DATA ANALYSIS

MEMO ROUND 1
EDCI 253A/B: Transforming Curriculum

Tina Tran

March 12, 2020

 Memos from the Field

 Research Question What is the research focus/question?

o How does an emphasis on phonemic awareness using strategies from Heggerty and
Scholastic Guided Reading help improve early reading literacy in my newcomer English
Language Learners?
o Does an emphasis on phonemic awareness increase sight word recognition?
o Will Heggerty increase students reading literacy better than Scholastic Guided Reading
or SIPPS curriculum?

 Intervention/Innovation What was the innovation/intervention that you designed and the
rationale?
o One group of students received Heggerty Curriculum instruction, another group received
Scholastic Guided Reading Strategies instruction and the third group received SIPPS
instruction. Students were seen in a small group instruction, 30 minutes a day. Each
group were seen 3 times a week, as long as no other event obstructs learning time (field
trips, assemblies, minimum days etc.). For the first data set, there were no obstructions to
learning time. Students receiving Heggerty instruction mainly focused on phonemic
awareness skills. Students receiving Scholastic Guided Reading Strategies instruction
started with site word practice, followed by a skill needing to be learned in the
curriculum, ending with independent reading with the teacher. Students receiving SIPPS
guided reading had a full class instruction on phonics focus of the week, followed by
small group instruction on choral reading (together at a controlled speed), and
phonological awareness, sight words and phonics. All groups were assessed using BPST,
Dolce Site Word and Fountas and Pinnell reading Level assessments after receiving at
least 3 small group lessons.
o Below shows a table of students in each group and their primary language.

Group 1: Heggerty  Group 2: Scholastic Group 3: SIPPS

3/5 Farsi/Dari 4/5 Farsi/Dari 1/6 Spanish

2/5 Spanish 1/5 English Only 1/6 Russian
4/6 Farsi/Dari

 Data Collected What data/artifacts did you collect? ( e.g., student work, notes from
observations, interviews, videos, etc.)

o The data that I collected were

 Notes from observations
 Student interview answers based on resources they have outside of school
 BPST phonics assessment score
 Leveled reading score
 DOLCE sight word score

 Data Analysis

o Describe your data analysis strategies for qualitative data (e.g., coding strategies)
  The strategy I utilized for the qualitative data analysis was a coding strategy. I
interviewed each student within the student based on questions related to
academics and any outside source they may have that can influence their ability in
reading fluency. Each time a student had an outside source aiding them with
academics, I coded that as a point, and the points tallied at the end would be
correlated to see if that influence helped with their overall assessment scores.

o Describe your data analysis strategies for quantitative data (e.g., what numbers did you
crunch to arrive at descriptive statistics?). Attach an Excel spreadsheet of your
descriptive statistics.
 In analyzing my quantitative data, I observed and wrote down every assessment
score from each student based on categories of which test they took.
 From each group, I took their average score in each assessment, and found the
mean, median, range, standard deviation, and variance of the groups score.

 The Quantitative data will be used to gauge if methods used are increasing
reading literacy at any rate above just one level or overall score.  An increase of
over 5 points on BPST or DOLCE and increasing one levels or more will show a
success in the instruction. The data is used to see if curriculum is increasing
literacy skills, and to compare which curriculum helps students master phonemic
awareness at a quick pace.   

 Findings

o What do the qualitative data tell you? (attach visual data display such as tables, graphs,
etc.
 The qualitative data informed me about the outside sources that the students are
receiving, along with the extra support of guided reading groups. For round 1, the
qualitative data is informing me that most students to not have an outside
academic source aiding in there early literacy skills, aside from student 3, 4 and 7.

Above is the survey questions I interviewed each student with, attached with the coding strategies and
numerical I gave for each question to make analysis simple.
Below is the data I coded and received from each student:
 o What do the quantitative data tell you (attach a Descriptive Statistics excel document)

Attached below is the descriptive statistics collected (assessment scores based on BPST, DOLCE and
Reading Level)
The data is letting me know that all students are still reading at a kindergarten level, and have a
kindergarten level when it comes across the board for test scores in each category.

Another graph is attached showing students within each group.

The data confirms that each student needs an exponential amount of resource and support in all literacy
skills.
 Planning Next Round How has your analysis of these data informed your next steps?
o After reviewing and analyzing the data from round one, it has informed my next steps by
utilizing more hands on procedures with each group, as well as continuing to run each
group as they are now. There may be at least one student in each group that has a
learning disability (as shown as no growth or stagnant growth), which is being confirmed
by our academics team, but to see if that is the case, continue to teach each reading group.
A missed day may lead to lower assessment scores and a slow ability to grasp early
literacy skills needed to move on in grade levels and reading overall.
o For the next round, I will also correlate round 1 scores and round 2 scores to see which
reading foundational skill and curriculum is aiding in the students making the most
growth overall in early literacy skills.
 What are the data/artifacts that you will collect? (e.g., Student work? Notes
from observations? Interviews? Video?)
o I will continue to collect assessment scores and start field notes from student
observations.
 What are your data analysis strategies for qualitative data (e.g., coding,
memo-writing)
o For qualitative data, I will do field observation notes on each student individually, paying
close attention to what strategy they are using in each reading group.
 o I would like to make notes and correlate on how the students practice sight words.
o I will code the notes based on similar themes (reading strategies, curriculum derived
from)
 What are your data analysis strategies for quantitative date (e.g., descriptive
statistics)
o I will continue to collect scores for each student, and then in each group, average the
scores and compare them with the other groups. I will find the mean, median, standard
deviation, and variance to compare all groups.

 Literature Connections: Cite any sources here and briefly describe how the literature was
leveraged to inform your intervention and findings in this round.

Gibbons (2003) states that English learners are more proficient in nonverbal language, rather
than verbal language. I followed the theoretical framework that this source actively follows,
which is: Krashen’s theory, stating that learners will be able to learn through multiple
interactions through comprehension and acquisition of science knowledge (hands on, minds
on and supportive learning activities). Krashen’s theories are utilized in my research to help
describe theories on how and why English learners can utilize academic vocabulary.  The
researcher also used learning centers and modeled talk, which is something I did to
incorporate for my research while doing guided reading with them. 

A study done by Justice, Chen, Jiang and Logan (2019) looks at the implementation of reading
programs, which have been developed using evidence of other frameworks, by caregivers to
students with language impairment.  The source uses data starting from survey research,
which takes into account what the student has gone through in the early stages of their life,
and parent life. This journal mentions giving curriculum at home is as important as it is to
receive it at school, especially for language deficiencies.  Part of my qualitative data, I have
used a survey to also look into the home resources that my students may have, and take that
into account for the research. 

Gibbons, B. (2003). Supporting elementary science education for English learners: A

constructivist evaluation instrument. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), 371-

380. 

 
Justice, L., Chen, J., Jiang, H., Tambyraja, S., & Logan, J. (2019). Early-Literacy Intervention

Conducted by Caregivers of Children with Language Impairment: Implementation

Patterns Using Survival Analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1-15.