.2109.0-19.8SD33.327.218.3tp-13.61 0.0001For example, an effect size of one-fifth of a standarddeviation (.20) corresponds to a BESD success ratedifferential of .10, that is, 10 percentage points betweenpretest and posttest success rates (e.g., 55% versus 45%).A success increase of 10 percentage points on a pretestgroup baseline of 45% represents a 22% improvement inthe success rate (10/45). Viewed in these terms, the sameintervention effect that might appear minimal in standarddeviation units—for our discussion example purpose, a.20—looks potentially meaningful in terms of effect size.The effect achieved for the kindergarten-extracted samplewas even greater at 0.44, while the first grade sampleremained the same, as presented in Tables 4 and 5.Effect 0.43MeanSD47.241 6.61552.034 4.442-4.793 5.690These findings from the analysis of the research data arebest understood by a brief explanation of the BESD andthe conversion of the effect sizes to BESD equivalents.The most striking feature of the BESD representations ofthe effect size is the different impression they give of thepotential practical significance of a given effect from thatof the standard deviation unit expression.Table 3Kindergarten/First Grade SampleEffect 0.33n250250250Samplestp-18.14 0.0001Kindergarten/First GradeOverallSecondGrade OverallSimilar results were found for second grade students. Ascan be seen in Table 6 below, an educationally significanteffect of .44 was achieved in overall skills from pretest toposttest using the SSRW curriculum. The sample size isalmost 100 more than necessary to provide Differential %42%57%15%40%60%20%The results of a BESD of 15%9 from a baseline of 42% isthat it represents a 36% gain overall (15/42) for thekindergarten/first grade participants in the summer schoolprogram during a four-week period. The BESD gain forthe second grade participants is even more marked with a11

San Francisco StudySSRW Research Compendium20% increase from a baseline of 40%, representing a 50%gain (20/40).Table 10Kindergarten/First Grade and Second GradeLimited English ParticipantsBinomial Effects Size DifferentialThese results demonstrate the importance of more fullyunderstanding evaluation data by utilizing a BESD,previously presented in standard deviation units.SamplesEnglish Language ProficiencyOur next evaluation questions results are presented inTables 8 and 9: “To what extent was the SSRWcurriculum effective for the given varying levels of EnglishLanguage Proficiency?”K/1 OverallSecond GradeOverallTable 8Kindergarten/First Grade Overall SkillsLimited English StudentsEffect 0.32Total PretestTotal .031.019.0Total PretestTotal tial %17%82%65%15%The results of a BESD differential of 15%10 from abaseline of 42% is that it represents a 36% gain overall(15/42) for the kindergarten/first grade participants withlimited English proficiency. The BESD differential gainfor the second grade participants with limited Englishproficiency represents a 382% gain (65/17). Next, weexamined the pretest and posttest results for thekindergarten/first grade students designated as nonEnglish proficient.There were no second gradeparticipants with this designation to include in theanalysis. The sc

SSRW Research Compendium Introduction 3 About the Compendium This document is a compendium of research on the Sing, Spell, Read & Write program. Included in the compendium are a variety of studies conducted over the last several years. Types of research include: full studies, historical test score analyses, research base

Related Documents:

Pearson Education LTD. Pearson Education Australia PTY, Limited. Pearson Education Singapore, Pte. Ltd. Pearson Education North Asia, Ltd. Pearson Education Canada, Ltd. Pearson Educatión de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Pearson Education—Japan Pearson Education Malaysia, Pte. Ltd. Library of Co

Pearson Education LTD. Pearson Education Australia PTY, Limited. Pearson Education Singapore, Pte. Ltd. Pearson Education North Asia, Ltd. Pearson Education Canada, Ltd. Pearson Educación de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Pearson Education—Japan Pearson Education Malaysia, Pte. Ltd. The Libra

Pearson (UK) 80 Strand, London WC2R 0RL, UK T 44 (0)20 7010 2000 F 44 (0)20 7010 6060 firstname.lastname@pearson.com www.pearson.com Pearson (US) 1330 Avenue of the Americas, New York City, NY 10019, USA T 1 212 641 2400 F 1 212 641 2500 firstname.lastname@pearson-inc.com www.pearson.com Pearson Education One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River,

Pearson Education Canada, Inc. Pearson Education Malaysia, Pte. Ltd. Pearson Education-Japan Pearson Education Upper Saddle River, New Jersey Pearson Education Australia PTY, Limited PEARSON 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 ISBN-13: 17Ö-D-13-S0M507-7 ISBN-ID: G-13-5tmsa7-X . For Diane Perin Hock and Caroline Mei Perin Hock . CONTENTS PREFACE xi CHAPTER I BIOLOGY AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 1 READING 1: ONE BRAIN OR TWO .

This redline compares the Compendium (Third) released September 29, 2017, and the Compendium (Third) released January 28, 2021. COMPENDIUM OF U.S COPYRIGHT OFFICE PRACTICES, Third Edition Chapter 1500 : 18 01/28/2021 The “best edition” of a work is defined as “the edition, publishe

COMPENDIUM WEBSITE All of the information in this printed version of the Compendium is also available online at www.herbicide-adjuvants.com. Professor of Weed ScienceThe website was established to supplement this printed Compendium. The site allows users to find additional informa

How to Add and update the Published Labs Compendium and the Rads/DI Compendium to the eCW System Compendium Page 5 f. 7. Once found, or a new Lab created, highlight the lab on the list

4 Introduction to Field Theory where c is a suitably chosen speed (generally not the speed of light!). Clearly, the configuration space is the set of maps j µ R4" R4 (1.10) In general we will be interested both in the dynamical evolution of such systems and in their large-scale (thermodynamic) properties. Thus, we will need to determine how a system that, at some time t 0 is in some .