Round 3 Data Analysis Memo

Research Question: What happens to students’ phonological awareness when they engage in
multimodal small group learning activities?
1. How does using letter sounds intervention support students to understand the concept of
alphabet sounds and using it towards other phonological skills?
2. What happens to the knowledge of rhyming words for preschool children, when engage
in explicit instruction activities? More precisely, how does it increase a child’s ability to
identify rhymes, identify beginning sounds, and more aware of word sounds?
3. How does using a process of translating visual codes into meaningful language support
students to understand the concept of decoding letters into words and phonological
awareness?

Intervention:

This intervention was influenced by the eight measures intervention that was used to
assess children’s phonological sensitivity from the second literature review (Anthony et al., 2002
p. 8). I used 3 of the measures from the 8 in my intervention. These 3 measures are chosen due to
PA skills that focal students are still in need of. The first measure is Rhyme oddity, this
intervention is similar to round 2. However, with modification in round 3 students will be given
3 CVC rhyming picture words and asked to select the word not rhyming with or does not sound
the same. Compared to round 2 where children were asked to select from the three on-set
rhyming words that rhymed or sound the same. The second measure is Word blending, using
picture words to create compound words. For example, showing two picture words and naming
them such as: “There is a cow and boy”, then have the child produce the word using the pictures.
The third measure is Word elision which requires students to delete a single-syllable word from a
compound word. This is similar to the word blending intervention however, it’s the reverse by
removing the picture-word to create the deleted word. Focal students will be given two pictures
such as: “Here is butter and fly”, then have the child say the remaining picture word after
removing the other. As a result, the three measures I am using in my intervention, research
indicates that learning the skills from the measures will provide children with emerging literacy
skills to benefit from reading instruction, reading faster, and having better reading than children
who possess fewer skills from emergent literacy (Anthony et al., 2002 p.2).

In addition to the three measures, a modification of Letter-sound knowledge from round

1, is influenced by the first literature review (Mathisen, 2014 p. 18). Letter tiles, a task that
requires students to model 3-letter CVC words selected using letter tiles. Utilizing letter tiles,
students will be asked to identify the letter sounds. Then remove a letter tile as directed with the
beginning, middle, or ending letters. Next students will be asked to identify letter sounds that are
left. I focused this intervention on using 3 letters CVC (consonant, vowel, consonant) rhyming
words. CVC words are easier to sound out and as each letter presents a single sound. There is no
blending or diphthongs with CVC words which will make it easier for preschoolers to achieve
and develop fluency. The Letter tiles I am using in my intervention were studies researchers used
involving four- to five-year-old children who were identified as having a high risk of reading and
phonological awareness difficulties. Participants were taught in four different explicitly groups in
sound categorization. As a result, Letter tiles showed a major increase in spelling and reading
(Mathisen, 2014 p. 16).

Data Collection:

 Observations of engagements during small group.

 Rubric to analyze data in this round.
 Post-DRDP levels
 Post Read Right from the Start

Data Analysis:

 I will be using mixed methods when it comes to analyzing the data.

Qualitative Data:

 Observations of engagements during small group: I will be observing which of the 4

activities from the intervention focal students find most engaging and which activities
give a finding of a major increase in PA skills. I will be observing 2 focal students per
day each week on how much time (minutes) they spend on each activity. Then I will look
over the observation notes to write up any themes, patterns, and findings.
 Lastly, I utilized a Phonemic Awareness Skills rubric at the end of each round. The rubric
has 5 Phonological Awareness skills and four levels including a description of what
performing to a certain level on each scale looks like per skill. An observation scale using
four levels will be used. Next, I will compare for any growth in the four-level observation
scale in each round. This rubric will be measuring the accuracy of the observations and
will give me information about my overall findings. An example of one section from the
Phonemic Awareness Skills Rubric will be displayed below:
PA SKILLS 1 2 3 4 Level/Score
RHYMING Student Student Student Student
recognized and recognized and recognized and recognized and
produced produced produced produced
rhyming words rhyming words rhyming words rhyming words
with with 20-60% with 60-80% with 80%
accuracy accuracy accuracy
>20% accuracy
*Students will be presented with 5 items for each section. Score: /20

 Post DRDP child assessment is a strength-based child assessment focusing on age-based

norms. Assessment will be measured on observation of 6 developmental levels. The pre-
 assessment was given to students during the first 60 days of school (Fall). Post-
assessment will be done in this round. Next, I will compare for any growth from pre and
post assessments. I will display the data in a graph in my findings.

Quantitative Data:
 I will be using the same rubric to analyze data from each round of my study. The rubric
has 5 Phonological Awareness skills, measuring a level on each scale. In addition to
scoring 5 items per skill on each scale, and the Pre assessment of Read Right from the
Start. Next, I will compare for any growth in the scores of each round. The rubric scores
will be calculated, and I will display the data in graphs.
 Post-assessment of Read Right from the Start, will compare for any growth from pre and
post assessments.

Findings:
In my intervention, I worked with focal students three times a week, and one activity per
day. I worked with focal students on Rhyme oddity Mondays, combined Word blending and
elision together on Wednesdays, and Letter tiles on Fridays. I combined Word blending and
elision together because the activity is similar. The only difference between the two activities is
putting picture words together or taking away picture words. In my qualitative analysis
observation findings during small group; focal students were most engaged in the Word blending
and elision activity (43%). The longest time recorded with this activity and all other activities is
ten minutes, which is throughout the entire small group time. Focal students enjoyed the
challenge of what the next Word blend would be. In addition to enjoying the pleasure of
dictating which card of choice to remove for Word elision. Letter Sound Tiles is the second most
engaged activity (32%). The average time (mode) spent on this activity was seven minutes. The
majority of focal students begin to lose interest after modeling the third to fourth word. The least
engaging activity for focal students is Rhyme oddity (25%). The shortest time recorded for this
activity and other activities is about 3 minutes. Students were more distracted by identifying the
pictures before becoming engaged in the activity.
Based on the results of the rubric scale, students made a significant percentage gain in
learning PA skills. Showing that the interventions are supporting focal students and supporting
their growth. Focal students are gaining more knowledge as I am rating them with the same
rubric used at the end of each round. Level 2 is rated as the highest scale and Level 4 as the
lowest scale, the same as the last two rounds. However, the increase in percentage in all rounds
shows that learning is taking place with the interventions. A chart level of focal students in this
round is reflected below in Table 1.
From looking at the beginning of the year baseline DRDP pre-assessment, 38% of
students in my classroom were rated in the lower levels in the measure (LLD 8) Phonological
Awareness (DRDP (2015) Preschool Comprehensive View for use with preschool-age
children. (n.d.). That 38% of students became my focal students in this research. The DRDP
 post-assessment shows that there is 0% of focal students or students are in the lower levels
(Exploring Middle and Exploring Later). An observation made when assessing at the end of
this round, is that focal students gained at least twice the knowledge in PA. A bar graph of
the DRDP pre and post assessment will be displayed in Graph 1 below.

Table 1. Rubric Level Scale Round 3 (n=8)

Level Scale Percentag Percentag R-1 R-2 Percentag R-2 R-3
Round e of e of e of
(In round 3,
students students students
12% of focal
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 students are
rated in Level
LEVEL 1 1, with a
decrease of
20% 42% 17% -84.746% 12% -34.483% 34.483% to a
ACCURAC higher level.
Y 55% of focal
LEVEL 2 students are
rated in Level 2
20-60% 39% 50% +24.719 55% +9.5238 with an
ACCURAC % % increase of
Y 9.5238% from
LEVEL 3 round 2 to
round 3. 25%
60-80% 17% 28% +48.889 25% -11.321% of focal
ACCURAC % students in level
Y 3 with a
LEVEL 4 decrease of
11.321% to a
80% 2% 5% +85.714 8% +46.154 higher level.
ACCURCY % % 8% of focal
students are
rated in level 4 with an increase of 46.154% from round 2 to round 3)

Graph 1 DRDP Post-Assessment (N=24)

 DRDP POST-ASSESSMENT
10 9 9
9 8
8 7
7 6 6
6 5
5 4
4
3 2
2 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
r r e r r
rli
e te dl rli
e te dl
e
Ea La id Ea La id
g M g M
ng in g in
g rin g
ati ild in ld lo in
gr
u ild i p or
te
B
B u Bu Ex pl
In Ex

Pre-assessment Post-assessment Focal students

(The post-assessment shows that 0% of all students are measured in Exploring Middle and
Later (lowest developmental levels), 38% are measured in Building Earlier, 37% are
measured in Building Middle, 25% are measured in Building Later, and 0% measured in
Integrating Earlier (highest developmental level). As for focal students, 4.17% are
measured in Building Early, 25% are measured in Building Later, and 0% measured in
Integrating Earlier.) n=8

In my Quantitative data analysis findings, all eight focal students have improved from
their rubric scores and pre- to post-assessment. The findings of this study indicate that the
measures and letter tiles intervention appear to support my preschool classroom. Based on
the research question, the process of translating visual codes into meaningful language
supported students to understand the concept of decoding letters into words and phonological
awareness. Results from the rubric scores show that there is a significant growth especially,
in Rhyming and Phoneme segmentation. Moreover, with significant increases in all other PA
skills. Although there were some distractions during the interventions, students were able to
grasp the concept. For instance, at the beginning of the Word blending and elision
intervention, some students were very distracted by the pictures in the picture words. They
spend more time asking questions or identifying the pictures in the picture words. However,
as the intervention continued, focal students gained a better visual of how words are
manipulated. A chart of the Rubric scores will be shown in Table 2 below.
As for the post-assessment for Read Right from the Start, the results also show a
successful increase from the pre-assessment. All eight focal students have improved from
their pre-assessment to their post-assessment. While analyzing the data focal students were
able to exceed a 12.5% in Word awareness, 32.653% in Syllable awareness, 115.79% in
Rhyming and 94.737% in Onset and rime. In addition to exceeding a 4.878% in Rhyming
 from the rubric, and 16.216% in Phoneme Isolation. Overall, the outcomes of the
interventions are an important part of the assessment gain.

Table 2. Rubric Score Round 3 Chart (n=8)

PA SKILLS ROUND ROUN R-1 R-2 ROUND R-2 R-3
1 D2 3
Rhyming 17% 20% +16.216% 21% +4.878%
Phoneme Isolation 19% 17% -11.111% 20% +16.216%

Phoneme 20% 19% -5.1282% 19% +0%

Manipulation
Phoneme Blending 22% 21% -4.6513% 18% -15.385%
Phoneme 22% 23% +4.4444% 22% -4.4444%
Segmentation
(This round rubric scoring shows that there was an increase of 4.878% with focal students
in Rhyming (21%) from round 2 to 3, Phoneme Isolation (20%) with an increase of
16.216% from round 2 to round 3, Phoneme Manipulation (19%) with an increase of 0%
from round 2 to round 3, Phoneme Blending (18%) with a decrease of 15.385% from round
2 to round 3, and Phoneme Segmentation (22%) with a decrease of 4.4444%). A bar graph
of this chart will be displayed below as well:
Graph 2. Rubric Score Bar Graph (n=8)

Rubric Score Bar Graph

35
30
30 28
26 26
25 24

20

17 18
15 16
14 15
10

5
9 10 11 12 12
0
1 2 3 4 5

Round 1 rubric scores Round 2 rubric scores Round 3 rubric scores

(Bar graph of Rubric Score results comparing all three rounds)

Table 3. Read Right from the Start Post Test Results Chart (n=8)
Assessment Skills Pre-test Post-test Pre Post
scores scores
Word Awareness 34% 30% +12.5%
Syllable Awareness 57% 41% +32.653%
Rhyming 4% 15% +115.79%
Onset and Rime 5% 14% +94.737%

(Chart of Read Right from the Start. Post assessment shows 30% of focal students in Word
awareness with an increase of 12.5% from pre to post scores, 41% in Syllable awareness
with an increase of 32.653% from pre to post scores, 15% in Rhyming with an increase of
115.79% from pre to post scores, and 14% in Onset and Rime with an increase of 94.737%
from pre to post). A bar graph of this chart will be displayed below as well:
Graph 3. Read Right from the Start Pre/Post Results Graph (n=8)

Pre/Post Results: Graph

Pre-test Post test
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
Word Awareness Syllable Awareness Rhyming Onset and Rime

(Bar graph of Read Right from the Start results comparing pre and post assessment)

Planning next round:

According to my Rubric score, although there is a gain in the scores; the results do show a
decrease in the percentage in some skills. Besides the scoring, looking as a whole; focal
students met goals of upgrading to a higher level. However, it is still clear that PA skill is still
an area of need support to be prepared for kindergarten. I would have to modify the
interventions to slowly transition out of picture words to only print words. As I mentioned
earlier, based on the decreased percentage from the rubric score; those skills will be part of the
next plan.

Literature Connections:
Mathisen. (2014). Best practices of reading instruction for emergent readers pre-k through first

grade [California State University, Sacramento].

https://csu-csus.esploro.exlibrisgroup.com/esploro/outputs/graduate/Best-practices-of-

reading-instruction-for/99257830916601671#file-0
Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., & Cantor, B. G.

(2002). Structure of preschool phonological sensitivity: overlapping sensitivity to rhyme,

words, syllables, and phonemes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82(1), 65–

92. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2002.2677

These two works of literature are the influences on my interventions and research study. The first
literature talks about the success of letter tiles that I used in the intervention. The author explains
the direct, explicit teaching relating to narrowing achievement gaps, and reading success. In the
second literature, the authors present their concept of decoding visual text and the success of
research from the past and present that supports this study. Also, it has an influence on my
interventions in this round of study. In addition to the measures that are behind what they call
“phoneme sensitivity.” The authors also talked about finding a connection between rhyme and
phoneme sensitivity. However, in their findings, they found that rhyme provides a minor sound-
letter correlation as phoneme sensitivity which words can be read by letter-sound correlations.