Effects of alphabetic word work with manipulative letters on the reading acquisition of struggling first-grade students

204 Pages·2000·5.6 MB·English

by  Pullen, Paige Cullen

THEEFFECTSOFALPHABETICWORDWORKWTTH
MANIPULATIVELETTERSONTHEREADINGACQLFISITION
OFSTRUGGLINGFIRST-GRADESTUDENTS
By
PAIGECULLENPULLEN
ADISSERTATIONPRESENTEDTOTHEGRADUATESCHOOLOFTHE
UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDAINPARTL\LFULFILLMENTOFTHE
REQUIREMENTSFORTHEDEGREEOFDOCTOROFPHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITYOFFLORIDA
2000
UMINumber9984473
Copyright2000by
Pullen.PaigeCullen
Allrightsreserved.
UMI
UMIMicroform9984473
Copyright2000byBell&HowellInfonnationandLearningCompany.
AllrightsreservedThismicroformeditionisprotectedagainst
unauthorizedcopyingunderTitle17.UnitedStatesCode.
Bell&HowellInformationandteamingCompany
300NorthZeebRoad
P.O.Box1346
AnnArt>or.Ml48106-1346
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Numerousindividualsprovidedsupportandassistancethroughoutthe
courseofthisstudy.Iamgratefultoallofthosewhocontributedtothesuccess
ofthisproject.
Specialthanksgotothestudentswhoparticipatedinthestudyandtothe
parentswhoallowedtheirparticiparton.Thestudents'hardworkmadethis
projectpossible.
Ialsowishtoextendmyappreciationtotheadministratorsandsupport
staffwhoallowedmetoconductresearchintheirschools.Mysincerethanksgo
toMs.LynnSeville,Ms.AnnBloomberg,Dr.DarlaBoyd,Mr.FrankBums,Dr.
BarbaraBuys,Dr.JacquelynCake,Dr.SuzyColvin,Dr.RobertCraig,Ms.Kathy
Dixon,Ms.TillieFarrah,Ms.DebbieGallagher,Ms.AnnMullally,andMr.John
McCollum.Myappreciationisalsoextendedtothefirst-gradeteachersand
supportstaffattheparhcipatingschools.
Thisprojectwassupported,inpart,throughagrantfromtheRoyal
AmericanConstructionCompanyofPanamaCity,Florida.Iwishtoextendmy
appreciationtoMr.JoeyChapmanoftheRoyalAmericanConstruction
Companyforhissupportofthisprojectandforhisdedicationtoimprovingthe
educahonofallstudents.
Numerousindividualsassistedwithpretests,interventior«,treatment
fidelityobservations,andposttests.Withoutthehelpoftheseindividuals,this
studywouldnothavebeenpossible.Specialthanksareextendedtothe
ii
followingindividualswhowereinvolvedinallaspectsofthestudy:Shirley
MartinezSmith,CristinaZamora,MeredithTaylor,BrendaPetkanics,Diana
McKenna,MichelleFranklin,MicheleHoffman,KariLeighCarlile,BradWitzel,
andCarriePelczar.Thefollowingindividualsassistedwithpretestingand
posttesing:Dr.NancyCorbett,Dr.HollyLane,BethSiegel,MaryArmNelson,
RoxanneHudson,andSharonBlatz.
Ialsowishtothankaspecialgroupofteacherswhoprovidedmoral
support.The"Fab40"teachersfromWakeCounty,NorthCarolina,listenedto
thestudyoutcomesandencouragedmethroughthefinalstagesofthisproject.
Myexp>eriencethroughoutthisprojectwasenhancedbythecamaraderie
withmyfellowdoctoralstudents.Iwouldliketothankthefollowing
individualsformakingthisjmenjoyableexperience:RoxanneHudson,Brad
Witzel,MaryAnnNelson,MartyLeague,AnneBishop,TamarRiley,andSharon
Blatz.
ThemembersoftheLeadership2000facultyprovidedmetheopportunity
todevelopaprogramthatbridgedmybackgroundinelementaryandearly
childhoodeducationwithmyprofessionalgoalsinthefieldofspecialeducation.
Thesupportofthisgrantandthefacultymadeitpossibleformetoretumto
schoolfulltime.
Ialsowishtothankthemembersofmycommittee-Dr.CecilMercer,Dr.
MaureenConroy,Dr.HollyLane,andDr.DavidMiller.Ifeelextremely
fortunatetohavehadtheopportunitytoworkwithsuchatalentedgroupof
individuals.Ihavelearnedmanyvaluablelessonsfromeachofthem.
Asmycommitteechairandmentor.Dr.CecilMercerhastaughtmemuch
abouteducationandaboutlife.Hehashelpedmetokeepperspectiveonwhatis
iii
importantandalwaystoremembermyvision.Ihavealsolearnedtolaugh
often,evenatmyself!
Dr.HollyLanehasplayedmanyrolesthroughoutmyprogram-
committeemember,mentor,andcolleague—butmostofallshehasbeenafriend.
IknowIwouldnothavesucceededwithoutherguidanceandsupport.Anytime
Ineededaboostofencouragement,asuggestion,orhelpwithaproject,shewas
there.Fromtheconceptionofthisstudythroughthefinaldataanalysis,HoUy
gavehertimeandexpertise.Sheisavaluedcolleagueandfriend.
Finally,Iwouldliketothankmyfamily.Withouttheirunendingsupport,
thisendeavorwouldnothavebeenpossible.Throughoutthecourseofmy
program,theyhavemademanysacrificesandhaveshowntremendouspatience.
Atalltimes,theyhaveprovidedloveandencouragement.Thisspecialthank
yougoestomyparents,Mr.andMrs.StephenG.Cullen,Jr.,andtomyhusband,
Todd.Ithankthemforalltheydo.
iv
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Page
ACKNOVVLEIXJMENTS U
ABSTRACT viii
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTIONTOTHEPROBLEM 1
RationalefortheStudy 2
ScopeoftheStudy 4
Delimitations 4
Limitations 5
DefinitionofTerms 5
2 REVIEWOFRELATEDLITERATURE 7
Introduction 7
TheoreticalViewoftheReadingProcess 9
ParallelDistributedProcessingandConnectionism 10
Adams'sModeloftheReadingProcess 11
DevelopmentoftheSystem 12
CoreDeficitsCausingReadingDisability 14
PhonologicalDeficit 14
Naming-SpeedDeficit 15
OrthographicDeficit 16
DevelopmentofWordReadingAbility 17
Ehri'sTheoryoftheDevelopmentofWordRecogrution
PrerAebqiuliistiietseKnowledgefortheDevelopmentofWord 18
ReadingAbility 21
InterventionsforthePreventionofReadingDisabihty 24
PhonologicalAwarenessInterventions 25
DecodingandWordRecognitionInterventions 27
ReadingRecovery 32
v
r ^"
DevelopinganEffectiveInterventionforIncreasingDecoding
Skill 36
InsbxictionalComponentsthatPromoteUnderstandingof
theAlphabeticPrincipleandAcquisitionofDecodingSkill..36
InstructionalMethodsthatPromoteUnderstandingofthe
AlphabeticPrincipleandAcquisitionofDecodingSkill 37
ImplicationsforResearch 39
3 METHODSANDPROCEDURES 40
Introduction 40
Hypotheses 40
Methods 41
SettingsandSubjects 41
ResecwchInstrumentation 43
PretestMeasures 47
VerbalAbility 47
PhonologicalAwareness 48
DecodingofWordsandNonwords 48
SightWordReading 49
PassageRuency 49
ReadingComprehension 50
PosttestMeasures 50
SocialValidityMeasures 51
ExperimentalDesign 53
InstructionalProcedures 54
InstructorPreparation 54
Materials 55
TreatmentGroup 55
ComparisonGroup 60
ControlGroup 61
FidelityofTreatment 61
TreatmentoftheData 61
4 RESULTS 63
Introduction 63
StatisticalAnalysesofData 64
PhonologicalAwareness 67
Decoding 71
SightWordKnowledge 77
ReadingPassageFluency 80
ReadingComprehension 81
ProceduralReliability 83
SocialValidity 83
InstructorSurveyResults 83
TeacherSurveys 85
StudentInterviews 87
Summary 87
vi
5 DISCUSSION 91
SummaryoftheHypothesesandResults 91
TheoreticalImplicationsoftheResearchFindings 94
LimitationstothePresentStudy 97
ImplicationsforFutureResearch 97
Summary 98
APPENDICES
A PARENTALINFORMEDCONSENT 101
B SCREENINGINSTRUMENT:TESTOFINVENTEDSPELLING..103
C PHONOLOGICALAWARENESSASSESSMENT 105
D DECODINGASSESSMENTS Ill
E SIGHTWORDASSESSMENTS 113
F LETTER-SOUNDSEQUENCINGASSESSMENT 117
G INSTRUCTORSURVEY 119
H CLASSROOMTEACHERSURVEY 123
I PARTICIPANTINTERVIEW 127
J INTERVENTIONLESSONS 129
K FEATURESOFTEXT • 160
L INTERVENTIONBOOKLIST 162
M HDELITYCHECKLISTS 165
N STUDENTDATAFILE 168
REFERENCES 180
BIOGRAPHICALSKETCH 191
vii
AbstractofDissertationPresentedtotheGraduateSchool
oftheUniversityofFloridainPartialFulfillmentofthe
RequirementsfortheDegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy
THEEFFECTSOFALPHABETICWORDWORKWITH
MANIPULATIVELETTERSONTHEREADINGACQUISITION
OFSTRUGGLINGHRST-GRADESTUDENTS
By
PaigeCullenPullen
August2000
Chairperson:CecilD.Mercer
MajorDepartment:Speci^llEducation
Thisstudyexaminedtheeffectsofalphabeticwordworkwith
manipulativelettersonthereadingskillsofstrugglingfirst-gradestudents.
Participantswere98first-gradestudentsatriskforreadingdisability.
Participantswererandomlyassignedtothreegroups:(a)treatment,(b)
comparison,and(c)control.Thetreatmentgroupreceived6-10weeksofsmall
groupinstructionusingmanipulativeletterstopracHcedecodingand
recognizingwordsinameaningfulcontext.Thecomparisongroupreceivedthe
samesmall-groupreadinginstructionwithoutthemanipulahveletters.The
controlgroupdidnotreceivesupplementalsmall-groupinstruction.
Theinterventionwasimplementedin30lessonsingroupsofthree
studentsinnineschoolsintwonorthcentralRoridadistricts.Dependent
variablesincludedphonologicalawareness,sightwordreading,decodingof
nonwords,decodingofwords,passagefluencyandreadingcomprehension.In
viii
additiontotherelatedliteracyassessments,socialvaliditymeiisureswere
administeredtodeterminetheacceptabilityandviabilityoftheintervention.
Interventioninstructorsandclassroomteacherscompletedsurveys,and
participantswereinterviewed.
Statisticalanalysesofthedatarevealedsignificantgroupdifferenceson
measuresofphonologicalawareness,decoding,andsightwordknowledge.The
treatmentgroupscoredsignificantlyhigheronmeasuresofdecodingthanthe
comparisonandcontrolgroups.Studentsinthetreatmentgroupalsoscored
higheronmeasuresofphonologicalawarenessandsightwordknowledgethan
thecontrolgroup.Thedifferencesatposttestonmeasuresoffluencyand
comprehensionwerenotsignifiomt.Theinterventionwasconsideredacceptable
to100%oftheteachersandinterventioninstructorssurveyed.
Thefindingsofthisresearchholdimportantimplicationsforreading
instruction.Theresultsofthisstudysupportthehypothesisthatmultisensory
instructionhelpsthestrugglingreaderdevelopthenecessaryconnectionsthat
allowsefficientfunctioningofthereadingsystem.Abenefitofthisintervention
isthatitfocusesontwooftheskillsrelatedtocoredeficitsofreadingdisability.
Amajorityofstudentswithreadingdisabilityexperiencedifficultyin
phonologicalawarenessandmanyhavedeficitsinorthographicprocessing.
Instructionwithmanipulativelettersmayimproveskillsindeficitareasandhelp
topreventreadingfailure.
ix