Round 2 Data Analysis and Round 3 Plan

Research Questions

The focus of my research is to understand how phonemic awareness instruction can

support students’ reading skills through phonemic awareness instruction. In Round 2 of my
research I aimed to determine to what extent phonemic awareness instruction is supporting
beginning readers to decode and read fluently through small group instruction. My research
questions are the following:

1. What happens when intensive phonemic awareness instruction is provided as an intervention

to struggling second-grade readers?
2. What are the impacts on decoding accuracy?
3. What are the impacts on reading fluency?
4. What are student’s opinions of the Heggerty Reading Program on their decoding and fluency
skills?

Intervention/Innovation

In Round 2, I taught ten phonemic awareness lessons. These lessons were delivered in a
small group with students in chairs on the carpet. Students had expressed in Round 1 through
student interviews that they were awfully uncomfortable sitting on the rug. The lessons I taught
included eight phonemic awareness skills that were presented in a sequential order. The lessons
included the following skills 1) Rhyme Recognition 2) Onset Fluency 3) Blending Words 4)
Isolating Final Sounds 5) Segmenting words 6) Adding Words 7) Deleting Words 8)
Substituting Words. Additionally, I reviewed letter names and sounds. Finally, each lesson ended
with a language awareness skill in which I said a sentence and students repeated the sentence
with the same expression and students counted the number of words in each sentence. I
continued using specific hand motions for each skill and students responded with the hand
motions (total physical response) throughout the intervention lessons. Research shows that total
physical response (TPR) helps students by sharpening their listening skills and helps students
with different learning modalities including kinesthetic and visual learners (Shi, 2018).

At the culmination of the ten intervention lessons, my focal students were given three
assessments including the basic phonics skills test (BPST), grade level reading fluency
assessment, and a phonemic awareness assessment. I also included an interview with each
student, so students could reflect on their experience and consider whether the phonemic
awareness lessons were helpful in their learning.

Data Collected

Students were assessed in February of 2022 for baseline data scores and again in March
and April of 2022 after completing two rounds of interventions. My focal students were assessed
using the BPST, Reading Fluency Passage by the University of Oregon, and the Heggerty
Phonemic Awareness Assessment. The data that has been included in the Round 2 memo is only
from four out of five focal students. My focal student Don, has missed a vast amount of school
the past several weeks and was not in attendance to participate in the intervention lessons
delivered in Round 2. I have not been successful in reaching the family, so I do not know
whether Lauren will be returning to school after break. Students are off track from April 18
through May 2, so I will be reaching out to the family during our time off track. Round 3 will
begin on the first day back from break which is on Monday, May 2, 2022. I am hoping Lauren
will be back in class for the beginning of Round 3, otherwise I will need to withdraw Lauren
from my research.

Data Analysis

Qualitative Data Analysis

I set out by reviewing my observation notes following the phonemic awareness lessons as
well as the student interview notes using open coding qualitative methodology. While reviewing
my notes I highlighted students’ perceptions toward the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness lessons.
I also went through my observation notes and began looking for codes and for themes. The
qualitative data revealed the majority of students found the phonemic awareness activities fun
and exciting. Through interviews, the four focal students also mentioned they felt good while
participating in the lessons and felt happy about their reading progress. Good and happy were
major themes throughout my interviews with the students. One focal student expressed that
sitting in chairs was much more comfortable. This was one of the minor changes I made after
listening to the feedback in Round 1. Through observation, students appeared engaged especially
after consistent use of total physical response (TPR). My four focal students used the TPR
motions on a steady basis with very minimal verbal prompting. What I am taking away is that the
students continue to enjoy the phonemic awareness lessons in small groups during Round 2 and
are feeling happy and proud of themselves. This indicates that using TPR is keeping students
engaged and is very important for student learning.

Quantitative Data Analysis

I began by reviewing the beginning phonics skills test (BPST). The test assesses several
skills including consonant sounds and names, consonant digraphs, short vowels, and one-syllable
words with five vowel patterns including the following: short vowels, final e, long vowel
digraphs, other vowel digraphs, and r-controlled. Additionally, two syllable patterns are also
examined. This assessment has been administered three times. Once to establish a baseline and
again at the conclusion of Round 1 and Round 2 to monitor student’ progress.

I also administered a reading fluency assessment by the University of Oregon. This

assessment is an extremely time-efficient assessment to track a students’ overall reading ability.
This is a one minute assessment that serves as a powerful indicator of overall reading
competence. This assessment is helping me answer two of my research questions: 1. What are
the impacts on decoding accuracy? 2. What are the impacts on reading fluency?
This assessment has been administered three times. Once to establish a baseline and at the wrap-
up of Round 1 and Round 2 to monitor student’ progress.
 Lastly, I administered the Phonemics Awareness assessment. This assessment assesses
nine phonemic awareness skills. The skill being assessed include: rhyme production, onset
fluency, blending phonemes, isolating final sounds, segmenting words into phonemes, isolating
medial sounds, adding initial phonemes, deleting initial phonemes, substituting initial phonemes.
This phonemic awareness assessment is helping me to progress monitor phonemic awareness
skills and answer one of my research questions: 1. What happens when intensive phonemic
awareness instruction is provided as an intervention to struggling second-grade readers? This
assessment has been administered two times. Once to establish a baseline and again in Round 2
to monitor students’ progress.

Findings

In analyzing the results of quantitative data, I began by analyzing the BPST. I found the
baseline mean increased from a baseline of 36 points to 48.5 points at the completion of Round
2. There are 91 points possible on the BPST assessment. There was a 12.5-point mean increase,
which is indicating that the phonemic awareness instruction is having a positive effect on
students’ decoding skills. Therefore, a continuation of intensive phonemic awareness skills is
supported.

Esmeralda has an overall score of 53 points out of 91. She identifies 21/21 of the
consonant letters and sounds. She presently knows 5/5 of the short vowel names and sounds.
Emmi is exhibiting growth in reading cvc words, consonant digraphs, consonant blends, and long
vowel words with final e. Some areas of limitation include inflectional endings and long vowel
digraphs.

Yolanda has a total score of 46 points out of 91. She is showing growth and recognizes
21/21 consonant letters and 5/5 of the short vowel names and sounds. Areas of strength include
short vowel words, consonant digraphs, and consonant blends. Areas of weakness include
reading words with inflectional endings, long vowel words with final e and words with long
vowel digraphs.

Roberto has a score of 44 points. He is also showing growth and recognizes 21/21
consonant letters and sounds. He also knows 5/5 of the short vowel names and sounds. His area
of strength is reading short vowel cvc words and consonant blends. He is showing growth in
reading consonant digraph words. His areas of need are reading words with inflectional endings,
long vowel words with final e, and long vowel digraphs.

Vicente has an overall score of 51 points and has shown the greatest growth in the BPST.
He can identify 21/21 consonant letters and sounds. Additionally, he recognizes 5/5 of the short
vowel names and sounds. His area of strength includes reading short vowel cvc words and
consonant blends. He has showing excellent growth in reading consonant digraphs and long
vowel words with final e. Areas of need include reading words with inflectional endings and
long vowel digraphs. Please view overall BPST totals and growth in figures 1.1. and 1.2
Figure 1.1

BPST Assessment
60
53
51 51
50 48
46 46
44 44
40 39
40 36
33 33
30 26

20

10

0
Lauren Esmeralda Yolanda Roberto Vicente

BPST Baseline BPST End of Round 1 BPST End of Round 2

Figure 1.2

Students' BPST BPST End of BPST End of

Scores Baseline Round 1 Round 2
Lauren 26 33
Esmeralda 46 51 53
Yolanda 36 44 46
Roberto 33 40 44
Vicente 39 48 51

Total 180 216 194

Mean 36 43.2 48.5
Median 36 44 48.5
Mode #N/A #N/A #N/A
Highest 46 51 53
Lowest 26 33 44
Range 20 18 9
Std 7.3824115 7.04982269 4.20317340
Deviation 3 3 4
17.6666666
Variance 54.5 49.7 7
 Next, I examined the reading fluency results. By looking at the reading fluency bar graph
below, students were able to demonstrate progress from the baseline data taken in February to
the Round 2 data taken in March. Reading fluency is the ability to read a text correctly, quickly,
and with expression. Typically, a fluent reader doesn’t have to stop and decode each word, but
rather words will be read smoothly and automatically. Fluency is critical in helping students with
their reading comprehension.

After conducting Round 2 interventions, my focal students are all showing growth and
making gradual gains in their reading fluency. There is growth from February when I collected
baseline data which is very encouraging and helping me see the positive outcomes on what can
happen when intensive phonemic awareness instruction is provided as an intervention to
struggling second-grade readers. After reviewing the Round 2 fluency data I saw the class
average increase from 21.6 wcpm on the baseline assessment to an average of 42.5 after the
culmination of Round 2. This data tells me the phonemic awareness lessons may be contributing
to the growth of my students’ reading fluency.

Esmeralda made a gain of 14 words count per minute (wcpm) since February while
Yolanda had an increase of 17 wcpm. Roberto made a 16 wcpm gain and Vicente had an
increase of 19 wcpm. These steady increases in all of my focal students reading fluency is
validating how the phonemic awareness lessons are impacting their reading fluency scores
positively.

Please view figure 1.3 and figure 1.4.

Figure 1.3

Reading Fluency
60
50
50 45
Words Per Minute (WPM)

42
40
33 33
30 31 33
29
30 25
23
19
20
9
10
4
0
Lauren Esmeralda Yolanda Roberto Vicente

Fluency Baseline Fluency-End of Round 1 Fluency-End of Round 2

Figure 1.4

Fluency Fluency
Students' Fluency End of Round End of Round
Scores Baseline 1 2
Lauren 4 9
Esmeralda 19 23 33
Yolanda 25 30 42
Roberto 29 33 45
Vicente 31 33 50

Total 108 128 170

Mean 21.6 25.6 42.5
Median 25 30 43.5
Mode #N/A 33 #N/A
Highest 31 33 50
Lowest 4 9 33
Range 27 24 17
Std 10.8535708 10.1390334 7.14142842
Deviation 4 8 9
Variance 117.8 102.8 51

Lastly, I looked at the phonemics awareness assessment. This assessment has a

possibility of 48 points. I administered the assessment in February 2022 as a baseline test and
again in the closing of Round 2. After reviewing the Round 2 phonemic awareness data I
observed the class average increase from 28 points (58% test average) on the baseline assessment
to an average of 39.5 points (82% test average) at the culmination of Round 2. The gains in
phonemic awareness skills are very encouraging as this indicates that children might be more
successful with their reading and writing skills. Children who have phonemic awareness are able
to break apart words into phonemes in order to read a word and write a word (Chapman, M.L.,
2003). In analyzing the phonemic awareness test, the focal students have strengths in onset
fluency, blending, isolating final sounds, deleting and substituting initial phonemes.
Areas of need include more instruction with rhyme production and segmenting words into
phonemes. Please see figure 1.6 and figure 1.7.
Figure 1.6

Phonemic Awareness (PA) Assessment

45 42
40 40
40
36
35 33
Total ( 48 points Possible)

32
30
30
25
25
20
20
15
10
5
0
Lauren Esmeralda Yolanda Roberto Vicente

PA Baseline PA End of Round 2

Figure 1.7

Students' PA End of
Scores PA Baseline Round 2
Lauren 25
Esmeralda 20 36
Yolanda 30 42
Roberto 32 40
Vicente 33 40

Total 140 158

Mean 28 39.5
Median 30 40
Mode #N/A 40
Highest 33 42
Lowest 20 36
Range 13 6
Std 5.43139024 2.51661147
Deviation 6 8
6.33333333
Variance 29.5 3
Planning Next Round

The data collected from the culmination of Round 2 is continuing to indicate that the
phonemic awareness lessons are essential and plausibly be the reason students are showing
growth in their reading skills. I am seeing progression in students’ scores after administering the
BPST, reading fluency assessment, and the phonemic awareness assessment. I will resume the
implementation of the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness lessons daily for 15-20 minutes in Round
3. The lessons will continue to be delivered in a small group setting to provide more focused and
intensive instruction. Struggling readers benefit most by receiving additional instruction in small
group or one-to-one setting (Foorman, B.R., & Torgesen, J., 2001). I will continue to progress
monitor students in Round 3 using the BPST, fluency assessment, and the phonemic awareness
assessment.

Literature Connections

Through this Round 2, I referenced the literature. I delivered the phonemic awareness
lessons in a small group. Research shows that there are many elements that support struggling
readers nevertheless struggling readers benefit most by receiving additional instruction in small
group or one-to-one setting (Foorman, B.R., & Torgesen, J., 2001). After referring to the
literature above which indicated instruction for struggling readers needs to be more intensive and
supportive I delivered the intervention lessons in a small group setting in Round 2. The research
also supports the need for additional time with at risk students so as I move forward into Round
3, I will teach two intervention lessons a day in a small group instructional setting using total
physical response (TPR). Using TPR promotes equity in the classroom by accommodating
different learning styles (Shi, 2018). TPR will support my kinesthetic learners.
Reading Fluency Passage Student Copy Form 2-1

Jessie was a rabbit. She was small and very, very quiet. She had
soft grey fur and a snow-white tail. She lived in a big field with many
other animals. There were lizards and snakes. She saw them mostly in
the summer when it was hot. There were tiny mice. They liked to run
really fast. The mice got nervous if they were out in the open for very
long, so Jessie did not see them too often. Many birds lived in the field
too. Some were small. Others were big. Jessie was not afraid of these
birds. But there was one type of bird that Jessie was afraid of. Her
mom told her to be careful when this type of bird was around. So
Jessie always looked carefully before she went into the field to play.
She wanted to know if there was a hawk around!
One day Jessie was hopping around the field. She stopped now
and then to eat bits of grass. She also stopped to check to make sure
there were no hawks in the sky. Then, she found a patch of extra tasty
grass. It was sweet and moist. It tasted better than anything Jessie
had ever eaten before. After a little while, Jessie remembered what
her mother had said. She checked the sky for danger. She saw a hawk
flying far up in the sky. She turned and ran back to the bushes where
her home was hidden. She was lucky the hawk had not seen her.

© 2006 University of Oregon

 ROUND THREE Research Plan

Round 3
Context I plan to continue my action research plan at my school site in a second-grade classroom. The recent teacher strike concluded
Brief info about your on Sunday, April 3rd which allowed me exactly two weeks for planned intervention lessons and assessments. I currently teach
school, subject, grade, twenty-two second-grade students at a community charter school located in northern California. I have worked with five
class, students students (three female students and two male students). At this time, I was only able to work with four focal students. One of
my focal students need to dropped in Round 3 due to prolonged absenteeism.

Research Question(s)
Research Question(s) 1. What happens when intensive phonemic awareness instruction is provided as an intervention to struggling second-grade
readers?
(If you have more than 1
2. What are the impacts on decoding accuracy?
research question-
highlight he RQs that are 3. What are the impacts on reading fluency?
most relevant to this 4. What are student’s opinions of the Heggerty reading program on their decoding and fluency skills?
round)
Round 3 Planned Intervention: Relevance Statement:
Intervention/ Describe the intervention in general terms Explain the relevance of the intervention to student learning
Innovations Describe the instructional strategies for implementing the intervention    Focused on learning outcomes/ Focused on the specific intervention.

How will you organize The Heggerty Phonemic Awareness Primary program is a In order to support my students with their decoding skills and
learning experiences series of auditory lessons that will be taught daily as a reading fluency, I will provide lessons that are focused on
for students that supplemental instruction program in addition to the already building students’ phonemic awareness skills. For the
address your research standing literacy curriculum. I will continue to implement supplementary instruction, I will be using the Heggerty Primary
questions(s)?
the structured lessons in Round 3 that are designed and Curriculum to study if the improvement in phonemic awareness
Cite sources as needed
provide daily instruction in eight phonological and phonemic skills increases the acquisition of reading skills. Children who
awareness skills which will take approximately 15-20 have phonemic awareness are able to break apart words into
Attach additional minutes each day to deliver in the classroom. I plan to phonemes in order to read a word and write a word (Chapman,
lesson artifacts deliver these lessons in a small group setting and each lesson M.L., 2003).
(optional) will include the following components:
 Eight phonemic awareness skills
 One letter name and letter sound recognition activity
 One language awareness (weeks 1-8)
 Rhyming and onset fluency
 Isolating final or medial sounds
 Blending and segmenting sounds
 Adding and deleting phonemes
 Substituting phoneme
Round 3 Data to be Qualitative Data Quantitative Data
collected

What are the  Field Notes  Basic Phonic Skills Test (BPST)
data/artifacts that you  Student Interview  Reading Fluency Passage Assessment (University of
will collect? Just a
Oregon)
list.
 Phonemic Awareness Assessment
e.g.: Student work?
Notes from
observations?
Interviews? Video?

Qualitative Data Analysis Strategies

Data Analysis Plans
In regards to the qualitative data component of my study in Round 3, I will continue taking field notes on my focus students
What are your data and be an active participant observer. The field notes and video recordings of the interventions will be reviewed and I will
analysis strategies for
examine them using open coding qualitative methodology. I will examine how my students are reacting and accessing their
qualitative data (e.g.,
coding, memos)
attitudes and physical/verbal responses during the intervention instruction. I will then code the data and examine the data for
Explain your analysis themes and patterns. Lastly, I will be conducting an interview to evaluate student’s opinions of the Heggerty Primary
plans specifically for Curriculum on their decoding and reading fluency skills.
the data in this round

Quantitative Data Analysis Strategies

What are your data
analysis strategies for I will be using descriptive statistics for all the quantitative data collected in Round 3. I will administer the Heggerty phonemics
quantitative date (e.g., awareness assessment. This assessment has nine strands and will be administered to monitor student progress in the second
descriptive statistics) round of interventions. I intend to use this assessment to examine what happens when intensive phonemic awareness instruction
Explain your analysis
is provided as an intervention to struggling second-grade readers. I will also be administering the Basic Phonics Skills (BPST)
plans specifically for
the data in this round
test in Round 3. The BPST assessment has a component that includes the blending of single syllable and polysyllabic words out
of context that will assist me in monitoring my focus students’ decoding skills. I will also be utilizing descriptive statistics to
interpret this qualitative data. Lastly, I will be administering a grade-level fluency test in all rounds to examine if phonemic
awareness instruction is impacting my focus students’ reading fluency. I will continue using descriptive statistics to interpret
these findings as well.
Literature Source(s) Chapman, M.L. (2003). Phonemic awareness: Clarifying what we know. Literacy Teaching
cited in APA
Cite any sources here
and briefly describe
how the literature will
be leveraged to inform
your research
questions,
intervention, data
collection and analysis
plans.
Foorman, B.R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical Elements of Classroom and Small-Group Instruction Promote Reading Success
Shi, T. (2018). A study of the TPR method in the teaching of English to primary school students. Theory and Practice in
and Learning, 7 (1-2), 91-114.
In this article, the author, Marilyn Chapman clarifies what we know about phonemic awareness (PA). Chapman
provides important information about phonemic awareness and explains how phonemic awareness relates to literacy
development. This helps my understanding on how PA skills impact my focal students reading skills. She provides
findings on what is known about learning and teaching phonemic awareness. She also explains what educators should
expect young children to learn and when. Chapman also introduces classroom-based strategies for assessing phonemic
awareness. Additionally, she explains how teachers can foster development of phonemic awareness. Finally, she
provides some classroom-based interventions for children who need additional support in developing phonemic
awareness.
in All Children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203-212.
This piece of literature is significant in my research as it provides information on how to support my at-risk students.
The interventions I am implementing started as whole group instruction due to my research indicating that phonemic
awareness benefits all students. This article however suggested instruction for struggling readers need to be more
intensive and more supportive. This made me think about the importance of providing additional supports to my at-risk
students in a smaller group setting. In current practice, it has been extremely difficult to check for understanding in a
large group setting due to the current distancing and mask mandates in our district. This research supports the need for
additional time with at risk students and small group instruction so as I move forward I am going to start round 2 with
additional support in a small group instructional setting. Small group instruction will furthermore allow me to carefully
listen to each students’ verbal response during our phonemic awareness lessons and therefore give immediate feedback
and encouragement which is another element that was discussed in this article which identifies the need for more
emotional and cognitive support for at risk students. There are many elements that support struggling readers but it was
emphasized that struggling readers benefit most by receiving additional instruction in small group or one-to-one setting.
Language Studies, 8(8), 1087-1098. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0808.25
This piece of literature is important to my research as it provides an explanation of TPR (total physical response). The
Heggerty program, which I am implementing suggest the use of TPR, however not all my students were actually
participating with the physical hand motions and I wasn’t clear if I should persist that my students utilize the hand
motions or back off. During my first-round off instruction, I observed students who would just listen, verbally respond,
and observe me while other students listened, verbally responded, and employed the TPR hand motions that I was
modeling. This had me pondering and I wanted to explore if TPR had any major benefits in teaching phonemic
 awareness. As I started looking for studies in the use of TPR, the research I read did affirm many positive benefits in
utilizing TPR. This article by Tingting Sing specifically stated that using TPR to teach students English can ensure
students develop better listening abilities. Additionally, TPR enables students to use their hands and brain in their
learning. TPR actions also showed that they could help strengthen connections in the brain playing a significant role in
long term memory. Utilizing TPR also promotes equity in the classroom by accommodating different learning styles.
Furthermore, I also learned that TPR helps arouse students’ learning interest and can reduce the pressure off students by
creating a more relaxed and playful learning atmosphere. As I move forward in my future rounds, I have come to the
conclusion that there are many benefits to using TPR and will continue to model and encourage all my students to
utilize TPR in future phonemic awareness lessons.

Attach Notes or Additional Materials (lesson plans, rubrics, materials you plan to use in teaching, etc. (Optional)