<p>1</p><p>A DESCRIPTIVE ANAYLSIS OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION DATA</p><p> by XXXXX</p><p>A Project-In-Lieu-Of-Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School of Northwestern State University of Louisiana In partial fulfillment of requirements for the Masters of Art in Teaching in Early Childhood Education</p><p>December, 2009 2</p><p>TABLE OF CONTENTS</p><p>Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...... VII</p><p>Chapter 1…………………………………………………………………………………..1</p><p>Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1</p><p>Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………2</p><p>Statement of the Problem………………………………………………….2</p><p>Research Question…………………………………………………………3</p><p>Purpose for the Study….…………………..……………………………....3</p><p>Significance of the Study……………………………………………………….....3</p><p>Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………..4</p><p>Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions of the Study……………………….5</p><p>Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………...5</p><p>Delimitations of the Study………………………………………………...6</p><p>Assumptions of the Study…………………………………………………7</p><p>Summary…………………………………………………………………………..7</p><p>Chapter 2 Review of Literature …………………………………………………………...9</p><p>Direct Instruction (DI)………………………………………………………….....9</p><p>Phonetic Awareness…………………………………………………………...…12</p><p>Fluency………………………………………………………………………...…16</p><p>Decoding Skills…………………………………………………………………..17</p><p>Argument………………………………………………………………………...20</p><p>Summary………………………………………………………………………....22</p><p>Chapter 3 Methodology………………………………………………………………….23 3</p><p>Design……………………………………………………………………………23</p><p>Participants……………………………………………………………………….23</p><p>Sampling Strategy………………………………………………….…………….24</p><p>Ethical Standards……………………………………………………….………..24</p><p>Instrumentation………………………………………………………….……….25</p><p>Data Collection Procedure……………………………………………….………26</p><p>Data Analysis…………………………………………………………….………26</p><p>Results…………………………………………………………………….……...27</p><p>Review of Argument………………………………………………………..……35</p><p>Explanation of Findings…………………………………………………….…....36</p><p>Limitations of the Study…………………………………………………….……36</p><p>Directions for Future Research…………………………………………………..37</p><p>Summary…………………………………………………………………………38</p><p>REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..39</p><p>Appendix A: Principal Permission Letter....…………….……………………………….43</p><p>Appendix B: IRB Approval Letter……...………...……………………………………...44</p><p>Appendix C: Reading Mastery Stories………..…………………………………………45</p><p>Appendix D: Reading Mastery Stories……...………………………………………...…46</p><p>Appendix E: Reading Mastery Vocabulary…...…………………………………………47</p><p>Appendix F: Reading Mastery Vocabulary…...………………..……………………..…48 4</p><p>LIST OF TABLES</p><p>Table 1 Kindergarten DI Reading Levels 2008-2009…....………………………………27</p><p>Table 2 First Grade Beginning DI Reading Level 2008-2009...... ……………………...28</p><p>Table 3 First Grade End of Year DI Reading Levels…...………………………………..29</p><p>Table 4 Second Grade Beginning DI Reading Levels 2008-2009………..……………...30</p><p>Table 5 Second Grade Ending DI Reading Levels..……………………………………..31</p><p>Table 6 Third Grade Beginning DI Reading Levels 2008-2009….……………………...31</p><p>Table 7 Third Grade Ending DI Reading Levels………….……………………………..32</p><p>Table 8 Fourth Grade Beginning DI Reading Levels 2008-2009……...……………...…33</p><p>Table 9 Fourth Grade Ending DI Reading Levels...……………………………………..33</p><p>Table 10 Fifth Grade Beginning DI Reading Levels 2008-2009………………………...34</p><p>Table 11 Fifth Grade Ending DI Reading Levels………………………………………..35 5</p><p>ABSTRACT</p><p>A DESCRIPTIVE ANAYLSIS OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION DATA</p><p>XXXXX, B.A., Louisiana Tech University, 2006 Master of Arts in Teaching, Northwestern State University, Spring Commencement 2010 Major: Early Childhood Education A Descriptive Analysis of Direct Instruction Data Paper directed by Dr. Michelle Morris Pages, 56. Words in abstract, 296</p><p>The purpose of this project was to analyze data on the progression of students at </p><p>Hadnot-Hayes Elementary school who received direct instruction (DI). The data was collected in the 2008-2009 academic year. Key factors of DI include teaching to mastery level, scripted lessons, skills that build upon previously learned skills, frequent assessments to assure mastery, small group sessions, rapid paced lessons, individual and unison responses, and high expectations for every student (Engelmann, 1999). There is a need for children to acquire word reading skills, fluency skills, and especially the skills to phonologically decode words efficiently when reading (Ritchey, 2008). Poor letter sound association and phonological decoding are often the underlying and persistent characteristic of children with reading-based learning disabilities (Rasinski, Rupley, & </p><p>Nichols, 2008). Without the appropriate skills in phonics and decoding with phonological awareness, fluency would never be achieved. When children read fluently, they comprehend the material that they are reading. To be successful not only for the rest of their academic life for but their professional life, comprehension of material must be achieved. The following research question has been answered: How have elementary 6 students at Hadnot Hayes Elementary progressed with the Reading Mastery Program which is based on Direct Instruction?</p><p>The implementation of DI in elementary school classrooms was the variable of this study. The racial background for the participants consisted of 99% African </p><p>American and 1% of Caucasian. The data were analyzed by making graphs showing the progression of each grade level. Each graph showed the beginning and ending level for each grade. The results showed that DI of reading kept the children at Hadnot-Hayes </p><p>Elementary on grade level or above grade level. All children enrolled progressed to the next grade level or to grade levels higher than the grade they were entering. 7</p><p>CHAPTER 1</p><p>Introduction</p><p>Approximately eight million students between 4th and 12th grade do not read at grade level (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). Only 32% of fourth graders perform at or above the proficient level (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). In other words, 68% of the students tested performed below their grade level. Reading is a core skill that is imperative for children to perform well and develop throughout their lives (Benner, Kinder, Beaudoin, </p><p>Stein, Hirschmann, 2005). Benner believed that reading helps children through the academic world and prepares them for life outside of school. He further stated that the consequences of learning to read during the early grades of school are pervasive and enduring. Positive trends are beginning to appear within the academic world. These trends are changing the way that reading is taught throughout the early grades. Torgesen </p><p>(2004) stated that hundreds of studies have been developed to screen children for weaknesses in reading development and diagnose reading problems as early as </p><p>Kindergarten. There are also more ways to deliver intensive, data-driven treatments such that 94-98% of early childhood elementary students can read levels that are average for their grade (Torgesen, 2004). Reading on or above grade level can create a foundation for more advanced reading skills. One method that researchers feel widely increased the success of young readers is direct instruction (DI). The primary goal of DI is to accelerate at-risk students’ learning in the elementary grades and equip them to compete with their more advantaged peers (Engelmann, 1999). Key factors of DI include teaching to mastery level, scripted lessons, skills are built upon previously learned skills, frequent 8 assessments to assure mastery, small group sessions, rapid paced lessons, individual and unison responses, and high expectations for every student (Engelmann, 1999).</p><p>Theoretical Framework</p><p>Elementary-aged American students, particularly those attending high poverty schools, are not reading well enough to be successful in school (National Reading Panel </p><p>{NRP}, 2000). Vital skills in reading include phonemic awareness, fluency, and decoding skills. These skills allow children to read material proficiently and with a higher rate of comprehension. Without these vital skills children are falling behind and losing hope of becoming successful readers. DI is a method that can rebuild and solidify the skills needed to become proficient readers at an early age (Engelmann, 1999). In the current study, an analysis of the data might show the progress of elementary school child who receive DI through the Reading Mastery Program. </p><p>Statement of the problem</p><p>Kindergarten students across the United States learn the names of letters, the sounds of letters, and how those letters and sounds turn into words. Just because these young children are learning isolated letter sounds, it does not guarantee success for these children as readers. Children need to acquire word reading skills, fluency skills, and especially the skills to phonologically decode words efficiently when reading (Otaiba, </p><p>Conner, Lane, Kosanovich, Schatschneider, & Dyrland, 2008; Ritchey, 2008). Poor letter-sound association and phonological decoding are often the underlying and persistent characteristics of children with reading-based learning disabilities (Rack, </p><p>Snowling, & Olsen, 1992). Without the appropriate skills in phonics and decoding with phonological awareness, fluency will be difficult to achieve. Fluent readers read 9 smoothly with rhythm and balance. Fluent readers do not have to stop and struggle with a word with which they are unfamiliar. When children read fluently, they comprehend the material that they are reading. To be successful, not only for the rest of their academic lives for but their professional lives, comprehension of material must be achieved. </p><p>Research question</p><p>How have elementary students at Hadnot Hayes Elementary School progressed with the Reading Mastery Program, which is based on DI?</p><p>Purpose for the study</p><p>The purpose of this study was to analyze data from the 2008-2009 academic year to track the progression of students in the Reading Mastery Program at Hadnot-Hayes </p><p>Elementary. The researcher wished to find out if the students are staying on grade level with this reading program. The researcher also wanted to know if any students were above grade level because of this program. The results from this study could help the teachers at Hadnot-Hayes Elementary School decide to embrace the new program. The results from this study may also influence other principals in the parish to consider this reading program for their school. </p><p>Significance of the study</p><p>There are several significant reasons to conduct this study. First, the study results might show if DI can be an effective instructional strategy for students to develop vital reading skills to assist them in learning to reading. Each child learning skills in a mastery level is an advantage over students being taught with traditional teaching methods. Since</p><p>DI does not allow children to progress without 95% mastery on each lesson, the teacher is 10 assured that the information being taught or re-taught is mastered by each student before moving onto the next lesson. Second, this study might help teachers alter their instructional strategies. Many teachers hesitate to accept a new instructional strategy requiring different methods and teaching styles. The data analyzed for this study might help teachers decide whether or not to accept the DI instructional strategy. Teachers are comfortable with the ways they have been teaching in the past and often do not like changing a method that had been successful in the past. Changing teaching methods can be a big upset to teachers who have been teaching the same way for decades. This study’s results could inspire teachers to try a new method of instructional delivery. </p><p>Lastly, the study results could help principals make a decision whether to choose DI for their staff or not. Principals need documentation and data to prove that this instructional method will benefit the children they preside over. Many different text options are available for principals to choose from to include in their curriculum. This study might give principals an inside view of the results DI can have for students. </p><p>Definition of Terms</p><p>Decoding</p><p>Decoding is the ability to apply your knowledge of letter-sound relationships, including knowledge of letter patterns, to correctly pronounce written words (Otaiba et al., 2008). In this study, decoding skills are defined as scores measured using a decoding post-test. The students are shown 30 words that are on their pre-determined level. The students are required to decode the sounds to determine the word. The teacher records the number of words decoded correctly and determine if the child can decode accorded to their reading level. 11</p><p>Direct Instruction (DI)</p><p>DI is a model for teaching that emphasizes well-developed and carefully panned lessons designed around small learning increments that clearly define and prescribe teaching tasks. DI revolves around the idea that clear instruction should eliminate the chance for misinterpretation of the material by the children. This can greatly improve children’s response to instruction and accelerate their learning. Engelmann (1999) believed that DI can improve academic performance as well as certain affective behaviors. </p><p>Fluency</p><p>Fluency is the ability to read a text accurately and quickly (Ritchey, 2008). In this study fluency is a part of the post-test that is given to each student at the end of each academic school year. If the child is fluent on pre-selected levels, then the child is moved up to the next level. If the child is not fluent with the selected leveled reading, the child is kept in the current level until the child has mastered the fluency within that level.</p><p>Phonological Awareness</p><p>Phonological awareness is the understanding of different ways that oral language can be divided into smaller components and manipulated (Ritchey, 2008). In this study, phonological awareness is defined as scores measured in a phonological awareness test. </p><p>Phonological awareness is a key skill in decoding text. </p><p>Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions of the Study</p><p>Limitations of the study</p><p>One limitation of the study was it would be more meaningful if the researcher could have studied her own students. Time restraints prevented the study of the 12 researcher’s students. The researcher preferred to conduct the study on Kindergarten students see if the DI method was effective in early reading skills for early childhood learners. </p><p>A second limitation of the study was that the researcher must trust that the data being used was correct. If the data that is being used was incorrect, the study would contain false information. False information within the report could lead teachers and principals to make uninformed decisions pertaining to their students. </p><p>A third limitation of the study might be the inability for the reader to get a detailed picture of the use of DI through the Reading Mastery Program. The reader receives an overview of DI implemented in one school. The study showed only how DI has been effective in one school. The study was also covering many grade levels and was not focused on any particular age children. </p><p>Delimitations of the study</p><p>One delimitation of the study was that the teachers involved in the study were familiar with DI. Teachers experienced with DI knew how to teach the students, and this ensured that the treatment of DI was correctly implemented. If novice teachers were involved, DI might not be implemented correctly. </p><p>A second delimitation of the study was that the data were already collected and provided to the researcher. The researcher was analyzing data that already existed. The data were collected during the 2008-2009 academic year. The results were presented to the school principal and shared with the researcher. The data showed the beginning level and the ending level of the children tested. The data showed the progress children made throughout the school year. 13</p><p>A third delimitation of the study was that the researcher did not have to do a full </p><p>IRB review. The lead researcher was exempt from this process due to the fact that the data already existed and was public knowledge. This helped the researcher with time constraint problems. </p><p>Assumptions of the study</p><p>One assumption of the study was that the data being analyzed by the researcher was correct in its content. The researcher assumed that the data was legitimate. The researcher’s analysis depended on the accuracy of the data that was provided. </p><p>A second assumption of the study was that the teachers in the school where the data was collected from were teaching using the DI method correctly. The researcher assumed that the teachers involved were doing DI daily and for the time reserved to teach the Reading Mastery Program. If the teachers were not teaching DI correctly, the data collected would be incorrect.</p><p>A third assumption was that the students were tested accurately at the end of the year. The researcher assumed that all children performed at their reading level when tested by an outside evaluator. If the children were having an “off day” or felt uneasy with the evaluator, the children could possible not perform on level giving the evaluator a false implication of the students’ progress. </p><p>Summary</p><p>DI could speed up the progress of learning to read in elementary school age children who receive instruction through the Reading Mastery Program. Many other teaching methods leave room for students who are struggling readers to fall behind. </p><p>These children might feel left out, have low self-esteem, and most likely feel like they 14 will never succeed. The same children could become behavior problems later in their academics careers. DI of Reading has the learner master the skills needed to become proficient readers. The purpose of this study is to analyze the progress of elementary aged students who receive DI through the Reading Mastery Program. 15</p><p>CHAPTER 2</p><p>Review of Literature</p><p>The purpose of this study was to analyze data from the 2008-2009 academic year to track the progression of students in the Reading Mastery Program at Hadnot-Hayes </p><p>Elementary. The topics discussed in this chapter include DI, the importance of phonetic awareness, fluency, and decoding skills. This chapter is organized by topic. DI and DI related studies are discussed first, and discussion on phonetic awareness, fluency, and decoding follow.</p><p>Only studies that showed significant results with DI implementation were selected. The studies were conducted not only in regular education settings, but also in special education settings. Also studies on different research methods were reviewed to show importance of phonetic awareness, fluency, and decoding skills. Articles used were a mix of qualitative and quantitative studies. </p><p>Studies were retrieved from ERIC database and the Association of Direct </p><p>Instruction (ADI) Web site. The articles range from 1983 to 2008. The articles from the </p><p>1980s and 1990s focus more on the methods and effects of DI. The articles from 2000 and beyond apply DI to different settings and record the results. </p><p>Direct Instruction (DI)</p><p>DI is about producing measurable improvements in student performance (Slocum,</p><p>2003). DI involves teacher decisions about making adjustments to the delivery of the material after each assessment for an individual or a group of students. DI starts with placements tests, includes group and individual responses, mastery tests, and frequent assessments. For example, at the end of Reading Mastery Level 1, teachers are interested 16 in whether students can decode the words taught in the program, and if other new words can correctly be decoded by applying the strategies taught in the program. Rapid decoding is a critical goal of reading instruction (Slocum, 2003). </p><p>When students are taught to mastery, they become smarter, acquire information faster, and develop efficient strategies for learning (Engelmann, 1999). Engelmann </p><p>(1999) insisted that a reading program that teaches to mastery must include mastering a step at a time. If the program is designed with small amounts of material at a time, then each lesson is like a stairway; it builds upon the last lesson taught. Engelmann (1999) also mentioned that teaching to mastery is the most effective use of instructional time, not only for the students, but for the teachers as well. Students must also be placed in the appropriate group for the mastery to occur simultaneously with the other students at that level. Assessments must happen often to assure the students are learning to mastery. </p><p>Assessments also help the teacher identify students who are struggling. Mastery learning is able to change the lives of children and provide them with far brighter future than they would have in the absence of mastery learning (Engelmann, 1999). </p><p>DI has been the focus of vast amounts of research and has shown to be highly effective for a diverse population of students (Watkins & Slocum, 2003). DI is organized in a way that students can learn more information in less time. DI is also designed to minimized ambiguity through clear communication. The instructional formats included dialogue between the teacher and the student. The skills in DI are sequenced to maximize success and to minimize points of confusion. DI also allows for systematic skill development and cumulative review across the length of the program. In the rote teaching strategy the students would be taught ten words and then the students should be 17 able to read those ten words at best (Watkins & Slocum, 2003). In contrast, DI teaches </p><p>10 letter sound relations and decoding strategies. When the student has mastered those </p><p>10 sounds the student can read 720 words made up of three sounds, 4,320 words made up of 4 sounds, and 21,600 words make up of five sounds for a total of 25,000 words </p><p>(Watkins & Slocum, 2003). </p><p>Al-Shammari, Al-Sharoufi, & Yawkey’s study (2008) focused on the effectiveness of DI in non-English speaking students. The study was made up of two </p><p>English learning classes in Kuwait. One group of children received DI. The control group did not receive DI. Al-Shammari et al. (2008) found that the results indicated that the experimental class receiving DI generally benefited from the method. The mean for the experimental group was higher than the mean for the control group (Al-Shammari et al., 2008). Direct instruction, which is more time-efficient in the classroom, can substantially contribute to the English fluency of non-native English speakers. </p><p>Guijjar (2007) studied if DI would be a good intervention for students with learning problems. According to Gujjar (2007) the results of showed that DI improved the students’ learning rate. These inbuilt strategies included in DI included task analyzing, approach, feedback, modeling, reinforcement, as well as shaping and monitoring of correct responses. Gujjar (2007) also found that the students taught with </p><p>DI did better than the comparison group. This method should be used in elementary schools that wish to see their students increase their learning rates (Gujjar, 2007). </p><p>Flores and Ganz (2007) investigated the effects of DI when implemented with students who have developmental disabilities. Four elementary students between the ages of 10 and 14 participated in the study. All of the participants attended public school 18 and qualified for special education. Instruction of the students occurred 20 minutes a day during regularly scheduled instruction time. They found that all four students participating demonstrated a relationship between DI and reading comprehension. All four students also met the criteria for statement inference, using facts, and analogy conditions (Flores & Ganz, 2007).</p><p>Kamps, Abbot, Greenwood, Wills, Veerkamp, Kaufman (2008) studied the curriculum influences on growth in early reading fluency for students with academic and behavioral risks. The children involved in the study consisted of majority culturally diverse children from urban schools. When given the Reading Mastery Program, a DI focused program, children with academic risk progressed more slowly than the general population stated (Kamps et al., 2004). He also stated that children with only behavior risk made better progress and became more fluent readers than the students with only academic risk. Students with both academic and behavioral risks produced better results in reading fluency (Kamps et al., 2004).</p><p>Phonetic Awareness</p><p>Schieffer, Marchand-Martella, Martella, Simonsen, & Waldron-Soler (2002) stated that learning to read in the elementary years is an essential step toward successful educational performance and advancement in society. Reading Mastery Program is a basal reading program that has multiple levels, incorporates decoding, comprehension, literacy, and study skills through out every level. The scope and sequence of the program ensures mastery of skills taught. Oral language is comprised of two parts: receptive language and expressive language (Schieffer et al., 2002). Receptive language includes words that a child recognizes or understands while expressive language includes the 19 words that the students are able to produce. Scheiffer et al. (2002) believed that students should be taught that words are a sequence of sounds or phonemes that the students needed to learn the sounds that correspond to the individual or combination of sounds </p><p>(phonemes), and finally that students should begin blending the sounds to make meaningful whole words. With in the reading mastery program, children are taught letter-sound correspondence before letter-name correspondence. This focusing on letter- sound correspondence has been shown to facilitate blending (Scheiffer et al., 2002). </p><p>Reading mastery programs were also designed so that the students are frequently tested for master, rate, and accuracy. Reading mastery ensures that students are taught critical skills for successful beginning reading (Scheiffer et al., 2002).</p><p>Otaiba et al. (2008) investigated reading instruction in kindergarten students. The study was geared towards seventeen Kindergarten teachers that taught using Reading </p><p>First. The assessments included phonological awareness and letter naming, decoding, and fluency. Otaiba et al., (2008) stated that the teachers taught 30 minutes of phonological awareness and letter naming a day. The teachers also taught 15 minutes a day of vocabulary and comprehension. After teachers implemented explicit and individualized implementation as well as meaningful interactions involving the test, the study found that the children’s phonological awareness and letter naming, as well as the children’s decoding and fluency significantly, grew from fall to spring (Otaiba et al., </p><p>2008). </p><p>Ritchey (2008) compared letter-sound knowledge to Nonsense Word Fluency </p><p>(NSF) for scanning Kindergarten children for risk of developing reading skills. Ninety one children participated in this study. Those children were assessed five times during 20 the second half of Kindergarten. Ritchey (2008) argued that the knowledge of letters and their associated sounds will not guarantee literary success, but that it enables students to acquire word reading skills, specifically to decode words. Children should be screened to determine if they are at risk. Two ways used to screen students included using Letter- sound fluency (LSF) and NSF. Both tests appeared to demonstrate similar relationships with current and future reading skills (Ritchey, 2008). Established and modified benchmarks identified similar children who were at risk. Neither the LSF test, nor the </p><p>NWF test demonstrated absolute classification of at risk students, Ritchey suggested additional assessments would be necessary to accurately identify at risk students. </p><p>According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development </p><p>(2000), phonics and fluency are two main ingredients in the teaching of reading and in children’s reading development. Rasinski, Rupley, & Nichols (2008) stated that rimes and common phonograms can be one of the most useful patterns for a beginning reader. </p><p>For example the –at in hat and cat is a rime or a word family such as –ight in light or sight (Rasinski et al., 2008). Repeated and oral reading of texts as well as modeling fluent reading has been identified as key methods for teaching reading fluency (Rasinski et al., 2008). Teachers used rhyming selections to add spice to their phonics and reading fluency instruction. The children enjoyed being able to predict and read along with the rhythm. First the teacher identified the word family. Next the teacher and the student worked extensively with the word family. Finally the teacher and the student did follow up activities for word mastery. Rasinski et al., (2004) found that the use of rhyming poetry can have a significant, positive impact on student’s word recognition and reading fluency. 21</p><p>Teale (2008) argued that all grade level literacy assessment programs need to include screening, diagnosing, progress monitoring, and outcomes. Teale (2008) also insisted that the goal of any school assessment program for reading should be to improve the instruction of the student. When assessment and instruction work together seamlessly, instructional time is maximized and assessment time is minimized (Teale, </p><p>2008). Literacy assessment strategies should realize what counts, count everything that counts, and provide teachers and administrators with thoughtful and engaging professional development about the assessment plan and its specific assessment instruments and procedures (Teale, 2008). Teale (2008) stated that we, as educators, have to keep ours eyes on what counts to help urban children become proficient readers. </p><p>Tobin (2003) studied 40 students from first grade classes, chosen based on their </p><p>Concepts about Print Test (CPT) and Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF) to see the effects of Horizons Reading Program and prior phonological awareness. Toblin used explicit phonics in which students orally convert letters or combination of letters into phonemes. The students then blend the phonemes to make words. According to Tobin </p><p>(2003), nineteen students received instruction in Horizons Fast Track, the other students involved in the study received traditional instruction methods. On the mid-tests, the results were not statistically significant between the direction of prior phonological training being important when combined with Horizons curriculum (Tobin, 2003). </p><p>Although the students who came into the program with early literacy skills and received </p><p>Horizons curriculum, they showed substantially stronger reading skills at the end of the year (Tobin, 2003). 22</p><p>Fluency</p><p>Murphy (2004) suggested that low performance in reading on state and national tests are major issues for urban schools. He also stated that if a student is not fluent by second grade then that student will never catch up to the other students later in life. His study used the Language Vocabulary Acquisition Approach (LVA) to help enhances the students literacy skills. LVA introduces urban children to print texts, preponderance of words, ideas about their general surroundings and the world in general. Murphy (2004) found that this process helps the urban learners to develop knowledge and vocabulary well above their grade level. The approach focuses on words rather than pictures and picture clues. </p><p>Wilfong (2008) conducted a study called the Poetry Academy. The Poetry </p><p>Academy (PA) was an experimental, pre-test/post-test design to track the results of reading fluency with supplementation of poetry for intervention. The PA was a group of at risk students who were selecting to participate in poetry activities conducted by volunteer researchers. This research involved third grade students. The students who participated in the PA participated in poetry activities during independent work time allotted in language arts. There was no extra instruction provided. Wilfong (2008) found that the PA students made greater gains than the control group on the curriculum-based measurement (CBM) administered after the implementation of the program. Creating simple but fun routines to repeat made the process of literacy intervention a pleasure for the volunteers and their students (Wilfong, 2008). </p><p>Tincani, Ernsbarger, Harrison, and Heward (2005) conducted a study to determine the appropriate rate of instruction for pre-Kindergarten students. Four African-American 23 students between the ages of 5 and 6 participated in the study. The children received </p><p>Reading Mastery Level 1 during the summer program, consisting of 25 children. </p><p>According to Tincanni et al. (2005), teacher 1 presented 9.5 response opportunities at the slower pace, while teacher 2 presented 17.8 response opportunities during the fast paced instruction. The data suggested that fast paced teaching increased teacher-presented opportunities as well as increased the students’ rate of response opportunities and rate of correct responses (Tincanni et al., 2005). The study showed better student performance with fast paced reading.</p><p>Steventon and Fredrick (2003) examined the effects of repeated reading intervention on oral reading fluency. Three middle school students who attended an alternative middle school for various misbehaviors were chosen for this study. Each child participating in the study was given the same passage to read four times. The fourth time was used to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the intervention. According </p><p>Steventon and Fredrick (2003), all students made gains in their mean correct words per minute (CWPM) on practiced passages of the repeated reading interventions. All of the students showed increases in percentage of sessions in which they achieved the criteria for CWPM from the baseline to the repeated reading phase (Steventon & Fredrick, 2003).</p><p>The findings of this study support the importance of future research regarding the integration of repeated reading method with DI (Steventon & Fredrick, 2003). </p><p>Decoding Skills</p><p>The poor decoder makes frequent word-identification errors (Engelmann, Hanner,</p><p>& Johnson, 2006). A student can be a poor decoder when they make more mistakes while reading connected sentences compared to students to make mistakes when they are 24 reading a word list. Children often have more miscues when they are reading a text because the student makes word omissions, word additions, mistaken high frequency words (such as “what” for “that”) and says synonyms for words (such as “pretty” for </p><p>“beautiful”). Reading with this many miscues, the reader does not get a full understanding of what the text says. Decoding also affects the child’s fluency. The faster the reader can decode a word, the more fluent the reader. When a child reads fluently, the child retains the information that he has read. Corrective reading programs give the student practice that makes them stronger readers, and they can progress to more difficult reading endeavors. Englemann, Hanner, and Johnson (2006) stated that every level of the corrective reading decoding program teaches reading skills that replaces ineffective reading skills.</p><p>Kamps et al. (2008) conducted a study on the effects of small group instruction of reading with 83 Kindergarten students. He provided students with small-group instruction as secondary and tertiary-level components of a three-tier model of prevention and intervention. The study participants at mid year were targeted as high risk for reading failure. Intervention consisted of 30 to 40 minute sessions where the student- teacher ratio was one to six students. These sessions occurred no less than three times a week over a two year period. Kamps et al. (2008) used the Dynamic Indicators of Basic </p><p>Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT) to establish early literary skills. The study results indicated that the students in the more directed intervention group out-performed students in the comparison group (Kamps et al., 2008). 25</p><p>The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R), Wide Range </p><p>Achievment Test (WRAT), and the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (WRMT) were used to assess different areas of intelligence including literary skills. Comparisons were made between these three tests for learning disabled and regular education students. </p><p>According to Prasse, Siewart, & Breen (1983) the sample consisted of sixty-three learning disabled students and thirty regular education students ranging in age between 6 and 15. All students demonstrated average intellectual ability and the potential for average intellectual ability. All three tests were administered to each student by the school psychologist. Prasse et al., (1983) stated that the learning disabled student scored significantly lower on all reading measures compared to the regular education students. </p><p>The WRAT scores were significantly higher than the WRMT for both groups (Prasse et al., 1983). </p><p>Marchand-Martella, Mcglocklin, Miller, and Martella (2006) applied Reading to </p><p>Learn formats to the Reading Mastery Program to enhance it’s curriculum. Marchand-</p><p>Martella et al. (2006) insisted that reading skills are the foundation of academic success. </p><p>They stated that the Reading Mastery Program should be conducted as intended and that the purpose of this study was to share ways to include and enrich the students’ reading skills. The researchers wanted to add an emphasis on vocabulary and text comprehension along with the Reading Mastery Program. Vocabulary includes the words we must know to understand written and spoken knowledge. Text comprehension occurs when the child can decode the words effortlessly and concentrate on the meaning of the text. The use of explicit instruction can lead to improvement in understanding what is read (Marchand-</p><p>Martella et al., 2006). Explicit instructional approaches for comprehension and other 26 skills have not only shown to be effective, but can become a powerful segment of the </p><p>Reading Mastery Program (Marchand-Martella et al., 2006).</p><p>Benner et al. (2005) studied the effects of the Corrective Reading Decoding program on the reading skills of students with high incidence disabilities. Fifty one public school students participated in this study. Twenty eight of those students received </p><p>Corrective Reading Decoding because of their special education services. The other 23 students received a comparison condition. The students received 40-45 minutes lessons three times a week (Benner et al., 2005). Statistically and educationally significant improvements were shown between students who received Corrective Reading Decoding and the students who received the comparison condition (Benner et al., 2005). Students who scored below average on a basic reading skills pretest preformed at an average range on the posttest (Benner et al., 2005).</p><p>Argument</p><p>Various studies have been conduction on DI. These studies show that DI can vastly improve early reading skills. Watkins and Slocum (2003) found that DI has been the focus of vast amounts of research and has shown to be highly effective for a diverse population of students. According to Gujjar (2007), DI is also a good intervention tool for students with learning problems. DI was used in Gujjar’s study to show that more improvements came from the children who received DI than the comparison group. </p><p>Flores and Ganz (2007) also studied the effects of DI on students with learning disabilities and found that all four students who received DI demonstrated a relationship between DI and reading comprehension. Kamps et al. (2004) study also showed that DI produced better reading fluency results in children with academic and behavioral risks. 27</p><p>Research supports that well developed early reading skills are achieved through the implementation of DI in elementary school students. </p><p>Schieffer et al. (2002) stated that learning to read in the elementary years is an essential step toward successful educational performance and advancement in society. </p><p>Phonetic Awareness is an essential step to learning to read in the elementary. Phonetic awareness includes knowledge of letter sounds and phoneme sounds. DI incorporates this essential skill into its daily small group lessons. Students master letter sounds and build on those skills by then mastering phoneme sounds enabling young learners to decode words. According to Rasinski et al. (2008), rimes and common phonograms are one of the most important patterns for a beginning reader.</p><p>The poor decoder makes frequent word-identification errors (Engelmann et al., </p><p>2006). Decoding skills are the key to fluency. Without decoding skills, the reader will frequently make mistakes when reading connected sentences as well as word lists. DI provides ample opportunity for the early reading learner to practice and master the skill of decoding. The learner not only decodes vocabulary words but the reader also learns how to decode nonsense words. Students master the skills needed for decoding with each lesson presented in DI. </p><p>Fluency allows the reader to read the text smoothly and comprehend the information being read. Fluency is achieved through advanced decoding skills. Murphy </p><p>(2004) believes that if a student is not fluent by second grade then that student will never catch up to the other students later in life. DI implements fluency in its stories. Learners are given a chance to practice reading fluently and with tone and expression. The teacher 28 models the desired fluency skills. The student with time and practice masters reading fluently. </p><p>Summary</p><p>The purpose of this study is to analyze data from the 2008-2009 academic year to track the progression of students in the Reading Mastery Program at Hadnot-Hayes </p><p>Elementary. Topics researched included the importance of phonetic awareness skills, fluency skills, and decoding skills. The link between phonetic awareness, fluency, and decoding skills to reading readiness is apparent through the studies conducted. Children who are phonetically aware of letter sounds and phonemes are better word decoders. </p><p>Children who can decode words more quickly are more fluent readers. DI implements methods in teaching each one of these variables to a mastery level. Mastery ensures the learners are successful with the skills taught. 29</p><p>CHAPTER 3</p><p>Methodology </p><p>The purpose of this study was to analyze data from the 2008-2009 academic year to track the progression of students in the Reading Mastery Program at Hadnot-Hayes </p><p>Elementary. The implementation of DI in all grades at Hadnot-Hayes Elementary was the variable of this study. The topics of design, participants, sampling strategy, ethical standards, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and data analysis were discussed in this section.</p><p>Design</p><p>This study was a descriptive study. A descriptive study provided basic information about the participants in the study, their characteristics, and how they did with the implementation of DI. This descriptive study is based on frequency counts and bar graphs. After the data were collected, the information was converted into categorical organization. The information was tabulated by grade level. All students at Hadnot-</p><p>Hayes Elementary were used to collect date. Kindergarten through fifth grade students were used for this study. </p><p>Participants</p><p>The target population consisted of students in Rapides Parish school district who attended a low income public school. The accessible population consisted of students at </p><p>Hadnot-Hayes Elementary school whose principal had allowed the data to be used in the study (see Appendix A). Students ranged in age between five and 11. As 90% of </p><p>Hadnot-Hayes Elementary school students receive free or reduced lunch, students who participated in this study came from low socio-economic backgrounds. The racial 30 background for the participants consisted of 99% African American and 1% of </p><p>Caucasian. All students at Hadnot-Hayes Elementary were used to collect date. Grades </p><p>Kindergarten through fifth grade participated in this study. </p><p>Sampling strategy</p><p>Cluster sampling was used in this study. Cluster sampling is sampling in which intact groups, not individuals, are selected (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2009). The researcher used each grade level as a group and tested each child within that grade level for the </p><p>Reading Mastery Programs end of year test. Cluster sampling strategy was chosen because rather than selecting from all students in Rapids Parish, only the classrooms at </p><p>Hadnot Hayes Elementary were chosen for the data analysis. This is also a form of convenience sampling. The researcher used the participants that were within easy access. </p><p>Ethical Standards </p><p>Following the National Research Act of 1974, this research was approved by </p><p>Northwestern State University’s Human Subjects (IRB) (see Appendix B). Before permission was granted by the IRB, the principal signed a permission form giving the researcher permission to use the data that had been collected at the school (see Appendix </p><p>B). This study was exempt from a full IRB review because it was an analysis of existing data. </p><p>No identifying information about any participants in the study will was present in the data. All participants’ confidentiality was assured. All data related to the study remains in the school office. 31</p><p>Instrumentation </p><p>The instruments used to collect the data were the Reading Mastery Program and the assessments within the manuals. The teacher of each classroom taught using the </p><p>Reading Mastery Program. The teachers taught to 95% accuracy for each skill learned. </p><p>This means that the teachers tested each child after every five lessons and if the child scored 95% or higher then the child mastered the skill. If the child scored lower than </p><p>95%, the teacher re-taught those skills until the child mastered them. The teachers of each grade used assessments within the Reading Mastery Programs to test for mastery of each skill through out the school year. </p><p>Fluency was measured using Reading Mastery Leveled stories (see Appendix C and D). The Reading Mastery Leveled stories are written in leveled booklets and were presented to the students in their original form. The students were given a passage. The student had a predetermined amount of time to read the passage with no more than a predetermined amount of miscues allowed for each passage read. The test administrator recorded miscues as words were decoded incorrectly, word substitution, and drawn out pauses where the researcher provided the word. The amount of time reading and the number of miscues per passage determined the child’s fluency. The passages progress in level of difficulty. </p><p>Decoding skills were measured using Reading Mastery Leveled vocabulary words</p><p>(see Appendix E and F). Reading Mastery Leveled vocabulary words were presented to the student in the form of flash cards. Students were required to decode the words presented to them on the flash cards. The researcher recorded how many words the student could decode. 32</p><p>Data Collection Procedure</p><p>The data were collected at the end of the 2008-2009 academic year. The analysis of the data began in August 2009. The study focused on the progression of students in the Reading Mastery Program at Hadnot-Hayes Elementary. It was assumed that each classroom involved in the study had a grade appropriate level of phonetic awareness, fluency, or decoding skills before participating in this study. All the classes involved in the data collection have received the Reading Mastery Program. The teachers of the individual groups followed scripted lessons and used assessments every five lessons. </p><p>Also, the learners were in leveled small groups for instruction. </p><p>In May of 2009, the DI team measured fluency and decoding skills from each group. Reading Mastery Leveled stories were used to measure fluency. Reading Mastery leveled vocabulary words were used to measure decoding skills. The students’ test scores and demographic information were stored with the students’ cumulative records in the record room at Walter D. Hadnot Hayes Elementary school. The data gathered was put into beginning and ending Reading Mastery Level graphs for each grade level.</p><p>Data Analysis</p><p>The data for each grade level has been charted on bar graphs to easily see students’ progression through the Reading Mastery Program’s levels. The researcher compiled all the data for each grade and divided up the grade by number of students performing on the same Reading Mastery Level. The second graph for the grade level showed the progression of the students in that grade level. On the second graph, the students were divided up by the number of students who progressed to a higher Reading </p><p>Mastery Level. The researcher then described the graphs in detail for each grade level. 33</p><p>Results</p><p>The results of the data collected by the DI team during the 2008-2009 school year are presented below in Tables 1 through 11. The information was collected by the DI team and was shared with the researcher. The researcher then put the information into </p><p>Microsoft Excel to create data graphs. These graphs show the beginning and ending levels of the Reading Mastery Program at Hadnot-Hayes Elementary. </p><p>Table 1</p><p>Kindergarten DI Reading Levels 2008-2009 </p><p>All kindergarten students started on Reading Mastery Level 1 in August of 2008. </p><p>The children were separated into leveled reading groups according to their scores on the </p><p>Developing Skills Checklist (DSC). The children progressed throughout the year according to the groups in which they were assigned. The children were able to move up or down in the groups if they showed progression that was more or less advanced than their current group. In May 2009, the children were evaluated by the DI team. The children were asked to decode vocabulary words and to read lesson appropriate stories. 34</p><p>After the testing, the children were assigned a Reading Mastery 1 or RM1 Lesson that they would begin on at the start of the next school year. Three of the 40 students will start at Lesson 20 of RM1 next school year. This means they only progressed 20 lessons within a school year. Seven of the 40 students will start at Lesson 40 of RM1 next school year. This means they progressed 40 lessons within a school year. Ten of the 40 students will start at Lesson 60 of RM1 next school year. This means they progressed 60 lessons within a school year. Sixteen of the 40 students will start on Lesson 100 of RM1 next school year. This information is presented in Table 1. This means they nearly reached second grade leveled reading material in Kindergarten. Even though some children did not progress very much, these Kindergarteners were being asked to perform at first grade level. Any advancement helped them the next school year. </p><p>Table 2</p><p>First Grade Beginning DI Reading Levels 2008-2009 35</p><p>First grade had 30 students that started at the level they were assigned at the end of May 2008. This information is presented in Table 2. In August of 2008, four of the 30 students started on Lesson 20 of RM1. Five of the 30 students started on Lesson 50 of </p><p>RM1. Five of the 30 students started on Lesson 91 of RM1. Twelve of the thirty students started on Lesson 120 of RM1. Four students of the thirty students started on </p><p>Lesson 1 of RM2. </p><p>Table 3 </p><p>First Grade End of Year DI Reading Level</p><p>At the end May 2009, the DI team assessed the first grade students on their reading skills. Two of the 30 students stayed on Lesson 20 of RM1. They did not progress within the school year. Four of the 30 students progressed to Lesson 100 of </p><p>RM1 and will start with that lesson next school year. They progressed through all lessons in RM1. Twenty-one of the 30 students progressed to Lesson 1 of RM2 and will start with that lesson next school year. Four of the 30 students progressed to Lesson 40 of 36</p><p>RM2 and will start at that lesson next school year. These 25 students are now reading at second grade level. This information in presented in Table 3.</p><p>Table 4</p><p>Second Grade Beginning DI Reading Levels</p><p>In August 2008, one of the 46 students in the second grade began the year on </p><p>Lesson 60 of RM1. This information is available in Table 4. Two of the 46 students began on Lesson 91 of RM1. One student began Lesson 120 of RM1. Twenty-eight students started on Lesson 1 of RM2. Nine students began on Lesson 40 of RM2. Five students began on Lesson 1 of RM3. Of these 46 students, four are below level, 28 students are on level, nine students are a half of year ahead of their peers who are on level for second grade, and five students are a year ahead of their peers. 37</p><p>Table 5</p><p>Second Grade Ending DI Reading Levels</p><p>Forty-one of the 46 progressed from RM2 to Horizons. RM2 covered the final introductions to phonetics that needed to be covered. Once the students finished the lessons in RM2, the children were then moved to Horizons, which focuses on the comprehension side of reading. Four of the students enrolled in the third grade were referred to Corrective Reading (CR) Level A. Four more of the students enrolled in third grade were referred to CR Level B1. This information can be seen in Table 5. </p><p>Table 6</p><p>Third Grade Beginning DI Reading Level 2008-2009 38</p><p>In August of 2008, 24 students started school in the Horizon Program. Those 24 students progressed through the Horizon level throughout the school year. The students were grouped into small groups to receive the Horizon program. One student started the school year in RM4. This information is available in Table 6. This student was grouped with fourth grade students to participate in RM4.</p><p>Table 7</p><p>Third Grade Ending DI Reading Levels</p><p>At the end of May 2009, 25 students were reading on Lesson 1 in RM4. This is the lesson where those 25 students will start with next school year. Those students progressed an entire grade level in reading. Seventeen students progressed to Lesson 1 in</p><p>RM5. Those students progressed two grade levels in reading and will begin with Lesson </p><p>1 in RM5 at the beginning of the next school year. This information is seen in Table 7. 39</p><p>Table 8</p><p>Fourth Grade Beginning DI Reading Levels 2008-2009</p><p>There were 36 students enrolled in fourth grade for the 2008 – 2009 school year. </p><p>Twenty students began the year on Lesson 1 of RM4. These 20 students began the school year on grade level. Sixteen students began on Lesson 1 of RM5. These students were a grade level ahead of their peers. This information can be seen in Table 8.</p><p>Table 9</p><p>Fourth Grade Ending DI Reading Levels 40</p><p>In May 2009, the DI team tested the students enrolled in the fourth grade. </p><p>Twenty-two students tested on Lesson 1 of RM5. Those students are on grade level for the start of next school year. Sixteen students progressed to Lesson 1 of RM6. Those students tested a grade level ahead of their peers. This information is presented in Table </p><p>9. There was a great deal of progress in the fourth grade. </p><p>Table 10</p><p>Fifth Grade Beginning DI Reading Levels 2008-2009</p><p>In August 2008, 40 students were enrolled in the fifth grade. Thirty-two students began the year on Lesson 1 of RM5. Those students began the year on grade level. Eight students started the year on Lesson 1 of RM6. Those students started the year one grade level above their peers. This information is presented in Table 10. 41</p><p>Table 11</p><p>Fifth Grade Ending DI Reading Levels</p><p>All 40 fifth grade students enrolled in the 2008-2009 school year progress to 6th grade reading level. All students progressed to Junior High School. This information is presented in Table 11. </p><p>Review of Argument</p><p>There are more ways to deliver intensive, data-driven treatments such that 94-</p><p>98% of early childhood elementary students can read levels that are average for their grade (Torgesen, 2004). Direct instruction is one of many delivery methods to teach reading. This study was done to show the results of DI implemented at one school. The results showed that students receiving directing instruction from Kindergarten through fifth grade have the potential to be a grade level or two ahead in reading. Teachers needed to see proof that the Reading Mastery Program can keep children on or above grade level with their reading skills. Reading and comprehension are two skills that are vital to academic success. The primary goal of DI is to accelerate at-risk students’ 42 learning in the elementary grades and equip them to compete with their more advantaged peers (Engelmann, 1999).</p><p>Explanation of Findings</p><p>When looking at the graphs created from the data, clearly progress was made through out all grades at Hadnot-Hayes Elementary. All students within each grade were on level or above level in their reading skills. Many students progressed to higher reading levels than their peers. This advancement gives the children the advantage to compete with more advantaged peers. These results showed the teachers and the principal of the school the progress that was achievable in Hadnot-Hayes Elementary. </p><p>The school district and other schools in the area now have this information to look at to decide whether implementation of DI would benefit more schools. This data could encourage the adoption of DI throughout the school district. </p><p>Limitations of the Study</p><p>A limitation that the researcher encountered was the fact that the research could have been more meaningful if the research was completed on her own students. The implications of DI on Kindergarten students could have been a substantial study, but time restraints placed on the researcher prevented this from being an option. The researcher was interested in the application of DI in kindergarten students and the results that DI had on early childhood education and pre-reading skills. </p><p>A second limitation was that the researcher had to trust that the data and information collected by the DI team were correct. If the information recorded by the DI team were incorrect, the proof of progress of the students could have been compromised. </p><p>The proof of progression was a key aspect of this study. 43</p><p>A third limitation that the researcher faced was the inability of the reader to grasp the whole concept of Direct Instruction. This research was conducted at a school where </p><p>DI has been implemented for several years. This study only included a brief overview of what DI is about and how it was implemented at Hadnot-Hayes Elementary. If the researcher would have been able to include a more in-depth picture of DI studied in only one grade, the reader may have had a better understanding of DI and how it could be implemented into her own school. </p><p>Directions for Future Research</p><p>Another study that could be conducted would be to focus only on the early childhood grades and compare the implications of DI and whole group instruction. The researcher could compare the progress the children made, which children had better phonemic awareness, which children had better decoding skills, and which children had better fluency and comprehension. The results could provide evidence that DI is a better method of teaching compared to whole group teaching. The results of this study could prove that DI is a more effective method of instruction for early childhood grades when compared to whole group teaching. </p><p>An additional study could see if DI had positive effects on pre-reading skills. The researcher could use the DIBELS testing three times a year to see if the implementation of DI had any affect on the DIBELS scores throughout the year. The researcher would have to implement DI with one group of children and use whole group teaching with a control group of children. The researcher would give the DIBELS test as scheduled through out the year and compare the results of the DIBELS at the end of the year. Did the students who received DI score higher on their pre-reading skills compared to the 44 students who did not receive DI? The results from this study could show that implementation of DI in Kindergarten improves pre-reading skills compared to students who did not receive DI. </p><p>Summary</p><p>There is a need for children to acquire word reading skills, fluency skills, and especially the skills to phonologically decode words efficiently when reading (Ritchey, </p><p>2008). A descriptive analysis study has been conducted to track the progress of students in the Reading Mastery Program at Hadnot-Hayes Elementary. Key factors of DI include teaching to mastery level, scripted lessons, skills that build upon previously learned skills, frequent assessments to assure mastery, small group sessions, rapid paced lessons, individual and unison responses, and high expectations for every student (Engelmann, </p><p>1999). As 90% of Hadnot-Hayes Elementary school students receive free or reduced lunch, students who participated in this study come from low socio-economic backgrounds. The racial background for the participants consisted of 99% African </p><p>American and 1% of Caucasian. The students were selected using cluster sampling combined with convenience sampling. All classrooms that received DI through the </p><p>Reading Mastery Program at Hadnot-Hayes Elementary school were chosen to participate in the study. All groups were taught with DI through the Reading Mastery Program. The results showed progress that was on or above the students’ grade level. Students either stayed on the reading level consistent with their grade level or the students’ reading level was above their grade level. The data analyzed from this study could help teachers and principals decide whether or not to implement the DI instructional strategy at their school. 45</p><p>REFERENCES Al-Shammari, Z., Al-Sharoufi, H., & Yawkey, T. (2008). The effectiveness of direct instruction in teaching English in elementary public education schools in Kuwait: A research case study. Education, 129(1), 80-90. Benner, G., Kinder, D., Beaudoin, K., Stein, M., & Hirschmann, K. (2005). The effects of the corrective reading decoding program on the basic reading skills and social adjustment of students with high-incidence disabilities. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5(1), 67-80. Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and </p><p> research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of </p><p>New York. Alliance for Excellent Education, 3, 1-49. Engelman, S. (1999, July). Student-program alignment and teaching to mastery. Paper presented at the 25th national direct instruction conference, Eugene, OR.. Engelman, S., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (2006). The decoding programs and the poor decoder. Journal of Direct Instruction, 6(1), 21-24. Flores, M., & Ganz, J. (2007). Effectiveness of direct instruction for teaching statement inference, use of facts, and analogies to students with developmental disabilities and reading delays. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 244-251. Gay, L., Mills, G., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. New Jersey: Pearson. Gujjar, A. (2007). Direct instruction and appropriate intervention for children with learning problems. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 6, 2-7. Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Wills, H., Veerkamp, M., & Kaufman, J. (2008). Effects of small-group reading instruction and curriculum differences for students most at risk in kindergarten. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 101-114. Marchand-Martella, N., Mcglocklin, L., Miller, D., & Martella, R. (2006). Enhancing reading mastery programs using explicit "Reading to Learn" formats. Journal of Direct Instruction, 6, 73-100. Murphy, J. (2004). Urban children and reading mastery: An examination of the language vocabulary acquisition approach to teaching reading. Reading 46</p><p>Improvement, 41, 13-17. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the sub-groups (NH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and it’s implications for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Otaiba, S., Connor, C., Lane, H., Kosanovich, M., Schatschneider, C., & Dyrlund, A. (2008). Reading first kindergarten classroom instruction and students' growth in phonological awareness and letter naming-decoding fluency. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 281-314. Prasse, D., Siewert, J., & Breen, M. (1983). An analysis of performance on reading subtests from the 197 wide range achievement test and woodcock reading mastery test with the WISC-R for learning disabled and regular education students. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 458-460. Rack, J., Snowling, M., & Olson, R. (1992). The non-word reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 29-53. Rasinski, T., Rupley, W., & Nichols, W. (2008). Two essential ingredients: Phonics and fluency getting to know each other. The Reading Teacher, 62(3), 257-260. Ritchey, K. (2008). Assessing letter sound knowledge: A comparison of letter sound fluency and nonsense word fluency. Exceptional Children, 74(4), 487-506. Scheiffer, C., Marchand-Martella, N., Martella, R., Simonsen, F., & Waldron-Soler, K. (2002). An analysis of the reading mastery program: Effective components and research review. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2, 87-119. Slocum, T. (2003). Evaluation of direct instruction implementations. Journal of Direct Instruction, 3, 111-137. Steventon, C., & Fredrick, L. (2003). The effects of repeated readings on student performance in the corrective reading program. Journal of Direct Instruction, 3, 17-27. Teale, W. (2008). What counts? Literacy assessment in urban schools. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 358-361. 47</p><p>Tobin, K. (2003). The effects of horizons reading program and prior phonological awareness training on the reading skills of first graders. Journal of Direct Instruction, 3, 1-16. Tincani, M., Ernsbarger, S.C., Harrison, T. J., & Heward, W. L. (2005). The effects of fast and slow-paced teaching on participation, accuracy, and off-task behavior of children in the Language for Learning program. Journal of Direct Instruction, 5, 97-109. Torgesen, J. (2004). Preventing early reading failure. American Federation of Teachers, 26(3), 13- 20. Watkins, C., & Slocum, T. (2003). The components of direct instruction. Journal of Direct Instruction, 3, 75-110. Wilfong, L. (2008). Building fluency, word-recognition ability, and confidence in struggling readers: The poetry academy. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 4-13. </p><p>APPENDIX A Principal Permission Letter 48</p><p>APPENDIX B IRB Approval Letter 49</p><p>APPENDIX C Reading Mastery Stories</p><p>APPENDIX D</p><p>Reading Mastery Stories 50</p><p>APPENDIX E</p><p>Reading Mastery Vocabulary 51</p><p>APPENDIX F</p><p>Reading Mastery Vocabulary 52</p>