DATA

ANALYSIS
MEMO ROUND
2
EDCI 253 A/B: Transforming Curriculum

Tina Tran

April 12, 2020

  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 second data set, there were no obstructions to learning time. Students receiving
Heggerty instruction mainly focused on phonemic awareness skills. For the second round,
instead of oral repetition of different literacy skills, a writing piece was adding to focus on
phonemes and writing out sounds within words. Students receiving Scholastic Guided Reading
Strategies instruction started with site word practice (read, spell, write, repeat), 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 (read, spell, write, repeat), 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

o
 Findings from Previous Round What have you learned from the previous round of data collection and
analysis and how did this informed this round?
o Per the previous rounds of data collection, it is confirmed that each student in each group is
reading at a kindergarten level that range from no to little help from an outside academic source
(library visits, siblings or parents to help, etc).
o The data informed this round by making note of slowing down the group lessons, and involving
more hands on (writing incorporated into each lesson) to help with retention of sight words and
differential abilities in early literacy strategies.
o After collecting the data, I am going to be comparing the scores to see if there is a correlation
between scores, and a correlation between curriculum used per group.
o For the second round, I also collected notes from student observation during reading groups.
 Data Collected 
o The data that I collected were
 Notes from observations
 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 qualitative data I collected were field notes from student observations. I made quick
notes based on what students did or said throughout their reading group.
 I then reviewed my notes, and coded the notes into themes of reading strategies, and then
coded again where those strategies came from (Heggerty, SIPPS or Scholastic).
 Below shows some of the notes I made, and then the graph shows the codes I organized
the observations into. I color coded which strategy came from which curriculum.
 The variables derive from unique names we taught the students.
 Eagle Eye: look at the picture, use the beginning letter
 Fishy Lips: mouth is ready to say the first sound
 Stretchy snake : they slowly stretch each letter sound together
 Chunky monkey broke the word into chunks
 Trying Lion: re read the sentence to see if it made sense
 Skippy frog: skip the word, went back to try again
 Flippy dolphin: flip the vowel sound (tried both long and short sounds to see
which one made sense)
 Initial consonant: only go the first consonant sound correctly
 End consonant: only got the end consonant sound correctly
 Sight word automatic: knew the sight words automatically
 Heggerty strategies:
 Stretchy Snake
 Chunky Monkey
 Flippy dolphin
 Scholastic strategies:
 Eagle eye
 Fishy lips
 Trying lion
 Skippy frog
 SIPPS strategies:
 Initial consonant
 End consonant

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.   

 I also used descriptive statistics to view if there were any correlations between sight word
practice and their DOLCE sight word score.
 Findings
o What do the qualitative data tell you? (attach visual data display such as tables, graphs, etc.
 The qualitative data tells me that the students are using the strategies learned. Whether
they learned it from their reading group or not, it lets me know that the strategies are at
least being used.
 Scholastic curriculum enriches and introduces more strategies to early reading foundation
skills than the other two curriculums.
 Comparing the qualitative data to the quantitative data, student 6 is showing exceptional
skill improvement and the most increase.
 By utilizing more skills across all of the curriculums, it is helping aid the students in
mproving reading scores overall.

o What do the quantitative data tell you (attach a Descriptive Statistics excel document)
 The quantitative data is informing me that, now after 4 weeks since the study has started,
not all kids are in the kindergarten reading level, we have an increase in two students,
now reading at a first grade level.
 Group 3 has the newest amount of English language use within the classroom, and
overall in reading groups.
 Group 1 has the highest average score in reading, involving a mixture of languages and
overall English language foundation.
 Group 1 and 2 have similar data sets, they are a few points away of being identical, group
2 has a student that is not an English learner, but is considered at-risk, and needing social
emotional needs group.
 Although group one has the highest average overall score, alphabet recognition score is
low compared to group 2. (They are understanding sight words, faster than grasping an
understanding of the alphabet phonemes).
 Overall looking at the groups as individual students, every student increased in some
ways in their reading literature scores.
 Student 6 had the biggest increase in scores.
 Looking at the correlation graph, it is seen that the more the students reviewed sight
words on their free time (finished work early, free choice time during classroom time), it
had a positive correlation in their overall sight word recognition.
o
 Planning Next Round How has your analysis of these data informed your next steps?
 How has your analysis of these data informed your next steps?
o After analyzing the assessment scores, and field observations, it shows that there is a positive
correlation between reading groups with their individual reading score.
o I will continue to run reading groups as scheduled, adding in the extra writing step for sight word
recognition has a positive effect.
 How will you organize learning experiences for students that address your research questions(s)?
o Reading groups are utilizing homogenous groups, the 16 students had similar reading levels from
the start. Each student is an English Learner (excluding one social emotional needs student) that
are new to the US. I will continue to run guided reading groups, sticking to the curriculum that is
assigned to the group to compare which group has the biggest increase in early reading literacy
skills and recognition of sight words.
 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 field notes from student observations. I want to
also do another individual face-to-face survey with the same questions as round 1 to see if
anything has changed from receiving academic help outside of the classroom.
 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 on how the students will help each other within the group to read or
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. For round 3, I would like to analyze if there is a correlation
between reading strategy use and increase in text levels.
 Literature Connections:  Cite any sources here and briefly describe.

 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000) did a study to examine different

reading strategies and the finding and determinations it provides.  It focused on Alphabetics (phonemic

awareness instruction/ sounds within words), Phonics (letter sounds), fluency (orally with speed and

accuracy), independent silent reading, comprehension, vocabulary and teacher preparedness (class size

reduction and teacher education).  It also includes a study on computer technology and reading

instruction. It states that technology has a positive role on reading strategies, as long as it is used

correctly, although it is difficult to draw conclusions for general statements. This journal uses

metacognition skills for reading, in which the teacher specifically teaches students reading strategies. 

Scholastic Guided Reading provides strategies to not only help students become independent readers

and problem solve independently in reading, but provides a baseline level to introducing reading to new

readers.  The baseline of starting with letter name, and sounds sets the importance that motivation is

built before reading frustration sets in (National Reading Panel). They also pointed out that it is

important to recognize the goals of phonics instruction is provided to students to guide them towards

independence.  This helped me in determining reading strategies to teach my students.  

Another research that helped me with my mixed research design was by Schwartz (2019). This more

recent and modern research sheds some light on Orton Gillingham teaching method which helps in tier

1,2 and 3 students.  The researcher wanted to prove that the effective of the OG method can be

compared to Heggerty’s phonemic awareness program and words their way.  It compares the reading

outcomes of a first grade class using Heggerty and words their way, with another class using Fundations.

It found that the class utilizing Fundations program worked significantly better for all students in

comparison to Heggerty and Words Their Way.  The researcher calls attention to the whole-language

approach to teaching reading.  Whole-language approach to reading stresses the importance of students

thinking about their thinking (metacognition) and making sense of their skills to be used in reading and
 writing, as opposed to just remembering the letter sounds and the symbols that correspond with it.  I

have used Words Their Way for phonics lessons in my class, and was turned toward Heggerty instead to

increase reading levels and site word recognition with my students.  This research has shown me that I

should look into Fundations and the components that the program utilizes to possibly bring up to

administration to use in our schools. Foundation utilizes many skills that I want to implement along

with Heggerty and SIPPS, such as: writing sorts, word hunts, speed sorts, blind sorts, buddy sorts and

spelling meaning sorts.  

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel:

Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading

and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: Retrieved from

https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/smallbook

Schwartz, S., Sherblom, Stephen, Hutcheson, Jill, Winslow, Kevin, & Stuckey, Kim. (2019). A Comparative

Analysis of Student Achievement of First Grade Students Using Fundations vs. Heggerty and Words

Their Way, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.