Sierra Nevada College

THE LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE APPROACH

IN SECOND GRADE READING

An Action Research Project submitted in partial fulfillment

of the Requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Teaching

by

Jaime M. Milner

Dr. Jeanne Grant/Thesis Advisor

December 2008
 We recommend that the thesis by Jaime M. Milner
Prepared under the supervision be accepted in partial
Fulfillment for the degree of

MASTER of ARTS in TEACHING

________________________________________________________________________
Jeanne Grant, Ed.D., Thesis Advisor

________________________________________________________________________
Lindee Witt, M.A., Committee Member

________________________________________________________________________
Judy Dunkerly, M.A., Committee Member

December 2008
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ v
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... viii
Chapter I.............................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
Background ................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 2
Research Question ...................................................................................................... 2
Significance and Utility of the Study .......................................................................... 3
Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................. 4
Definitions of Key Terms ........................................................................................... 5
Chapter II ............................................................................................................................ 7
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................. 7
The Language Experience Approach .......................................................................... 7
Misconceptions of the Language Experience Approach ............................................ 8
LEA in the Classroom............................................................................................... 10
Outcomes .................................................................................................................. 12
Summary of the Literature Review ........................................................................... 13
Chapter III ......................................................................................................................... 14
Research Design and Methodology .............................................................................. 14
Research Questions and Anticipated Findings ......................................................... 14
Study Setting and Context ........................................................................................ 15
Participants ................................................................................................................ 16
Instructional Intervention/Program ........................................................................... 18
Data Collection Instruments/Formats ....................................................................... 18
Research Design and Data Collection Procedures .................................................... 22
Data Analysis Procedures ......................................................................................... 25
Chapter IV......................................................................................................................... 28
Results ........................................................................................................................... 28
Individual Results ..................................................................................................... 28
Group Results............................................................................................................ 32
Chapter V .......................................................................................................................... 34
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 34
Discussion of Findings.............................................................................................. 34
Conclusions and Implications ................................................................................... 35
Recommendations to Teachers ................................................................................. 38
Recommendations for Further Study ........................................................................ 39

iii
 Closing Thoughts ...................................................................................................... 39
References ..................................................................................................................... 40

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Figure 1. Results of total participants. .............................................................................. 30

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Page
Table 1. Pretest, Posttest, and Growth Results for Oral Reading Fluency and
Comprehension ......................................................................................................... 29

vi
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this action research project was to identify how the Language Experience

Approach (LEA) increased the reading ability of second grade students in oral fluency

and comprehension based on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2). This

study was conducted over a 7-week period with 6 participants who were assessed as

reading below grade level. The data collected from the participants was used to analyze

the use of the LEA on reading skills quantitatively and qualitatively. The results showed

that 5 out of the 6 (83.3%) participants improved their oral fluency and 4 out of 6

(66.7%) participants improved their comprehension scores. The findings suggest that the

use of the Language Experience Approach may result in improved reading skills for

second grade students who read below grade level.

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks are extended to those who helped me through this process. I would like

to start by acknowledging God for giving me the strength and determination to guide me

along the way. I would also like to extend a sincere thank you to Dr. Essington Wade for

helping me begin this process. In addition, I thank Dr. Jeanne Grant, my Thesis Advisor,

for her guidance and knowledge that helped me conclude this process. I want both of you

to know that your faith in me is what kept me going.

To Mom and Jay, I thank you for your support and confidence in me as well as

your belief that I could get anything done if I put my mind to it.

During this project, I became engaged to my best friend, Kyle. I thank you, Kyle,

for your kindness and support during times when I spent endless hours at the computer or

on the phone with colleagues. This project was a goal I had for myself before our new

journey together as a married couple. Thank you for keeping me rational through times

when I thought I could go no further. I look forward to our marriage and the new life that

awaits us in the future.

viii
 1

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Background

Reading can change a students’ life no matter what country they live in or what

job they may want in the future. In the United States, teachers build reading skills to help

students gain a better education, as well as, helping them to get better jobs as they grow

into adults. The state of the researcher takes pride in providing schools that can build

high-quality learning environments so that goals can be achieved. The researcher’s

school, according to its Accountability Report, has a wide range of ethnicities. At this

school, the researcher provided a learning experience that promotes the students’

academic career.

However, 35% of students in the researcher’s second grade classroom can not

identify words or understand the content of what was being read. Students that scored a

reading level below a score of 18 on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2)

were not reading at grade level. When students scored a reading recovery level score

between 18-26 they were reading at a second grade level. The students that achieved a

reading level score 28 or higher indicated that they were reading above grade level.

Purpose of the Study

This action research analyzed a strategy that was designed to help students

achieve reading scores at their grade level. The Language Experience Approach allowed
 2

students to create their own reading passage through discussions and comments the

students create. During this procedure, the teacher wrote down what the student said, the

students realized that what they say could be written, and the student read what they said

and saw what the teacher wrote down.

The literature analyzed in this study was used to summarize and critique teachers’

view on the Language Experience Approach. The purpose of this study was to provide a

strategy that could increase students’ oral fluency and comprehension to build their

reading skills.

Statement of the Problem

Based on the results of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2), 35% of

the students in the researcher’s second grade classroom cannot identify words or

understand the content of what is being read. Students that were assessed by the DRA2

and received a reading assessment score of 18 were reading at a second grade level.

DRA2 scores that were below 18 indicated the student’s below grade level reading. A

reading assessment score that was 28 or higher indicated an above grade level reading

according to the DRA2. Students that scored between 18 and 28 were reading at a second

grade level. Students who have a reading record score below an 18 at the beginning of the

school year tend to stay at the same score or stay below grade level at the end of the year

when re-tested.

Research Question

This action research focuses on the question: “Will using the Language

Experience Approach (LEA) for 30 minutes each day with the students who scored below
 3

a reading level of 18 on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2), increase the

students’ ability to identify words and understand the meaning of the context by 15%?”

Significance and Utility of the Study

The Language Experience Approach (LEA) is a strategy in which the student

creates a reading passage through discussions. Students that have difficulty identifying

words and understanding what they are reading were able to create a reading passage

through their own words. The students were able to acknowledge what they said could be

written, and what is written could be read. This approach reinforced a student’s ability to

read words they had produced (Sears, 1999).

Students were reading below grade level on the Developmental Reading

Assessment if they scored below 18. This assessment showed a quantitative data outlook

produced in fluency and comprehension. Through previous observation, the researcher

determined that students continued to score below grade level each year they were

reassessed. Therefore, teachers needed a strategy that could be used in the classroom

during reading group instruction that could help below level readers increase their scores.

It is vital for a teacher to use a strategy to help students increase their score above 18 so

that they are reading at grade level and do not fall further behind each year.

Teachers use different reading strategies in the classroom. The Language

Experience Approach is an approach that can be used to help students increase their

ability to identify words and understand what they are reading. This action research was

specifically designed to provide teachers with an additional strategy that has been proven

to increase a student’s reading score. Incorporating this approach into a daily reading
 4

group schedule helped students and educators differentiate their instruction to assist

students that have challenges with reading skills.

Limitations of the Study

The participants in the Language Experience Approach may experience

restrictions that can alter the findings of this action research. For example:

1. Students may have a disability or language barrier that can impede their ability

to achieve desired outcome with this approach. A student may have an inability to figure

out reading skills due to a processing problem or a disability that can affect the findings

of this report. Another form of a disability that can be attributed to the findings of this

action research would be an attention disorder that could prove to be distracting that

could impair the results of the student’s score.

2. Student’s support systems may vary. Students that receive support from

parents, family members, or guardians may be at an advantage because of the extra

attention towards building their reading skills. Students that may not receive support may

be a disadvantage because they may not be able to practice their reading skills.

3. Time is a limitation that can affect the findings. Some students may need more

learning time associated with this strategy. This action research will take place over a

span of 6-8 weeks. In this time, it will be up to the students to show if their reading

ability have increased or not. The limitation of time for those students who do not show

an increase of 15% on their DRA2 score may be reflected.

4. The final limitation is the DRA2 test scores. The DRA2 has three components:

(a) reading engagement, (b) oral reading/fluency, and (c) comprehension (Beaver, 2006).
 5

The question of this action research focuses on fluency and comprehension with

respect to reading abilities. This study will not include the reading engagement of the

student when being assessed and will not be analyzed in this research. The data analyzed

will be limited to the fluency and comprehension components of its participants.

Definitions of Key Terms

The key terms of this study are (a) LEA, (b) phonics, (c) Whole Language, (d)

fluency, and (e) comprehension. The main focus is the Language Experience Approach

and improving reading skills. Phonics is a reading strategy that is used by teachers to help

early learners begin to read by decoding or sounding out words. Reading has two

components that teachers use to assess growth. They are fluency and comprehension.

These key terms are related and will help the researcher define this study.

The Language Experience Approach: According to Sears (1999), the Language

Experience Approach is a reading passage that is said by students, written by the teacher,

then read by the students. Classrooms that use LEA as a whole language approach allow

children to read using “authentic” writing. Students create these reading passages using

different manipulatives that can create a discussion that the teacher can write down on

paper for reading purposes. Students can be given a manipulative or event to create ideas

to talk about. Discussions turn into written experiences that can be written that a student

can read. In other words, the students read the language as a whole. This approach allows

students to become readers of words that they are able to say, but never thought they

could read. LEA can also be used in the classroom in many different ways. However, it is
 6

necessary to discover an approach that best suits the students’ learning style while

focusing on individualized instruction that is important (Vanderslice, 1999).

Phonics: This is an important part of a student’s reading and writing experiences

(Dahl & Scharer, 2000). Dahl and Scharer define phonics as the cueing system that

children use in addition to other forms of information. Whole language includes phonics

instruction along with additional strategies.

Whole Language: Whole language is a strategy to help build comprehension

skills. It is an instructional approach that focuses on meaning. Instruction includes

frequent reading and diverse literature (Blumenfeld, 2001).

Fluency: This is the ability to learn to process written text with appropriate rate,

accuracy, and expression (Stahl & Kuhn, 2002). Fluency is a part of this research because

it processes written language that the student reads. In this research, the fluency of the

student will be assessed by using the DRA2.

Comprehension: This is the ability to understand what is being read and being

able to transfer the information into different contexts (Duke, Purcell-Gates, Hall, &

Tower, 2006). The concept of meaning is considered thought of as an effective teaching

instruction (Foorman, 2007).

 7

CHAPTER II

Review of the Literature

The Language Experience Approach

The literature for this study was obtained through professional journals found on

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), EBSCOhost, and the search engine

Google. There are educators who are unfamiliar with the Language Experience Approach

(LEA), also known as whole language, although it has been around since the 1930s

(Daniels & Zemelman, 1999). Daniels and Zemelman support the evidence proving that

this approach has been around for the past 60 years helping students learn to read. The

research of this approach is not well known. There are opponents that do not agree with

its methods. This approach provides a student derived language and writing to of daily

reading skills that may pose difficulty. The methods of language experience are returning

to the classroom (Dorr, 2006). Standardized tests identify the LEA the root of problems

with low test scores. Dorr acknowledges the blame that is put on this approach. However,

it reports LEA as a way to find comprehensible meaning instead of memorizing

vocabulary in books.

LEA has strengths and weaknesses (LeDoux, 2007). LeDoux finds strength in this

approach but states that it can not be taught alone. It needs to be accompanied with a

phonics program. The component of this approach postpones phonics as students create

their own reading passages. Classrooms that use LEA as a whole language approach
 8

allow children to read using “authentic” writing (Sears, 1999). Students create these

reading passages using different manipulatives that can create a discussion for the teacher

to write down on paper for the purpose of reading. Turbill (2003) used LEA in the

classroom, but used digital pictures as manipulatives to inspire a conversation between

students. This conversation can be turned into writing, which can be read by the student.

LEA can be used in the classroom in many different ways but it is finding the approach

that best suits the students’ learning while focusing on individualized instruction that is

important (Vanderslice, 1999).

LEA does not focus on phonics primarily. It tends to shift the importance to

grasping meaning of the text. Dahl and Scharer (2000) emphasizes phonics and its role in

the whole language classroom. It defines phonics and its underlining importance of

decoding and cuing. Whereas, whole language uses cueing but its importance leans

towards the meaning of the literature. In LEA, students create their own literature to

obtain phonics and comprehension reading skills. These include passages that students

created and reading in the group discussion gives students more opportunities in the

classroom (Duke et al., 2006). Duke et al. believe that the authentic reading and writing

can give students more engagement with the curriculum to help them succeed in these

academic areas.

Misconceptions of the Language Experience Approach

The Language Experience Approach is often misunderstood and may be

considered a weakness. Educators do not see a phonic base. This approach can be

overlooked when the components of a curriculum are reviewed. California reported a

 9

plummet in standardized test scores and blamed the whole language approach (Krashen,

2002). Krashen suggested that this declination was not the approach but the lack of

interest in books. Another supporter of LEA, Manzo (1999a, 1999b) defends the whole

language approach and supports its liveliness in the classroom. LEA does not have a

main focus on phonics and spelling skills, consequently researchers blame low test

scores. Despite the negative assumptions of LEA, Manzo (1999b) debates and fights for

the whole language approach in the classroom. It influences a conceptual approach when

teaching students to read.

Flippo (1999) suggests that there is a war within reading researchers between

whole language vs. phonics. This is continually being debated between these two beliefs

of the phonics approach and the whole language approach. Phonics promoters suggest

that students must know the rules of the language before they learn to read and that they

can not learn to read until sounds and letters are mastered. Whereas, the whole language

promoters argue that this approach allows students to create a passage while building

experiences that can be comprehended, and then focus on phonics.

Opitz (1999) is a supporter of using predictable books during reading instruction

to help students learn to read because they give students confidence. He believes that

these books can lead to independent reading. LEA conflicts with this viewpoint. It found

that whole language is an authentic reading and writing approach that engages students in

retrieving and learning new experiences (Grace, 2008). Grace further suggests that whole

language allows differentiated instruction to individual students’ needs that help students
 10

when having difficulties learning to read. Strategies of learning, reading, writing, and

thinking are all aspects that help students become better readers.

LEA in the Classroom

A teacher’s day is very busy and thoughts of incorporating a new approach into

their already packed schedule can seem overwhelming. Biddle (2007) provides teachers

with a motivational way of incorporating LEA into their everyday routine of the daily

calendar. Biddle suggests that including LEA into daily calendar allows students to

identify that writing and reading can be used in all subject areas. A whole language

classroom can also be used as a tool to help low readers. Fisher and Frey (2003) consider

reading and writing to be tools that can help improve literacy skills. Fisher and Frey

(2003) conducted a study with high school students; LEA was used as a strategy to help

low readers reach the goal of being independent readers. Success was reached showing

that LEA in the classroom can help reading skills improve.

“LEA is the future of the classroom” (Nilsen, 2005, p. 38). Nilsen proposes that

teachers believe LEA allows added creativity to the classroom with ease, when the

administrator denies them that privilege. This whole language approach can be used in

many different variations in the classroom. Teachers can use manipulatives, toys, and

even digital pictures to create a discussion and then a written passage created by the

students themselves (Johnston, 2000). Music and literature can also be added to the

classroom instruction to help improve reading skills and phonemic awareness (Towell,

2000). According to Towell,, songs and poetry can add motivation in the classroom. LEA
 11

can use music and poetry in its approach. The teacher presents music and literature as a

stimulus for a discussion that the teacher dictates and is read by the students.

Foorman (2007) suggests that reading instruction includes phonics, fluency,

meaning, vocabulary, spelling, and writing. He supports the concept that these reading

instructions share a relationship that build reading skills that make successful readers.

However, Foorman concludes that setting interferences can hinder the numbers of

classroom size and small classroom size areas in the classroom. The whole language

approach is a strategy that can be used in the classroom that does not require a lot of

space. This is helpful due to setting inhibitors that may arise in different classroom areas.

In addition, this approach can be used in small groups allowing all students to receive the

attention and dedication when issues of increased class size numbers can be

overwhelming. Whole language welcomes peer assisted activities and encourages group

work with respects to learning to read.

The DRA2 reading fluency and comprehension skills are assessed and scored.

According to Johns, Peterson, and Spivey (2000), comprehension strategies in the

classroom helped towards comprehension, but fluency was not affected. Interventions in

this research increased word recognition and reading comprehension by using writing and

reading during instruction. Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) researched correlations between

fluency and comprehension. They found increased reading skills when interventions of

peer-group strategies were incorporated into reading instruction. Fuchs and Fuchs (2005)

believes that strategies using differentiated instruction and peer assistance show improved

reading skills.
 12

Outcomes

Findings have shown that whole language approaches are not the answer (“A

Whole Language Approach,” 2006). It supports phonics based learning as a better

approach to teaching students the fundamentals of reading. Phonic based reading relies

on the concept that if the mind does not know the rules of sounds and letters, then the

mind can not come to conceptualize learning to read.

There are educators that support focus on fluency, word recognition, and

comprehension (Rasinski, 2003). According to Rasinski, using these interventions in the

classroom provide steps toward the goal of reading quickly, effortlessly, and efficiently.

Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a measurement used when assessing fluency

(Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006). Hasbrouck and Tindal found that oral reading fluency

(ORF) norms were reevaluated and updated in 2005 providing percentiles to base scores

upon the 75th, 50th, and 25th percentiles. However, it is important to note reading

fluency scores in the upper percentiles do not reflect comprehension. Comprehension

scores must be scored additionally. Students must be able to understand what they read.

Research shows that the whole language approach is a motivational asset to the

classroom when teaching students to read (Johnston, 2000). This research presents LEA

as a way to support beginning reading skills. Educators that support whole language

classrooms focus on conceptual reading, rather than traditional phonics based reading.

Building on conceptual reading by using experiences is a way to build self-confidence in

students, allowing the teacher to guide positive reading instruction. According to

Chapman and Tumner (2003), it is no surprise that students show signs of less confidence
 13

when reading difficulties are present. Chapman and Tumner (2003) suggest that self-

perception has a major role on the student’s reading, thus determining a relationship

between self-concept and academic-concept. It was concluded that the Language

Experience Approach gives students a choice in the classroom (Duke et al., 2006). This

choice and voice that LEA provides can build a better self-perception. This can help

students reach the goal to become independent academic readers.

Some proponents agree that LEA is an instructional approach that can be used in

the curriculum, but suggests that it can not be used alone and that it works best when

integrated with phonics based approach (LeDoux, 2007). Stahl (1998) cited that reading

shifted in instructional time dating back to 1965. It showed that whole language boomed

in the 1970s and continues to be used during reading instruction. Stahl concurs with a

balanced reading program that includes reading instruction, decoding, and

comprehension. Developmental shifts of word recognition are important to LEA. It

allows students see the words that are written and spoken. The combination of LEA and

phonics, to some educators, is the solution to the reading war.

Summary of the Literature Review

The listed citations are proponents and opponents of LEA. This information

provides insight into the reading strategy through its strengths and limitations. The

strengths of this strategy appear to exceed to suggested limitations. It is concluded that

the LEA strategy is intended to help students increase reading fluency and

comprehension skills
 14

CHAPTER III

Research Design and Methodology

Research Questions and Anticipated Findings

The question in this study asked: Will using the Language Experience Approach

(LEA) for 30 minutes each day with the students that scored below a reading record of 18

on the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2) increase their ability to identify

words and understand the meaning of the context by 15%? This question guided the

research. It proposed that the LEA strategy was used in the classroom as an intervention

to help students increase their reading abilities. The question was answered through the

DRA2. The literature was organized thematically. These themes included The Language

Experience Approach, Misconceptions of the Language Experience Approach, LEA in

the Classroom, Outcomes, and Summary of Literature.

The expectation of this study was to find a strategy that could be used in the

classroom that would be helpful when trying to increase a student’s reading fluency and

comprehension. There are numerous strategies available to teachers that include phonics,

fluency, and comprehension based instructions. It was challenging to choose an

appropriate strategy that increased reading skills. After much research, LEA was selected.

It is a teaching strategy that can be used during reading that has been determined to

improve students’ ability to identify words and understand words in context.

 15

The projected outcomes for using LEA in the classroom was to assist students

achieve a better understanding of reading fluency and comprehension; the participants

received a pretest and a posttest. The Language Experience Approach was used during

reading group instruction in a small group setting. This action research included a 5-day

plan that consisted of five steps that were used and repeated. The five steps conducted

each day were an experience that was (a) a stimulus for writing, (b) a discussion, (c)

dictation, (d) reading and rereading, and (e) illustrations. By utilizing these five steps, the

projected outcome should provide the participants a language experience approach that is

designed to increase their reading assessment scores by at least 15% in a 7-week time

frame.

Study Setting and Context

The location of this study took place inside the researcher’s second grade

classroom. The learning environment for this study included a teacher’s desk and three

computers on the north side of the classroom. Alongside the table with the computers was

a large cabinet for the teacher’s use. The east side of the room, starting from left to right,

contained two desks used to hold class work and homework bins. Next to these two desks

was the writing table. This writing table was a circular table that holds paper and

toolboxes with writing instruments for students. To the right of the writing table was the

center’s holder with plastic bins containing different reading centers. Next to the reading

center was the classroom’s library. Located in the library were side-by-side bookshelves

with an arrangement of leveled books, assorted books, dictionaries, informational texts,

and whisper (phonic) phones. This library was open for student use during reading. The
 16

walls on both the north and east side of the classroom displayed help walls and the class

calendar.

The south side of the classroom contained a couch to the left and was part of the

library. The sink, drinking fountain, and cabinets were connected on the side of the

classroom with cabinets beneath them. Adjacent to the water fountain was another large

cabinet for the teacher’s use. The west side of the classroom included the white board and

a kidney-shaped table placed directly in front of the white board. The kidney-shaped table

and chairs were centered to the west wall. To the left of the kidney-shaped table was a

cart with a transparency on it that was for teacher and student use. To the right of the

kidney-shaped table and chairs was a pocket chart with poetry sentence strips, a listening

center, and a large cart that holds a television, pencil sharpener, and storage space.

Students were allowed to use the pocket chart, the listening center, and the pencil

sharpener. The television and storages were for teacher use. This study took place on the

west side of the learning environment. The teacher sat behind the kidney-shaped table

and the participants sat on the chairs that outline the outside of the kidney-shaped table.

The center of the room was the location of the students’ desks. The desks were

arranged in small group settings. Students’ desks were clustered into small groups of four

to five desks. There were four clusters; two to the north and two the south. A desk and a

chair were assigned to each student.

Participants

According to the school district’s Accountability Report for the 2007-2008 school

year, student ethnicity was mostly comprised of the White population of 43.6% (Nevada
 17

Department of Education, 2008). The Hispanic population was the next highest with a

percentage of 34.5. Black/African American was at 13.3%, while Asian/Island Pacific

was at 7.8%. Male percentages of enrollment were at 50.4% and female enrollment was

listed as 49.6%. The population of this study was comprised of varied ethnicities. It was

projected that the sample population would reflect the school’s population. It was

estimated that the population of the classroom consisted of the largest ethnic group,

White population, at 40%, followed by Black/African Americans at 30%, 20% Hispanic,

and 10% Asian/Island Pacific (Nevada Department of Education).

The population of students in the classroom was 17 students. The participants in

this study were students that scored below 18 on the DRA2 test. These scores will

identify the student reading below grade level. Each student’s reading level was assessed

by the researcher. Six participants out of the 17 students that scored below an 18 on the

DRA2 were randomly selected to participate in the LEA during guided reading. In the

results the 6 participants were identified as A, B, C, D, E, and F.

The justification for selecting students that scored below an 18 on the DRA2

assessment test was to increase their reading skills to at or above grade level. This was

determined by pre-testing students at the beginning of the school year and reassessing

them at the end of the school year. Students that are assessed below grade level at the

beginning of the year have a tendency to stay below grade level if there are no

interventions. Reading fluency and comprehension scores were reliable and validated by

using the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2) to show growth and/or decline in

student scores.
 18

Instructional Intervention/Program

The Language Experience Approach is a strategy used in the classroom to help

students build their ability to identify words and understand context in reading. The steps

used were as follows:

1. Participants in this study were presented with a manipulative.

2. The manipulative initiated a group discussion of words or sentences that they

produced about the presented object.

3. The teacher wrote down the words with an object for the participants, showing

them that their words turned into sentences

4. The students read what was written on chart paper.

LEA focused on words that the participants could say in their own words and the

words that the participants said in conversation that were written on a large chart paper

that the students could see and read. The participants attempted to read the passage based

on their discussions. This “authentic” reading passage was presented and read each day.

The participants focused on the rule or strategy that the researcher presented for that

week.

Data Collection Instruments/Formats

The researcher collected the data by assessing the student’s reading level by

administering the Developmental Reading Assessment at the beginning of the current

school year. The DRA2 is the reading assessment that is used school-wide at the

researcher’s school. This assessment has been field tested for 10 years and is research

based (Beaver, 2006). According to Beaver (2006), this assessment tests the strengths and
 19

weaknesses of student’s reading abilities and determines scores for reading fluency and

comprehension.

The DRA2 was a one-on-one assessment that was administered to the participants

by the teacher. The researcher gave the participant a book to read that was approximately

at the participant’s reading level. The reading level could be adjusted according to the

Teacher Observation Guide. This Guide was completed by the researcher as the

participant continued the one-on-one assessment. A DRA2’s Teacher’s Observation

Guide was provided for each book at each level. The levels ranged from reading abilities

in Kindergarten through eighth grade. For the purposes of this study, levels from

Kindergarten through the end of first grade were assessed. These levels are below the

second grade reading abilities.

The researcher administered the test. The participants were given a book that was

believed to be at their reading level. The book presented to the participant had a Teacher

Observation Guide that was used with the provided book. The researcher completed this

Guide before, during, and after the participants read the given story.

The Teacher Observation Guide had three to four main sections, depending on the

level in which the student was reading. They included: (a) Reading Engagement, (b) Oral

Reading/Fluency, (c) Comprehension, and (d) Teacher Analysis. For the purpose of this

study, Oral Reading and Teacher Analysis were the focus. It provided information on

both fluency and comprehension. Reading Engagement was not assessed.

Before administering the assessment, the researcher completed the name, date,

teacher’s name and grade of the participant being assessed. The researcher read the
 20

scripted bolded writing in the introduction of the book to the student. This helped to

familiarize the participants with the book at the beginning of the assessment.

The researcher observed how the participants’ interacted with the book. For

example, could the participant independently turn the pages? The researcher observed

and recorded the participant’s vocabulary and whether it was appropriate for the book. If

the vocabulary was not appropriate, the researcher lowered a level in the DRA2 book list.

Next, the researcher began the oral record section of the DRA2. In this section, the

student read the story out loud to the researcher. As the participant read the book out loud

the teacher recorded the number of words read correctly and incorrectly. The incorrect

words read were called miscues. The researcher circled the number of miscues, giving a

percent of accuracy. This information was used in the assessment analysis. Finally, the

comprehension portion of the assessment was administered by the researcher. This

provided an opportunity for the participant to retell an overview of the story including the

beginning, middle, to end, a reflection, and make a connection about the story the

participant read. The DRA also provided examples for the comprehension section.

The Teacher Analysis section of the DRA was the most important part of the

assessment. It allowed the researcher to tally up the oral reading and comprehension

scores to determine if the book was at the participant’s appropriate reading level. The

four sections of the Teacher Analysis are: (a) Emergent, (b) Developing, (c) Independent,

and (d) Advanced. According to Beaver (2006), Emergent students show signs of low

comprehension and do not have appropriate strategies or skills to respond to the

assessment. Developing students show some signs of control of strategies and skills to
 21

respond appropriately to story but still need assistance. The Independent students show

an appropriate level of control and necessary skills to strategize and use skills presenting

an acknowledgment of comprehension. Advanced students represent students that read

fluently and give thoughtful responses indicating high-level reading engagement.

The DRA2 rubric produced scores for oral reading and comprehension. Scores

were determined in oral reading from 11-16 and scores in comprehension from 19-28.

Independent reading was the section the student needed to establish for teacher to place

the students into their reading groups according to that DRA2 level. Participants ranging

in oral reading from 11-14 and in comprehension 19-25 were Independent readers.

Participants in this study participated in group discussions (no number results),

readings, and individualized instruction to assist in increasing their reading abilities.

Participants met in their small groups 5 days a week for 30 minutes each day for

approximately 7 weeks. The sessions occurred in the morning before lunch and recess.

Bathroom and water breaks were allowed to eliminate distractions before the LEA

strategy began. This strategy consisted of a 5-day plan that had five steps. Each step was

used and reused on a different day. The format of this strategy was delegated by the

researcher and participants in a small group environment.

The participants brought their reading workshop notebook with them to each LEA

session, which included two parts of the data collection. First, the printed passage that the

students created was placed in their reading workshop notebook to illustrate the passage.

Participants drew at least three illustrations that were relevant to the passage. Secondly,

the participants accumulated new words and placed them in the attached baggie in their
 22

reader’s workshop notebook. This allowed the participants to work on their oral reading

skills independently.

Data collection procedures included information gathered from the

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2). This assessment analyzed the students’

ability to identify words and to understand its context. These scores were based on

participants reading a provided book from the DRA2 Kit followed by a series of

questions on the Teacher’s Observation Guide. Data was collected from the illustrations

and word banks of the students’ reading workshop notebooks.

Research Design and Data Collection Procedures

The research on the Language Experience Approach began in the first trimester of

the 2008-2009 school year. To begin this study, the researcher completed and submitted

the IRB application with consent forms and assent forms. Then the researcher submitted

the application to the school district that contained the IRB application, NIH certificate,

Assent and Consent forms, and Chapters 1, 2, and 3. When the researcher received the

acceptance from IRB, CCSD, and the committee the study began.

This study began during the first trimester of 2008. The researcher assessed each

student in the classroom. The researcher conducted the one-on-one DRA2 to randomly

select 6 participants for this study. The parents of these 6 participants were contacted for

a conference, the researcher provided a consent form seeking their permission for their

child to participate in this study. Upon consent from their parents, the 6 participants were

given assent forms requesting their participation in this study. After the Assent and

Consent forms were completed and submitted to the researcher, the participants were
 23

placed in a reading group for 7 weeks. The researcher and participants met for 30 minutes

each day to work on the LEA strategy.

Day 1: The researcher called the group of 6 participants to the kidney-shaped

table at the front of the room. The researcher provided the participants with a stimulus for

writing. For example, the participants were presented with a juice box. The participants

had a discussion about their experience with the stimulus and created words, explained

different ideas, discussed vocabulary, and focused on understanding the presented object.

The researcher recorded these ideas on standard paper. The participants were given a few

moments to review the items on the paper, while thinking of a sentence to create using

ideas and terms they formed as a group. Next, the researcher wrote each participant’s

sentence onto chart paper, writing exactly what the participant said. The researcher also

created a sentence to add to the passage. Finally, the participants, as a group, chorally and

individually read the passage while pointing to each word on the large chart paper.

Day 2: The participants received a printed typed copy of the weekly reading

passage. They placed it in their Reading Workshop notebook. This became a notebook

that they reread and practiced saying the words. On this day the researcher began oral

instruction and focus on classifying and organizing ideas. The researcher and participants

discussed specific vocabulary according to the passage that was created. The researcher

encouraged the participants to provide a definition to extend their understanding. The

researcher gave an assignment to create three illustrations that related to that week’s

passage.
 24

Day 3: Focused on individualized instruction. The participant reviewed the chart

paper and read the words for identifying words, rhyming, vowel sounds, final consonant

sounds, sight words, and so on. The focus depended on the passage that the participants

created on Day 1. The participants underlined the focus of the week. For example, they

focused on finding words with the short a sound. The researcher underlined the rhyming

words or word patterns on the chart paper with markers to focus attention on these

specific words.

Day 4: The researcher modeled reading the passage on the chart paper with

fluency by pointing to each word. The group read together, chorally, so that the

researcher could hear each individual voice. In addition, the researcher had one

participant at a time read the passage and alternate sentences to identify strengths and

weaknesses. As the participants read, the researcher pointed to the words. As a closing,

the participants added the underlined words from the previous day to their progressive

Word Bank that was an attached baggie to their notebook. The participants’ assignment

was to reread and practice reading the newly added words in their Word Bank.

Day 5: The participants read the LEA passage to the class in an author’s chair.

They rotated taking home the chart paper text to share with their family. The participants

continued to add more illustrations to their paper in their notebook and/or chart paper. By

Day 5, the participants were expected to read the passage fluently and understand what

they were reading. Participants also practiced their Word Bank words to help identify

new word patterns as well as comprehending a diverse range of new vocabulary for Word

Bank analysis.
 25

This weekly plan repeated itself for the duration of this study. At the close of this

study, the participants were reassessed to determine the amount of growth. The

reassessment of the DRA2 determined an observable increase for the Language

Experience Approach as a teaching tool to increase students’ reading ability in 5 out of

the 6 participants. The posttest was administered on the seventh week of the study. This

information provided findings to show distinguishable outcomes of the Language

Experience Approach.

During the collection of data, the classroom environment was quiet but movement

continued to occur during center time. LEA followed whole group instruction with the

Basal reading series. After whole group instruction, it was time for small group guided

reading. The researcher called small groups to focus on reading difficulties. The reading

groups were clustered according to DRA2 scores. The participants that were not meeting

with the researcher at the kidney-shaped table for guided reading rotated throughout the

room doing center activities according to their assigned center. Center activities used

classroom materials that were located throughout the room. As the participants met with

the researcher at the kidney-shaped table, students that were not participants in the study

used transparencies, listening center, poetry pocket chart, and computers. These students

were instructed to use low voices and if there were any questions, these students only

asked the two captains of that week.

Data Analysis Procedures

The data from this study was collected by the researcher using the test scores of

the DRA2 in oral fluency and comprehension. This was a quantitative measure of data.
 26

The score’s numbers were used from this formal assessment to collect the data. There

were two scores to analyze the oral reading/fluency score ranging between 11-14 and the

comprehension score ranging between 19-25. These scores were essential in analyzing

the appropriate reading level to determine a student’s Independent reading ability. If the

participant’s score was below these ranges, it was not considered as Independent

Reading. Data was also collected from participant’s illustrations to provide the data for

the participant’s comprehension progress. The word bank in the student’s notebook was

collected to obtain data on oral fluency progress.

The results of this study were derived from the fluency and comprehension scores

of the DRA test. These scores were provided from the DRA2 Assessment Kit. The

participant’s scores were categorized to determine if their success showed an increase of

from their pretest scores by 15% by the end of the LEA intervention or if participants

showed little to no improvement. The DRA2 scores from the sample were compared on

graphic organizers that displayed the data collected from each of the 6 participants. The

participants’ information remains confidential.

The mean of the reading scores are displayed to show an overall average of DRA2

scores. The graphed information showed a spectrum of reading DRA2 scores according

to the sample. The researcher used Microsoft Office Excel 2007 to display the graphic

organizers. The individual pretests and posttests were displayed in a table that is labeled

Pretest, Posttest, and Growth Results for Oral Reading Fluency and Comprehension. The

overall growth average was displayed with a bar graph.

 27

DRA2 posttests that were 15% higher than the pretests determined if the

intervention was beneficial. The participants that did not increase the reading assessment

scores by the 15% determined their percentage response to LEA. The notebook for

fluency and comprehension data was collected and analyzed qualitatively through

observations, notations, participant comment, and emerging themes.

 28

CHAPTER IV

Results

This Action Research began out of a desire to find a reading strategy that could

improve the reading skills of students. In past experiences, students that read below grade

level seldom show a significant growth in reading skills. This piqued the interest of the

researcher to conduct this study.

In this chapter, the researcher reveals each participant’s pretest and posttest results

on fluency and comprehension. The overall results of the participants are shown. Pretest

and posttest reading fluency and comprehension scores as well as the growth are shown

in Table 1. The results for the participants as a whole are shown in Table 1.

Individual Results

The participants in this study read below grade level according to the DRA2.

Participant A began the study reading at a level 4. This was an early reading stage

according to the DRA2 (Beaver, 2006). The posttest scores for Participant A reading at a

level 4 show an oral reading fluency at 13 out of 16 (81%) and comprehension scores 26

out of 28 (93%). The oral fluency increased by 6% and comprehension increased by 1%.

Participant A successfully completed the illustrations each week relating to the topic. The

illustrations were drawn to match the topic accordingly. Participant A read their Word

Bank words to the researcher. All but one of the words were read successfully. This

participant told the researcher everyday how much they enjoyed being a part of this
 29

group. The researcher observed that Participant A appeared to enjoy taking the chart

paper and reading it to his friends.

Table 1. Pretest, Posttest, and Growth Results for Oral Reading Fluency and

Comprehension

Oral fluency Comprehension

Pretest Posttest Change Pretest Posttest Change

Participant % % % % % %

A 75 81 6 79 93 14

B 75 81 6 67 79 12

C 69 75 6 71 71 0

D 69 88 19 75 82 7

E 63 63 0 68 68 0

F 63 81 18 86 89 3

Participant B began the study reading at a level 6. The DRA2 considers this an

early reading stage (Beaver, 2006). Posttest scores for Participant B reading at a level 6

reveal an oral reading fluency at 13 out of 16 (81%) and comprehension scores at 22 out

of 28 (79%). The oral fluency increased by 6% and comprehension increased by 12%.

Participant B successfully completed the illustrations each week relating to the topic. The

illustrations were drawn to match the topic accordingly. Participant B read their Word
 30

Bank words to the researcher. All of the words were read successfully. This participant

told the researcher they liked reading from the Word Bank. The researcher observed that

Participant B appeared to like adding illustrations to their notebook.

Figure 1. Results of total participants.

50
45
40
35
30 Oral Reading
25
Comprehension
20
15 Overall Growth
10 Average
5
0
Students
A‐F

Participant C began the study reading at a level 4. The DRA2 considers this an

early reading stage (Beaver, 2006). The posttest scores for Student C reading at a level 4

show an oral reading fluency at 12 out of 16 (75%) and comprehension scores 20 out of

28 (71%). The oral fluency increased by 6% and comprehension increased by 0%.

Student C successfully completed the illustrations each week relating to the topic.

Illustrations were drawn to match the topic accordingly. Participant C read their Word

Bank words to the researcher. Most words were read correctly. There were only three

miscues. Participant C told the researcher they enjoyed observing new objects each week.
 31

The researcher observed that Participant C appeared to enjoy reading the sentences orally

to the group.

Participant D began the study reading at a level 8. The DRA2 considers this an

early reading stage (Beaver, 2006). Posttest scores for Participant D reading at a level 8

reveal an oral reading fluency at 14 out of 16 (88%) and comprehension scores 23 out of

28 (82%). The oral fluency increased by 19% and comprehension increased by 7%.

Participant D successfully completed the illustrations each week relating to the topic. The

illustrations were drawn to match the topic accordingly. Participant D read their Word

Bank words to the researcher. Most words were read correctly, with three miscues. This

participant did not comment on the study. The researcher observed that Participant D

appeared to like observing new objects.

Participant E began the study reading at a level 4. The DRA2 considers this an

early reading stage (Beaver, 2006). Posttest scores for Participant E reading at a level 8

show an oral reading fluency at 10 out of 16 (56%) and comprehension scores 19 out of

28 (68%). The oral fluency increased by 0% and comprehension increased by 0%.

Participant E successfully completed the illustrations each week relating to the topic. The

illustrations were drawn to match the topic accordingly. Participant E read their Word

Bank words to the researcher. Most words were read correctly, but one word was read

incorrectly. This participant told the researcher reading in a group was fun. The

researcher observed that Participant E appeared to enjoy adding illustrations to their

notebook.
 32

Participant F began the study reading at a level 14. The DRA2 considers this a

transitional reading stage (Beaver, 2006). Posttest scores for Student F reading at a level

14 reveal an oral reading fluency at 13 out of 16 (81%) and comprehension scores 25 out

of 28 (89%). The oral fluency increased by 18% and comprehension increased by 3%.

Participant F successfully completed the illustrations each week relating to the topic. The

illustrations were drawn to match the topic accordingly. Participant E read their Word

Bank words to the researcher. All of the words were read successfully. This participant

told the researcher everyday how much they liked being a part of this group. The

researcher observed that Participant F appeared to like making new sentences.

Participants A and B showed proximity to 15 % growth in comprehension with

Participant A at 14% and Participant B at 12%. It is noted that Participants A and B show

percentages in oral reading by 6%. Participant C showed growth in oral fluency by 6%,

but failed to show growth in comprehension. Calculated growths for Participants D and F

showed a projected goal of 15% growth in oral reading fluency. Participants D and F

failed to show 15% increase in comprehension. Student E failed to show growth in oral

fluency and comprehension.

The findings of this study coincide with the literature reviewed in Chapter II.

Further discussion of research findings will be presented in Chapter V.

Group Results

The calculated overall growth for the participants shows informational data for

the strategy. The mean increase over the 7-week period was 8% for oral fluency and 6%

for comprehension.
 33

According to Beaver (2006), second grade students that enter the classroom

should be reading at a level 18. Participants in his study either improved or sustained

their oral reading fluency and comprehension. The expected increase of 15% in oral

fluency and comprehension of each participant was unsuccessful.

Students A-F participated in this study to determine the effects of the Language

Experience Approach on oral fluency and comprehension. The participants were

administered the same pretest and posttest and the results of these effects have been

reported. Gender and ethnicity were not observed or considered in this study.
 34

CHAPTER V

Summary of Findings

The results of this study found helpful information in improving student’s reading

skills. This Action Research showed either an increased or sustained score percentages.

Five of the 6 participants in this study increased reading in oral reading fluency and 4 out

of 6 participants showed growth in comprehension. Participants increased their reading

skills after a 7-week period using the Language Experience Approach. The researcher

used the DRA2 to guide this study in its five-step process. It was noted that Participant E

showed no growth in oral fluency and Participants C and E showed no growth in

comprehension. This inability to show growth could be attributed to limitations for 2

participants that include a language barrier. If the participants were provided with an

extended period of time with LEA, the researcher believes that participants could attain

reading performances at grade level. This chapter will discuss the summary and findings

of this study.

Discussion of Findings

The researcher used LEA as a lens to answer the research question, “Will using

the Language Experience Approach (LEA) for 30 minutes each day with the students

who scored below a reading level of 18 on the Developmental Reading Assessment

(DRA2), increase the students’ ability to identify words and understand the meaning of

the context by 15%?” The results of this study suggested that there was growth in oral
 35

fluency and comprehension from using the Language Experience Approach. A full

account of this question is answered in Chapter IV.

The results of this study showed growth in oral fluency and comprehension

through the Language Experience Approach. LeDoux (2007) found strength in this

approach but states that it can not be taught alone. It is suggested that it needs to be

accompanied with a phonics program. In this study, the researcher found the need of a

phonics program to be irrelevant. The growth of reading skills showed that this strategy

increased 5 out of 6 of the participant’s ability to identify words and understand their

meaning in just 7 weeks. “LEA is the future of the classroom” (Nilsen, 2005, p. 38).

Nilsen proposes that teachers believe LEA allows added creativity to the classroom with

ease, when the administrator denies them that privilege. This action research added

creativity to the classroom by including responses received from the participants. The

researcher also observed that the participants appeared to enjoy the five steps of LEA.

It is possible that the participants did not reach the 15% projected increase in oral fluency

and comprehension during the study’s 7-week period due to possible limitations

described in Chapter I. The participants’ scores that increased showed developmental

progression in the direction of becoming better readers. The 2 participants’ scores that did

not show growth may be due to possible limitations that caused their reading skills to

remain the same.

Conclusions and Implications

As a result of the findings, the researcher concludes that LEA is a positive step

towards higher achieving reading fluency and comprehension scores. Five out of 6
 36

participants showed positive growths of LEA in the classroom. Fisher and Frey (2003)

consider reading and writing as tools that can help improve literacy skills. This study

determined that, participants increased their reading abilities in a 7-week period. LEA

provided an opportunity to explore objects in a way that these participants have not

experienced. The participants appeared to enjoy the aspects of observing, experiencing,

creating, and sharing. Chapman and Tumner (2003) suggested that self-perception has a

major role on the student’s reading and determined a relationship between self-concept

and academic-concept.

It is important to note the growth that occurred in this study. The increased

percentages, although slight during the 7-week period, are relevant. Educators should

utilize LEA to help increase reading skills of below grade level and grade level readers.

This strategy is available to all teachers. The accommodations made by the researcher’s

school, parents of the participants, and the participants were appreciated and they assisted

in the reported growth experience.

The following questions concluded the findings of this study:

1. Were goals met?

The percentages show that participants did not reach a goal of 15% increase in

oral fluency and comprehension at the end of the 7-week period. However, it is noted that

most participants increased their reading skills during the given time period. The

researcher believes that additional time would provide participants with an opportunity to

increase their oral fluency and comprehension by 15% and read at grade level. However,
 37

the percentage rate of success could be adjusted for a more realistic increase for a 7-week

period.

2. What previous research did this study validate?

The research that was discussed in Chapter II validates this study. Daniels and

Zemelman (1999) supported the evidence proving that this approach has been around for

the past 60 years helping students learn to read. This action research found continuing

results of helping young students read by using the LEA strategy. Fuchs and Fuchs

(2005) researched correlations between fluency and comprehension. They found

increased reading skills when interventions of peer-group strategies were incorporated

into reading instruction. LEA is comprised of a peer-group strategy to help students

become better readers. This study determined a slight growth in oral fluency and

comprehension using group interaction during the 7-week period. Dorr (2006) reported

LEA as a way to find comprehensible meaning instead of memorizing vocabulary in

books. Participants A, B, D, and F show increased scores for comprehension.

Duke et al. (2006) believed that authentic reading and writing can give students

more engagement with the curriculum to help them succeed in these academic areas. The

participants in this study appeared to enjoy each day of LEA. Each day Participant a

commented about how much they enjoyed being a member of this group. Another

supporter of LEA, Manzo (1999a, 1999b) defends the whole language approach and

supports its liveliness in the classroom. LEA provided participants with interactive group

activities. The participants enjoyed reading aloud to other participants. Research shows

that the whole language approach is a motivational asset to the classroom when teaching
 38

students to read (Johnston, 2000). The five steps of LEA provide motivational assets to

classroom. Participants in this study enjoyed observing new objects, making new

sentences, and reading new words.

Grace (2008) suggested that whole language allows differentiated instruction to

individual students’ needs that help students when having difficulties learning to read.

This research determined that individual needs may be met and can help fluency and

comprehension skills grow and improve. There are educators that support the focus on

fluency, word recognition, and comprehension (Rasinski, 2003). LEA used fluency, word

recognition, and comprehension in its five steps. These three areas of focus attribute to

increased percentages of reading skills.

3. What did study add to the literature?

This action research adds documentation of a researched based strategy to

increase reading skills. A combination of quantitative and qualitative data was collected

and analyzed that provided confirmation and credence to this study. LEA not only

showed an improvement in the participants’ reading skills and scores but produced happy

participants in a community of learners in just seven weeks.

Recommendations to Teachers

The researcher recommends that teachers use LEA in the classroom. However, it

is suggested that a time period exceeds 7 weeks to allow greater opportunities for below

grade level readers to increase their skills and to achieve on grade level readers. LEA is

available to all readers. It offers original reading passages while promoting engagement

and participation in reading and writing for small group settings. It is highly
 39

recommended that students on grade level use LEA to reinforce and fortify their reading

abilities and skills.

Recommendations for Further Study

For further study, the researcher recommends that consideration is given to time,

gender, and ethnicity. If allotted more time, this research may give additional information

for using LEA in the classroom. It is also recommended that this action research occur for

the entire school year. Extra time with LEA could surpass the goal of 15% in oral fluency

and comprehension. Although this action research did not focus on gender and ethnicity,

it would be beneficial to study if LEA showed differences in relationship to gender and/or

ethnicity.

Closing Thoughts

In I Can Read With My Eyes Shut, Dr. Seuss (Geisel, 1978) said, “The more you

read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.”

The researcher chose this study to help reach students with reading difficulties in the

beginning of their academic experience. It is necessary for students to continue using

LEA each year with low reading levels. The researcher desires students to become the

best readers possible to reach their highest potentials. Reading leads to many advantages

in life that they can acquire. All careers require reading and writing. It is crucial that

children learn to read, so all their dreams and goals may come true.
 40

References

Beaver, J. (2006). DRA2: Developmental reading assessment (2nd ed.). Parsippany, NJ:

Celebration Press: Pearson Learning Group.

Biddle, M. (2007). When opportunity knocks: Integrating language arts and the daily

calendar. Reading Teacher, 60(5), 488-491.

Blumenfeld, S. (2001). Defining whole language. Retrieved April 26, 2008, from http://

ritalindeath.com/Education/whole-language.htm

Chapman, J., & Tumner, W. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related self-

perceptions, and strategies for overcoming negative beliefs. Reading and Writing

Quarterly, 19, 5-24.

Dahl, K., & Scharer, P. (2000, April). Phonics teaching and learning in whole language

classrooms: New evidence from research. The Reading Teacher, 53, 584-594.

Daniels, H., & Zemelman, S. (1999). Whole language works: Sixty years of research.

Educational Leadership, 57(2), 32.

Dorr, R. (2006). Something old is new again: Revisiting language experience. Reading

Teacher, 60(2), 138-146.

Duke, N. K., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L. A., & Tower, C. (2006). Authentic literacy

activities for developing comprehension and writing. Reading Teacher, 60(4),

344-355.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2003). Writing instruction for struggling adolescent readers: A

gradual release model. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(5), 396-405.
 41

Flippo, R. F. (1999). Redefining the reading wars: The war against reading researchers.

Educational Leadership, 57(2), 38-41.

Foorman, B. R. (2007). Primary prevention in classroom reading instruction. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 39(5), 24-30.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word

recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. Journal of

Special Education, 39(1), 34-44.

Geisel, T. S. (1978). I can read with my eyes shut. New York: Random House.

Grace, M. (2008). Welcome to the web site of Dr. Marsha Grace. Retrieved April 25,

2008, from http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~mgrace/m_grace/LiteracyMatters.

html#anchor290226

Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable

assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-639.

Johns, W., Peterson, G., & Spivey, L. (2000). An investigation of reading comprehension

at the primary level. Master of Arts Action Research Project, Saint Xavier

University and SkyLight Professional Development, Chicago, Illinois. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED449492)

Johnston, J. (2000). Examination of effective teaching methods with the purpose of

motivating children to learn how to read. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED448417).

Krashen, S. (2002). Whole language and the great plummet of 1987-92: An urban legend

from California. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 748-753.

 42

LeDoux, A. (2007). Investigating the implementation of whole language: Strengths and

weaknesses. Master’s Thesis, Dominican University of California, San Rafael,

CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED496339).

Manzo, K. (1999a). Whole language lives . . . . Teacher Magazine, 10(8), 11.

Manzo, K. (1999b, March 17). Whole-language model survives despite swing back to

basics. Education Week, 18(27), 1.

Nevada Department of Education. (2008). Nevada annual reports of accountability.

Available from: http://www.nevadareportcard.com/

Nilsen, A. (2005). The future of reading. School Library Journal, 51(1), 38-39.

On Purpose Associates. (2001). Funderstanding: Whole language. Retrieved April 26,

2008, from http://www.funderstanding.com/whole_language.cfm

Opitz, M. F. (1999). Cultural diversity + supportive text = perfect books for beginning

readers. Reading Teacher, 52(8), 888-890.

Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word

recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic Professional

Books.

Sears, S. (1999). The development of reading strategies in a whole language classroom.

Reading Psychology, 20(2), 91-105.

Stahl, S. A. (1998). Understanding shifts in reading and its instruction. Peabody Journal

of Education, 73(3/4), 31-67.

Stahl, S. A., & Kuhn, M. R. (2002). Making it sound like language: Developing fluency.

The Reading Teacher, 55(6), 582–584.

 43

Towell, J. H. (2000). Motivating students through music and literature. Reading Teacher,

53(4), 284-287.

Turbill, J. (2003). Exploring the potential of the digital language experience approach in

Australian classrooms. Reading Online, 6(7), 41-52.

Vanderslice, R. (1999). Investigating reading approaches: How much reliability can be

placed in past and present research? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED443084).

A whole language approach is not the answer. (2006, March). Literacy Today, 46, 32.