FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

CORE PRACTICES IN THE INSTRUCTION OF FOUNDATIONAL READING
SKILLS IN PRIMARY GRADES (K-2)

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Education

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Katherine I Guyer
PennWest University
June 2023

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

© Copyright by
Katherine I. Guyer
All Rights Reserved
July 2023

ii

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

iii

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

iv

Dedication
I dedicate this work to my three beautiful grandchildren: Kamdyn, Alex, and
Konnor. It is for them, and all the other children who will be learning to read in the Dover
Area School District, that I have sought to improve instructional practices, not just during
this research study, but throughout my 30-year career as an educator.
To Kamdyn, you came along at a most unexpected time, but also at a time when I
needed something, someone, to provide me a beacon of hope. You were that light, and
you continue to be my sunshine on a cloudy day. You will always be my number one girl.
How much? More than the world…
To Alex and Konnor, you, too, were surprises, especially at the same time! You
have evoked a range of emotions, but most of all, pure joy. There is nothing quite like
hearing your giggles when you say my name or bearing your full weight as you jump into
my arms for a hug.
My darlings, your Mimi loves you more than you will ever know and hopes that
your love of life and learning will only grow with time.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

v

Acknowledgements
This body of work is a culmination of 30 years of teaching, learning, and
surrounding myself with a host of individuals from whom I have walked away a better
human. Most recently, to Dr. David Foley, I am grateful for your time and feedback as my
Capstone Chair. Dr. Patricia Maloney, not only am I thankful for your agreeing to serve
as my External Chair, but also for your mentorship and friendship over the last seven
years. Your honest feedback has pushed me to do better and be better.
Dr. Bobbie Strausbaugh, there are no words eloquent enough to express the
impact you have had on me as I have pursued this degree. More importantly, you have
been my steadfast partner through the ups and downs of serving as administrators, and I
will forever be thankful for late-night texts and chats, the unexpected notes of
encouragement, and the constant support of our students.
My parents, Lynn and Irene Dietz, you have led by example with what it means to
love unconditionally and have never wavered in your support of any of my pursuits. My
admiration and love for you know no bounds. My sisters, Ali and Nancy, and my angel
sister T, I am so glad that we have grown together over the years and enjoy each other’s
company now as adults. My late grandparents, Ann and Bill Stoddard, you will always
remain my rocks, the ones whose examples I follow as a grandparent, and the ones I
know are having a bourbon in Heaven to celebrate this achievement.
Alexis Hayze, you are the daughter I never knew I wanted, but the one I am so
blessed to have. And Joshua Michael, “I’ll love you forever. I’ll like you for always. As
long as I’m living, my baby you’ll be” (Munsch, 1995). Thank you for never giving up. I
can’t wait to see the wonderful things you will continue to do with your life.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

vi

Table of Contents
Dedication

iv

Acknowledgments

v

Table of Contents

vi

List of Tables

x

List of Figures

xi

Abstract

xii

CHAPTER I. Introduction

1

Background

2

Capstone Focus

3

Research Questions

4

Expected Outcomes

4

Fiscal Implications

5

Summary

6

CHAPTER II. Review of Literature

7

Foundational Reading Skills

8

Essential Components of Reading Instruction

8

Foundational Reading Skills

10

Impact of Foundational Reading Skills on Reading Achievement

12

Learning to Read

13

Oral Language

13

Emergent Literacy

13

Developmental Milestones

14

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION
Identifying Potential Reading Difficulties

vii
15

Instructional Approaches

17

Orton-Gillingham

17

Natural Language

18

Simple View of Reading

19

Whole Language

19

Balanced Literacy

20

Structured Literacy

21

Socio-cultural Theory

23

Programs and Curricula

23

Evaluating Instructional Materials

23

Fundations®

26

Heggerty

27

Journeys

29

KinderLiteracy™

30

Teacher Preparation

31

Content Knowledge

31

Effect of Professional Development on Teacher Readiness

33

Effect of Professional Development on Student Growth and Achievement

34

Instructional Practices

36

Time

36

Grouping Structures

37

Instructional Activities

38

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

viii

Explicit Instruction

40

Assessment

41

Summary
CHAPTER III. Methodology

42
44

Purpose

44

Setting and Participants

46

Research Plan

49

Research Design, Methods, and Data Collection

52

Validity

59

Summary

62

CHAPTER IV. Data Analysis and Results

64

Data Analysis

64

Results

66

Teacher Survey Results

66

Classroom Observation Results

80

Semi-structured Teacher Interview Results

88

Benchmark Data Results

93

Discussion

107

Research Question 1

107

Research Question 2

112

Research Question 3

116

Summary

118

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION
CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions

ix
121
121

Research Question 1

121

Research Question 2

123

Research Question 3

125

Effectiveness

125

Application

126

Fiscal Implications

129

Limitations

131

Recommendations for Future Research

132

Summary

134

References

136

Appendices

148

Appendix A. Teacher Survey Informed Consent

149

Appendix B. Teacher Survey

151

Appendix C. Classroom Observation and Interview Informed Consent

160

Appendix D. Observation Checklists

162

Appendix E. Post-Observation Teacher Interview Form

166

Appendix F. District Letter of Approval

167

Appendix G. IRB Approval

168

Appendix H. Certificates of CITI Course Completion

169

Appendix I. Exact Path Reading Foundational Skills Descriptors

172

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

x

List of Tables
Table 1. Classification of Survey Questions

54

Table 2. Data Collection Per Assessment Period, Acadience® and Exact Path

57

Table 3. ESGI Data Collection with Baseline Assessment Administration

58

Table 4. Station Rotation Independent Activities per Grade Level

69

Table 5. Teachers’ Levels of Confidence in Teaching the Core Components

74

Table 6. Grade-Level Responses to Belief Statements

79

Table 7. Data Sources Used to Plan for Reading Instruction

90

Table 8. Mean Growth of Students with 100% Accuracy for Yearlong

93

ESGI Assessments
Table 9. Student Accuracy in Standards Based on Final ESGI Administration

95

Table 10. Acadience™ Reading Composite Scores by Grade Level

102

Table 11. First Grade Grade-Level Performance on Exact Path Diagnostic

103

Assessments
Table 12. First Grade Performance on Exact Path Reading Foundational

104

Skills
Table 13. Second Grade Grade-Level Performance on Exact Path Diagnostic

105

Assessments
Table 14. Second Grade Performance on Exact Path Reading Foundational
Skills

106

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1. Frequency of Small Group Instruction per Six-Day Cycle

67

Figure 2. Frequency of Core Components of Reading Instruction in Kindergarten

70

Figure 3. Frequency of Core Components of Reading Instruction in First Grade

70

Figure 4. Frequency of Core Components of Reading Instruction in Second Grade

71

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

xii

Abstract
Data from initial third-grade diagnostic assessments for the last two years, as well as
results of third-grade PSSA tests, indicate that students in the Dover Area School District
are demonstrating weaknesses in foundational reading skills. This research is critical at
this time not only to provide information to assist in closing learning gaps created by the
COVID-19 pandemic, but also given the relationship between a student's level of reading
proficiency in third grade and future success. The focus of this action research was to
gather qualitative and quantitative data relative to instructional practices in primary
classrooms specific to foundational reading skills, teachers' use of assessment to drive
instruction, and kindergarten through second grade student performance on triannual
diagnostic and benchmark assessments. Data was collected through teacher surveys,
direct classroom observations, semi-structured teacher interviews, and diagnostic and
benchmark scores for students in kindergarten through second grade during the 2022-23
school year. The results of the research indicate that instructional practices are
inconsistent within and among primary classrooms. Additionally, student growth in
foundation skills was inconsistent between measures, with some students demonstrating
growth but not gaining as expected according to criterion referenced-benchmark scores
and national norms. Performance in one measure, ORF, was supported by teachers'
reported confidence in teaching the skill and instructional time spent on it. The study
concludes with recommendations for increasing consistency of instructional practices and
all staff's understanding of effective instructional practices and data analysis.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

1

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
In October 2022, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) released
data from the 2022 National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading
Assessment. This assessment, administered every two years to a sampling of 4 th and 8th
graders nationwide, provides data regarding students' reading proficiency and informs
national policy. While a slight decline in proficiency was expected due to the impact of
the COVID-19 pandemic on instruction and learning, a longitudinal review of scores is
disheartening. Despite the federally-mandated No Child Left Behind and the Every
Student Succeeds Act to increase reading proficiency and federally sponsored research in
reading instruction, 4th graders in 2022 fared no better than their peers who took the
assessment in 2005. The NCES reports that scores were "not significantly different in
comparison to 1992" (United States Department of Education, n.d.). In Pennsylvania,
where proficiency levels had hovered slightly above the national average for many years,
only 34% of students taking the NAEP Reading Assessment were at or above proficiency,
exactly where students scored in 2002.
Considering Hernandez (2011), who found that students not reading proficiently
by third grade are four times as likely not to graduate with their grade-level cohort, 66%
of students in Pennsylvania who took the NAEP will likely not graduate on time. While
PSSA data for third graders is more encouraging, with 52.4% of students scoring
proficient or advanced on the 2022 administration (Pennsylvania Department of
Education, 2023), we must ask ourselves as educators whether we are satisfied with
sending only half of our students on to fourth grade with the skills to be successful.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

2

Background
In the Dover Area School District, 59% of the district's third graders scored
proficient or advanced on the 2022 PSSAs. Additionally, the number of students
identified as economically disadvantaged exceeds 40%, a statistic that only decreases a
non-proficient reader's likelihood of graduating on time (Hernandez, 2011). The Dover
Area School District has experienced a decline in its third-grade PSSA scores each
administration since the 2016-17 school year. District benchmark data indicates little
growth across administrations, with most students still performing at the basic or below
basic on the annual PSSAs. Additionally, diagnostic assessments in both second and third
grade indicate that, while students make gains in language, vocabulary, reading literature,
and reading informational texts, they make minimal gains (average 2%) in reading
foundations. Students' readiness for third grade is decreasing each year as evidenced by
fall diagnostic data.
The Dover Area School District Comprehensive Plan 2020-23 has identified the
goal to “Establish a district system that ensures the consistent implementation of effective
instructional practices across all classrooms in each school” (Dover Area School District,
2020). While all administrators are conducting both formal and informal observations
with feedback aligned to Danielson's Framework for Teaching regularly, effective
instructional practices specific to foundational reading skills have not been defined.
While the district continues to establish instructional foci for students receiving Tier 2
and Tier 3 intervention, there has been little focus ensuring the implementation of sound
instructional practices within Tier 1. There is little evidence of consistent implementation
of effective instructional practices concerning reading across all classrooms.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

3

In addition to the current superintendent of schools establishing a goal for all
third-grade students to be scoring “proficient” or better on the PSSAs, The American
Rescue Plan (ARP) Act Elementary and Secondary School Education Relief (ESSER)
State Reserve funds require that 8% of an LEA’s allocation be utilized for Reading
Improvement and Acceleration with an emphasis on structured literacy. In order to use
these funds efficiently, there must be both an understanding and expectation of effective
instructional practices across district classrooms.
Capstone Focus
This research project will determine the instructional practices currently being
utilized to teach foundational reading skills to all kindergarten through second-grade
students. It will explore the critical foundational reading skills and the effective practices
in teaching, such as indicated in the literature. Information will be gathered to determine
how foundational reading skills are currently being taught within the Dover Area School
District. Student assessment data will be collected and analyzed to ascertain which
instructional practices may contribute to student growth and achievement in foundational
reading skills. Additionally, the research project will establish what training and support
has been provided to teachers specific to the instruction of foundational reading skills.
The research project is concurrent with the district’s creation of English Language
Arts curriculum K-12 and the exploration of core resources. It will conclude with
recommendations for future practices, training, and supports for core reading instruction
across all district kindergarten through second-grade classrooms.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

4

Research Questions
In considering the need and focus of this project, the following research questions
were established:
1. What instructional strategies and methods are used to teach foundational
reading skills in the Dover Area School District?
2. How do students perform on reading diagnostic and benchmark assessments
in kindergarten through second grade?
3. How do teachers use assessment data to drive instruction?
Data will be collected utilizing a mixed-methods approach. A survey of
kindergarten through second-grade teachers will gather information about teachers'
perceptions and use of instructional practices. Classroom observations and follow-up
interviews will be conducted to gather additional quantitative and qualitative data
concerning instructional practices and decision-making. Fall, winter, and spring
diagnostic and benchmark assessments will provide quantitative data on student
performance in foundational reading skills across a calendar year. These data will be
analyzed for overall growth and trends/patterns within core skills.
Expected Outcomes
In relation to the research questions, there is expected to be a greater
understanding of the instructional practices in the district's primary classrooms relative to
reading instruction. These results will be shared with administrators to inform a type of
fidelity checklist to be used for both walk-throughs and formal observations, in addition
to professional development needs. The research will also result in disaggregating student
performance in individual domains on diagnostic and benchmark assessments. This data

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

5

will be shared with teachers and administrators to bolster further discussions in
instructional practices and potential resources to support instruction. Lastly, a synthesis of
assessment practices will identify the need for further professional development and
supportive measures to provide for meaningful discussions and decision-making.
Fiscal Implications
The fiscal implications will be minimal because of Pennsylvania's adoption of a
structured literacy initiative and establishment of Training and Consultation (TaC) teams
funded through IDEA-B. Training relative to these initiatives to districts participating in
the Lincoln Intermediate Unit consortium is provided at no cost. The district may choose
to use selected professional development days within the calendar to provide this training
for professional staff. Administrators' training may be provided at no cost over the
summer months or during the school year.
As the Dover Area School District employs six reading specialists at the
elementary level who support teachers in the classroom, the district may provide
additional coaching training for these individuals. Given the current hourly rate plus
benefits within the professional contract, the cost of this training would be approximately
$5,000, which may be paid through Title II funds. Again, as a TaC initiative, the LIU
would not charge. The district may also choose to include the reading specialist assistants
in its teacher training given that a distant goal of this project, and the current goal of the
district, is to establish consistency in effective instructional practices. Four training days
for the six assistants, six hours each, would cost the district approximately $3000. These
fees, again, may be paid through Title II funds.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

6

Concerning resources, all primary classrooms currently have instructional
materials and resources which are evidence-based and support foundational reading skills
instruction. It is not the intent of this research to recommend changes in materials.
Therefore, a cost will not be calculated for new teaching materials. However, in any
given year, consumables must be ordered. Assuming the district continues to utilize
Fundations®, and utilizing enrollment data and current pricing, these consumables are
estimated at $17,660. Again, this is not a new cost and would have been included in the
annual budget for the Office of the Assistant Superintendent.
Summary
This project will answer three research questions relevant to the instruction of
foundational reading skills in grades kindergarten through second grade in the Dover
Area School District. Answers to these questions will provide information regarding
instructional practices, student performance, and use of assessment data to drive
instruction in the district's primary classrooms.
The research will begin with a literature review to comprehensively understand
historical practices in foundational reading instruction. It will continue with a collection
of quantitative and qualitative data through surveys, classroom observations, interviews,
and student assessments.
Answers to the research questions in this project will provide the Dover Area
School District with valuable information regarding instructional reading practices in
primary classrooms across all elementary buildings. Data collected will support
administrators in decision-making relevant to supervising reading instruction and
professional development needs.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

7

CHAPTER II
Review of Literature
Since 1992, there has been no statistical difference in fourth graders' performance
on the NAEP Reading Assessment, with only 32% of those tested in 2022 scoring
proficient or advanced (Institute of Education Sciences, 2022). Despite ongoing research
in best practices for reading and national reports and federally sponsored initiatives, the
United States' fourth-grade reading performance remains stagnant. An analysis of the
Reading First Initiative that grew out of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation in
2001 and cost the nation $6 billion indicated that there were no significant changes in
first-grade students' reading except for small gains in decoding (Snow & Matthews,
2016).
NCLB initiatives, grounded in scientifically based reading research, required
explicit and systematic instruction in the five components of reading instruction as
outlined in the National Reading Panel’s report of 2000: phonemic awareness, phonics,
fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Goldberg & Goldenberg, 2022; Stewart, 2004).
The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 further supported evidence-based reading
instruction. Nevertheless, the nation's students continue to not make progress.
The "Reading Wars" have resulted in many suggested best instructional practices,
as the pendulum has swung back and forth over the last 50+ years (Semingson & Kerns,
2021). School districts follow the trends and the research, hoping they are making the
right decisions. The Dover Area School District is no exception. It, too, has struggled to
move the needle of reading proficiency over the last ten years, particularly in third grade.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

8

For this reason, this researcher is choosing to examine the instructional practices for
foundational reading skills within grades kindergarten through grade two.
This literature review begins with an explanation of foundational reading skills
and their impact on reading achievement. Next, the researcher provides an overview of
how students learn to read, including developmental milestones and development
theories. The third section of the literature review explores the most notable approaches
to reading instruction, such as Orton-Gillingham, Whole Language, and Structured
Literacy. Programs and curricula being implemented within the Dover Area School
District’s K-2 classrooms, and based on these approaches, are reviewed, in addition to
suggestions for evaluating programs for effectiveness.
Given that fidelity of implementation requires teacher preparation, the researcher
reviews the literature associated with teachers' content knowledge, the impact of
professional development on teacher readiness, and the impact of professional
development on student growth and achievement. Lastly, the focus moves to critical
components of teachers' instructional practices, a synthesis of what is known about how
students learn to read, best approaches to instruction, quality programs and curriculum,
and teacher competency and preparedness.
Foundational Reading Skills
Essential Components of Reading Instruction
In 2000, the National Reading Panel published its seminal report, a meta-analysis
of the literature concerning reading research. The report recommended "The Big Five" as
essential components to reading instruction: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and reading comprehension. These components established for educators the

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

9

key areas for instructional focus in literacy to be taught with various emphases relative to
developmental readiness and grade level. They also influenced federal policies such as
No Child Left Behind and its successor, the Every Student Succeeds Act.
Phonemic awareness, the ability to recognize that spoken words are made of
individual sounds called phonemes and then manipulate those sounds, has been identified
as one of the most effective competencies in relation to reading development (Ehri, 2020;
Ehri et al., 2001; National Reading Panel & National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, 2000). Phonics is then an instructional practice of teaching lettersound correspondence, which builds upon a student’s phonemic awareness and leads to
the formation of words. This combination of phonemic awareness and phonics is often
known as the alphabetic principle.
As students become proficient in reading words, they begin to combine words to
read sentences, paragraphs, and longer texts. This ability to read words in a text quickly
and accurately and use appropriate expression is known as fluency, oral reading fluency
(ORF) when reading aloud. Assisting students in reading fluently is their oral and reading
vocabulary. While oral vocabulary, the words one uses when speaking and listening, often
creates the bridge between speaking and reading, it is reading vocabulary, the
understanding of words' meanings, uses, and structures that facilitates comprehension
(Indrisano & Chall, 1995; National Reading Panel & National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, 2000).
Reading comprehension is the convergence of ideas presented in a text and a
reader's background knowledge. It is complex and requires the application of prerequisite
skills. When these prerequisites, or foundational skills, are weak, the reader is forced to

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

10

use abundant energy to simply make sense of the symbols on the paper, leaving little for
the more intensive processes of creating meaning (Learning Point Associates, 2004).
Foundational Reading Skills
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards for English Language Arts PreK – 5
identifies book handling, print concepts, phonological awareness, phonics and word
recognition, and fluency as foundational skills. By grade 2, there is no longer an
instructional focus on the initial development of the first four skills listed, but rather their
application through fluency in more complex texts (Pennsylvania Department of
Education, 2014). Within these skill areas, there are both constrained and unconstrained
skills. Constrained skills have a floor and ceiling in terms of acquisition, such as
identifying the 26 letters of the alphabet or isolating and pronouncing sounds.
Unconstrained skills, such as reading fluency, are relative and can be acquired and honed
over time. As students read more complex texts, they apply their constrained and other
skills in new ways to create meaning (Paris, 2005; Snow & Matthews, 2016).
Regarding the foundational skills recognized by the Pennsylvania Department of
Education, book handling is a constrained skill, consisting of turning pages, holding a
book right-side-up, and identifying a book's parts. The alphabetic principle begins with
print concepts, initially with distinguishing between letters and numbers, naming upperand lowercase letters, and understanding that what is spoken can be written using
combinations of those letters.
As students learn to identify letters, they also begin to receive instruction in
phonological awareness, which has been determined to play a causal role in an
individual's learning to read (National Research Council, 1998). Phonological awareness

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

11

is comprised of a group of skills whereby students develop an ability to manipulate
sounds in spoken language. Phonemic awareness, a subset of phonological awareness
introduced earlier, focuses on recognizing and manipulating individual phonemes.
Instruction includes teaching a variety of tasks such as isolating, blending, deleting,
adding, and substituting phonemes, as well as segmenting words in phonemes, and
blending of onset-rimes, whereby an initial sound and the letters that follow in one
syllable words (Learning Point Associates, 2004). Other skills under the phonological
awareness umbrella include counting syllables, identifying rhyming and alliteration, and
segmenting words. Skills are typically introduced from simple to complex and continue
to develop through third grade (Institute of Education Sciences, 2016).
Phonological awareness connects the oral and the visual and sets the stage for
phonics and word reading. Students with a well-developed alphabetic principle have
demonstrated an ability to decode 70% of one-syllable words (Baker et al., 2018). While
word reading, the ability to read familiar words with automaticity is essential, it is just as,
if not more, important for students to be able to use phonological decoding to read
unfamiliar words, as this is a skill that will be utilized as texts become more complex and
vocabulary more content-specific (Adams & Osborn, 1990; Learning Point Associates,
2004; White et al., 2021).
As students develop the ability to decode words, they begin to string words into
sentences whereby meaning is created. Oral reading fluency is often measured in words
correct per minute, and a review of data indicates a positive relationship between this
measure and reading achievement scores in fourth graders taking the NAEP reading
assessment in 2018. On average, students who scored proficient on the reading

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

12

assessment read twice and many words correct per minute on an oral reading fluency
assessment (White et al., 2021).
Impact of Foundational Reading Skills on Reading Achievement
Research indicates a systemic effect on the acquisition of reading skills as literacy
develops. Letter-naming speed in kindergarten predicts reading fluency success in first
grade (Schatschneider et al., 2004). Students identified as "at-risk" in kindergarten are
less skilled in phonemic awareness, and students later identified with dyslexia show
deficiencies in phonemic awareness and word decoding almost immediately at the onset
of formal instruction (Schaars et al., 2017). Rapid auto-naming of words and the ability to
recognize letter-sound patterns in words impact fluency, spelling, vocabulary, and reading
comprehension (National Reading Council, 1998; Paige et al., 2019).
While fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension are essential components
of reading, and their instruction has a place within the primary classroom, it is clear that
learning to read must begin with a substantial set of skills developed through phonemic
awareness and phonics instruction. Goldberg and Goldenberg (2022) suggested the
following:
Developing adequately as a reader requires much more than foundational skills.
Consider a building. Laying the foundation is obviously not enough if you want to
live or work in it. But without a solid foundation, you’re either going to have a
very shaky building or none at all. (p. 627)

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

13

Learning to Read
Oral Language
Oral language is a communication system using spoken words. Its development
begins as receptive language initially, as children learn to associate meaning with the
words being spoken to and around them, and then moves to expressive, whereby the child
uses those words to communicate with others. Much research has been done to study the
importance of oral language development, with studies linking oral language ability to
students’ success in alphabetic principle proficiency in preschool and kindergarten
(Marulis & Neuman, 2010; Morris, 1993; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Additionally,
students who develop strong oral language early demonstrate greater reading
achievement in third and fourth grade as new vocabulary is introduced. Students with
less-developed oral language, particularly those identified as economically
disadvantaged, struggle to make gains even with vocabulary-specific intervention
(Marulis & Neuman, 2010; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). This phenomenon speaks to the
need for language-rich experiences for all students at an early age (Adams & Osborn,
1990; National Reading Council,1998.
Emergent Literacy
Before students can understand what they read, and certainly before they can read
words, they must understand that print, the symbols on a page, convey meaning.
Exposure and experiences with print impact a student's ability to learn to read more so
than socio-economic factors, intellectual ability, gender, or age (Adams & Osborn, 1990),
again supporting the need for language-rich experiences. Identified as code-related skills,
print concepts include multiple skills: word spacing and print direction, recognizing,

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

14

naming, and writing letters and the sounds they represent, recognizing of rhymes,
recognizing and manipulating phonemes, emergent writing, and emergent/pretend
reading. Instruction in these skills bridges oral language and written language. Storch and
Whitehurst (2002) found a direct relationship between students' kindergarten code-related
ability and their grade 1 reading ability.
Ehri et al. (1987) suggested a four-phase word reading development model. This
phase theory begins with the pre-alphabetic phase, whereby readers depend on visual or
context clues to determine words rather than letter-sound relationships. This is then
followed by a partial alphabetic phase in which readers use what they know about letters
and sounds to read familiar words. The complete alphabetic phase is when readers have
learned to decode and can apply this skill to read and write words from memory. During
the last consolidated phase, readers have developed a more expansive lexical memory
and use that memory to decode and write multi-syllabic words (Ehri, 1987, 1992, 2020;
Ehri & Wilce, 1985; Learning Point Associates, 2004). As students become more skilled
in their phonological awareness, decoding, and sight word recognition, their automaticity
in word reading increases; thus, leading to increases in reading fluency (Scarborough,
2001).
Developmental Milestones
Chall's Stages of Reading Development, introduced more than four decades ago,
continues to provide educators a roadmap, from birth to adulthood. According to Chall
(1983), readers at Stage 0 are within the Pre-Reading Stage. This time between birth and
formal education (approximately age 6) aligns with Ehri's pre-alphabetic stage (Ehri &
Wilce, 1985), in which readers develop oral language and early understandings of

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

15

phonemic awareness and print concepts. During Stage 1, typically between the ages of 6
and 7, readers develop phonological awareness and begin to connect letter-sound
relationships and spelling. Readers age 7-8 enter Stage 2 and use their decoding skills to
read a text and begin to formulate meaning by incorporating background knowledge with
decoding skills. Sentences and texts remain relatively simple and predictable. Stages 3, 4,
and 5 build upon what has been learned in Stages 0-2 whereby readers are using skills to
learn new knowledge through various texts and viewpoints. Then, readers are exposed to
more complex sentence and text structures, and the ability to decode words supports
vocabulary acquisition (Chall, 1983; Indrisano & Chall, 1995).
The National Research Council, in its 1998 Report, suggested areas of
instructional focus for foundational reading skills in the primary grades. In kindergarten,
students develop letter knowledge and phonological awareness. First-grade instruction
includes phonemic awareness, spelling-sound conventions, sight word identification, and
independent reading. Moving to second grade, students apply the alphabetic principle to
build automaticity to create meaning when reading texts (National Research Council,
1998).
Identifying Potential Reading Difficulties
Although these phases of emergent literacy and stages of reading development are
typical for many readers, some individuals do not progress as seamlessly. Researchers
have used these identified phases and stages to study which skills may lead to reading
difficulties. In its review of 25 years of research, Pfost et al. (2014) found that there is no
statistically significant pattern of deficits that explains the expanding gap between
successful and poor readers' achievement. That is, readers who start with reading success

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

16

continue to experience success, while those who struggle initially continue to struggle.
However, research has supported general factors leading to difficulty in reading,
including neurological deficiencies, exposure and opportunities, and ineffective
instruction and curriculum (National Reading Panel & National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, 2000).
The discrepancy model, a model used to identify specific learning disabilities with
a significant discrepancy between an individual's measured cognitive ability and
measured achievement, contributes to the understanding that neurological factors impact
a student's ability to read proficiently. In a study of students identified with dyslexia, a
form of a specific reading disability, brain images have indicated differences in subjects'
automatic integration of letter and speech sounds as compared to those without dyslexia
(Blomert & Froyen, 2010). In the same study, brain images of older individuals who
participated in years of intervention exhibited the same deficiencies.
It has been proselytized that the more students read, the better readers they will
become. In their longitudinal study, Ecalle and Magnan (2002) found that students’
ability to organize phonemes into smaller segments grew with increased exposure and
practice.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "ineffective" as "not producing an
intended effect." Therefore, to say instruction and curriculum are ineffective is to say that
when provided or utilized, the instruction and curriculum are not producing the intended
effect of student learning. Instruction or curriculum may be ineffective because it does
not meet the needs of the learner. Storch and Whitehurst (2002) have noted that literacy
skills will impact reading achievement at different stages of development. Regardless of

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

17

the stage, the longer a student receives ineffective instruction, particularly in foundational
reading skills, the more difficult it will be to remediate. Skill gaps will widen due to
students not having the core skills needed for higher-level skills such as vocabulary
acquisition and reading comprehension (Lyon, 1996; National Reading Council, 1998;
Scarborough, 2001; Schatschneider & Torgesen, 2004; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).
Olson (2011) concluded that the effect of remediation of foundational skills on reading
achievement after the third grade was limited.
Instructional Approaches
Orton-Gillingham
The Orton-Gillingham approach to reading instruction was originally
conceptualized by Dr. Samuel Orton in 1937. This approach emphasizes explicit,
systematic, sequential, multi-sensory, and phonics-based instruction. Orton, a
neuropsychiatrist and pathologist, surmised that, for a patient to fully create a link
between print and meaning, there needed to be some other type of stimuli. Hence, the
benefit of multi-sensory instruction (Orton, 1929). In 1960, Anna Gillingham and Bessie
Stillman developed this approach into a curriculum where skills are explicitly and
directly taught in a sequential manner. Frequent assessment determines mastery of taught
skills before moving on to the next. This approach became popular with the inception of
No Child Left Behind, which required the implementation of scientific, evidence-based
approaches to reading instruction (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006). The Orton-Gillingham
approach has influenced the popular Barton Reading Program, Wilson Reading System,
and the Sonday System.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

18

In studying the effects of the Orton-Gillingham approach on students not at-risk
for reading difficulties, students at risk, and students with identified reading disabilities,
there were notable improvements in first graders' word study, word reading,
comprehension, and total reading scores on the Stanford Achievement Test. This was not
replicated in second and third-grade results (Ritchey & Goeke, 2006). Oakland et al.
(1998) found gains for students in grades 1 through 4 identified with dyslexia in decoding
nonsense words, word recognition, and reading comprehension when instructed with an
Orton-Gillingham approach focused on the alphabetic principle for two years as
compared to those instructed with an alternate approach. The study also found that
despite gains, students remained below average in word recognition but approached
average in nonsense word decoding and comprehension.
Natural Language
In 1976, Goodman and Goodman proposed another approach to reading. The
Natural Language approach to reading, the predecessor to Whole Language, describes
"sequential instruction in those skills is as pointless and fruitless as instruction
in the skills of a proficient listener would be to teach infants to comprehend speech"
(Goodman & Goodman, 1976, p. 474). They purported that readers learn from whole to
part rather than part to whole, and that learning to read was personal and social, a skill
developed out of a need to communicate. The Goodmans also suggested that reading
comprehension was dependent upon the meaning of the text for the reader and that print
literacy skills were a natural extension to language development. This philosophy would
later be expanded upon with the ushering in of the Whole Language Approach.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

19

Simple View of Reading
Unlike the name suggests, the Simple View of Reading (SVR) does not diminish
the complexity of learning to read. Instead, it breaks apart the task of learning to read into
two components and can be described using the formula R = D x L. Or, the task of
reading well (R), comprehending what is being read, is a product of the reader's skills in
decoding (D) and language comprehension (L). Mathematically explained, if one of the
factors (D or L) is weak, the product will be weak (20 = 4 x 5). Conversely, the product
will be strong if both factors are strong (25 = 5 x 5). If one of the factors is 0, or is a
significantly underdeveloped skill, reading comprehension will be significantly
diminished (Hoover, & Gough, 1990; Hoover & Tunmer, 2018). Using this equation, the
instructional implications of the simple view of reading are such that instruction in
decoding will only positively impact reading if there is equal importance placed on the
instruction of language comprehension.
Whole Language
As previously mentioned, an outgrowth of Natural Language, the Whole
Language Approach was a grassroots effort of the late 1980s and 1990s to bring authentic
literacy experiences into the classroom (Pearson, 2004). Goodman, who vilified the
systematic and sequential approach to reading instruction wrote in 2001:
By the time they [students] have satisfied their instructors that they can produce
grunts for letters, blend sounds, sound out words, syllabicate, match words that
have beginning, middle or final sounds, and attack, perceive, identify, recognize,
analyze, and synthesize words, many of them will have lost all confidence in their
ability to get sense from print. They will be the victims of overskill. (p. 312)

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

20

The Whole Language Movement, or Approach, was grounded in the constructivist
theory of Piaget whereby learners create meaning through experiences and Vygotsky’s
social constructivism theory which emphasized literacy as a social construct (Goodman,
1992). It emphasized the reader making sense of what he was reading, being provided
choices of what to read and write, and engaging in experiences with peers as fellow
readers and writers (Au et al., 1997; Goodman, 1992; Pearson, 2004). This convergence
of literacy and literature also changed the role of the teacher to that of a facilitator.
Goodman believed this non-scripted curricular philosophy empowered teachers and gave
them the voice that had been left out of the research. Rather than whole group instruction
as the norm, teachers provided mini-lessons based on student needs and facilitated
readers' and writers' workshops instead of explicit instruction in skills and strategies.
(Pearson, 2004).
Whole Language was not without its critics. Chall (1983) asserted that whole
language "research" was not evidence-based but rhetorical, and warned of the negative
impact of instruction in the primary grades lacking a phonics focus. As authentic
literature became the vehicle through which skills emerged, phonics and vocabulary
development were de-emphasized and de-prioritized. However, with the establishment of
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the whole language era ended.
Balanced Literacy
The need for a more balanced approach to reading instruction, with both skills
instruction and authentic experiences, was supported by the National Reading Panel
(National Reading Panel & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,
2000). Pressley et al. (2002) cited key components of balanced literacy instruction:

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

21

phonemic awareness, word recognition, vocabulary, comprehension strategies, selfmonitoring, multiple opportunities for reading, making connections, and process writing.
Also vital to this approach is the element of motivation. Direct instruction is provided
through mini-lessons as well as meaningful literature-based activities. Small group
instruction allows for scaffolding as students become more independent and struggling
readers are immersed in literacy-rich experiences (Au et al., 1997; Pressley et al., 2002).
Balanced literacy does not prescribe a specific set or type of instructional practices. When
asked to list their most commonly used strategies and practices, an educators' survey
provided Pressley and his team with more than 300 variations (Pressley et al., 2002).
Structured Literacy
Characterized by explicit and systematic instruction, structured literacy is an
approach that necessitates scientifically-based practices, practices observed in OrtonGillingham programs such as those previously mentioned. Popularly known as the
Science of Reading, structured literacy emphasizes the explicit instruction in foundational
skills for all students as core instruction. This approach brings again to light Chall's
(1983) resolute stance that reading instruction must be grounded in research. Hence,
structured literacy is not a singular approach but an amalgamation of almost a century of
research on instructing students to become proficient readers (Semingson & Kerns,
2021).
In its meta-analysis of reading research, the National Reading Panel reported that
systematic and explicit instruction is the “most reliably effective approach” (Learning
Point Associates, 2004, p. 1). Systematic instruction refers to instruction in which (1)
skills and concepts are taught in a planned and logical sequence, (2) there are clearly

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

22

defined behavioral objectives, (3) activities are planned and purposeful and include
multiple opportunities for the application of learned skills, and (4) there are frequent
assessments to inform instruction (Learning Point Associates, 2004, p. 1). A teacher who
uses explicit instruction communicates clearly to students what they are learning and why
and models how to use the skill (Learning Point Associates, 2004; Spear-Swerling, 2018).
Foorman (1998) found that students receiving direct, explicit instruction performed better
in word reading than their peers who participated in instruction where phonics was
embedded. Additionally, structured literacy is characterized by a high degree of teacherstudent interaction in which the teacher consistently uses formative assessment to
determine student needs and provides immediate, corrective feedback rather than
allowing the student to continue erroring (Spear-Swerling, 2018).
Essential skills taught through this systematic and explicit approach are
purposefully sequenced based on research in brain development and causal relationships
between skills and achievement. They include phonemes, letter-sound relationships,
syllable patterns, morphemes, vocabulary, sentence structure, paragraph structure, and
text structure (Spear-Swerling, 2018). Research has concluded that instruction in
phonological awareness is most impactful when merged with explicit and systematic
phonics instruction (Duke & Block, 2012; National Reading Panel & National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, 2000).
Direct instruction in the alphabetic principle also leads to greater achievement in
both decoding and passage comprehension (Foorman et al., 1998). In her meta-analysis
of research, Erhi (2020) found that explicit phonemic awareness instruction and

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

23

systematic phonics instruction were more effective than whole-word, or skills-embedded
instruction, as proposed in whole language and balanced literacy approaches.
Socio-cultural Theory
While not dismissing other theories or approaches, the socio-cultural theory,
linked closely with Vygotsky’s social constructivism theory, purports that educators
cannot ignore the impact of motivation and the influence of social constructs on reading
development (Gregory, 2016). According to this theory, motivation to read is created out
of a need to engage with others socially and supported by those of some influence in the
reader’s culture. For some, this may be a sibling or parent, while in others, it is an elder in
a church group or a teacher (Au et al., 1997; Dehqan & Samar, 2014; Gregory, 2016).
Research reviewed by the National Reading Panel noted that students across grade levels
who engaged in repeated oral reading guided by teachers, parents, or peers demonstrated
gains in word recognition, reading fluency, and comprehension (National Reading Panel
& National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). This finding was
supported by Dehqan and Samar's more recent research in which reading comprehension
was bolstered in those receiving scaffolded support by teachers and peers through peer
discussions, feedback, and group learning (Dehqan & Samar, 2014).
Programs and Curricula
Evaluating Instructional Materials
Regardless of the current educationally and or politically-endorsed approach,
school districts are faced with the task of choosing instructional materials that support the
curriculum and will lead to student growth and achievement. In Pennsylvania, the reading

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

24

curriculum is driven by the Pennsylvania Core Standards of 2014, a set of standards
derived from the Common Core Standards introduced in 2010.
Section 2221 of the Every Student Succeeds Act defines comprehensive literacy
instruction that "includes developmentally appropriate, contextually explicit, and
systematic instruction," as well as "age-appropriate, explicit, systematic, and intentional
instruction in phonological awareness, phonic decoding, vocabulary, language structure,
reading fluency, and reading comprehension" (Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015).
Therefore, school districts receiving state funding must be mindful of these regulations in
selecting instructional materials.
The National Reading Panel (2000) recognized four “pillars” of an effective
reading program. These pillars included “valid and reliable assessments, instructional
programs and aligned materials, aligned professional development, and dynamic
instructional leadership (pp. 2-3). Furthermore, Slavin et al. (2009) suggested that
effective programs include the five core components of reading instruction (phonological
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension), with beginning reader
programs facilitated by extensive professional learning opportunities for teachers,
group/cooperative learning activities for students, and foci on teaching phonics and
phonemic awareness. However, simply adding phonics alone as a focus does not increase
reading achievement. The other components, as listed, must be present (Slavin et al.,
2009). Through an analysis of the effectiveness of published programs, Snow and
Matthews (2016) found that the research for the success of these programs is
inconclusive and that educators should focus, rather, on implementing practices that
promote student success. In other words, educators must determine what a student needs

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

25

and then identify and utilize effective instructional practices that meet those needs.
Purchased programs are merely resources to support instruction.
Concerning elements of instructional materials, in a study of 114 classrooms in 32
Title I schools, Foorman et al. (2003) found that curricular materials with highly scripted
lessons and more phonemic awareness instruction resulted in better letter and sound
recognition for students in kindergarten. However, for first graders, reading and spelling
achievement was more robust for those students whose teachers utilized less scripted
materials and provided less phonemic awareness instruction. Additionally, using highly
scripted materials resulted in more significant achievement for struggling readers, while
using less-scripted materials resulted in greater achievement for high-performing
students.
Research has suggested that more than 18 hours per year of phonemic awareness
instruction, and more than 30 consecutive minutes of phonemic awareness instruction,
negatively impact student reading outcomes, with 10-18 hours of instruction having an
effect size of .86 (Ehri et al., 2001). Additionally, in their reports on the impact of the
Reading First initiative proselytized by No Child Left Behind, which heavily emphasized
phonics instruction, Gamse et al. (2008) and Moss et al. (2008) found little on first-grade
decoding and no impact on comprehension. In considering the research, educators must
select instructional materials and programs that allow for a balance of foundational
reading skills instruction.
In order to address the five components of effective reading instruction within the
core, or Tier 1, instruction in the primary grades, the Dover Area School District utilizes

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

26

the following programs: Fundations®, Heggerty Phonemic Awareness, and Journeys.
Additionally, the kindergarten teachers supplement with KinderLiteracy®.
Fundations®
Fundations® is a supplemental program created by Wilson Language and
designed for grades kindergarten through third grade to address phonemic awareness,
letter recognition, phonics, syllable types, and affixes. Fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension activities are embedded as students gain skills, but they are not the focus
of instruction. Supplemental to a core literacy program, Fundations® can be included in
Tier 1 instruction for 25-30 minutes daily for all students. For struggling students,
Fundations® may be used as a targeted intervention in Tier 2 for an additional 30 minutes
of instruction three to five times per week. It may also be used for students who require
intensive intervention (Tier 3) or who have specific learning disabilities in reading. In this
case, Fundations® is to be taught in a small group or one: one setting and paired with a
literature-based reading program and decodable text practice for an additional 30 to 60
minutes (Robinson & Wahl, 2004; United States Department of Education, 2010).
This systematic, multi-sensory program is research-based, utilizing the same
principles as its parent program, Wilson Reading System. Throughout a lesson, students
engage in highly structured and sequential activities such as skywriting, tapping out
sounds, writing letters, mimicking teacher models, building words with sound cards,
manipulating letter tiles, and marking words. Teachers consistently model for students
and provide immediate, corrective feedback. Each level of Fundations®, of which there
are three, builds upon the previous such that skills are introduced and practiced
incrementally and to mastery (Goss & Brown Chidsey, 2012; Robinson & Wahl, 2004).

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

27

Despite its publishing in 2002, there is limited research on Fundations®'
effectiveness. The U.S. Department of Education's What Works Clearinghouse conducted
a research study in 2010 and found that no studies met their criteria for review. Goss and
Brown-Chidsey (2012) compared Reading Mastery, a direct instruction program, to
Fundations®. In the study, first-grade students participated in Tier I instruction with
Fundations®. Based on DIBELS screener results, students deemed at-risk received an
additional 30 minutes of instruction four times per week in a small group setting with
either Reading Mastery or Fundations®. While all students made gains, the Reading
Mastery intervention group scored higher than their peers in the Fundations®
intervention group in a nonsense word fluency assessment, where students must use their
decoding skills to read words. The researchers opined that this difference in performance
may have been due to Fundations® providing less repetition and practice than Reading
Mastery. Additionally, the fidelity of implementation may have been compromised given
that Reading Mastery is highly scripted, whereas Fundations® has a variety of activities,
each with its own set of instructions that may be interpreted (Goss & Brown-Chidsey,
2012).
Heggerty
Heggerty Phonemic Awareness is a curriculum developed by former first-grade
teacher, Dr. Michael Heggerty, in 2003. Its programs provide 35 weeks of explicit and
systematic instruction for all students in both phonological and phonemic awareness. The
curriculum, most recently updated in 2020, provides for sequential, scripted instruction in
rhyming, onset fluency, blending, isolating phonemes, segmenting, adding phonemes,

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

28

deleting phonemes, substituting phonemes, alphabet knowledge, and language awareness
(Heggerty & VanHekken, 2020).
Heggerty Phonemic Awareness supplies teachers with detailed lesson plans, with
each daily lesson only intended to last 10-12 minutes. While a Tier 1 curriculum, it also
allows for lessons to be taught in small groups for targeted instruction. Like Fundations®,
Heggerty is multi-sensory and includes hand motions specific to skills, such as
segmenting or blending Heggerty and VanHekken (2020). The curriculum is not scripted
and, therefore, allows for teacher interpretation.
Like that of Fundations®, research is minimal. The U.S. Department of
Education's What Works Clearinghouse website does not list Heggerty within its literacy
programs, nor does it include it in any reports regarding phonemic awareness. One
published study, conducted by Al-Bataineh and Sims-King, was limited to one classroom
of 18 kindergarten students in central Illinois. Results of the study, where all students
were provided daily instruction using the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness program,
indicated that 72% of the students were reading at a level that exceeded state expectations
for kindergarten students when given the winter benchmark and that 89% of students
either maintained or improved their performance from the fall benchmark (Al-Bataineh &
Sims-King, 2013).
Schwartz (2019) conducted a comparative study of Fundations® and Heggerty in
two first-grade classrooms as partial fulfillment of his doctoral program. It should be
noted that Heggerty was paired with Words Their Way, a word study program published
by Savvas, to provide spelling and phonics instruction. His results indicated that all
students, including those considered at-risk for dyslexia, showed more significant growth

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

29

in letter-sound automaticity, nonsense word fluency, and blending when receiving
instruction with Fundations® versus Heggerty and Words Their Way. Swartz surmised
that the absence of phonics instruction and the visual components provided in
Fundations® impacted student performance in the latter group (Schwartz, 2019).
Journeys
Published by Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt, Journeys 2017 is a kindergarten
through grade 6 reading program. According to the publisher's website, "Journeys is a
comprehensive K-6 English language arts program. It provides an instructional system
for reading both literature and informational texts, for acquiring foundational reading
skills, and for developing mastery of speaking, listening, and writing" (Houghton MifflinHarcourt, 2022). In reviewing Journeys' scope and sequence for this study, the
kindergarten program provides foundational skills instruction in phonological awareness,
phonics, letter names, concepts of print, high-frequency words, and fluency. In first
grade, phonological awareness and concepts of print are eliminated and replaced with
phonemic awareness lessons. Second-grade lesson foci are a continuation of first-grade.
Text-based comprehension, speaking and listening, vocabulary, language, and writing
lessons are included at all three grade levels (Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt, n.d.).
Resendez and Azin (2013) focused on achievement of a cohort of 700 students in
grades K-2 (and 1-3) during 2011-2013 in six elementary schools. In answering “Do
reading/language arts skills improve over the course of participating in the Journeys
program?” students demonstrated gains in vocabulary, comprehension, spelling, and word
analysis. The exception to this was special education students who did not show gains in
word analysis. The research does not include data on the reading words subtest which

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

30

was included in the assessment (Iowa Test of Basic Skills – Form C) used to determine
growth.
An additional study conducted included 650 students in grades 1 through 5 in 15
schools. The study asked educators to choose one unit of study from the Journeys
program they would teach during the second semester (winter-spring) of the 2015-16
school year. Pretests and post-tests were created by ERIA curriculum experts and
administered by the researchers. Students in grade 1 exhibited gains of a medium effect
size (.56). Students in grade 2 exhibited gains of a small effect size (.49). Unfortunately,
this study did not disaggregate data to allow for a deeper analysis of student performance
(Educational Research Institute of America, 2016).
KinderLiteracy®
Developed by teacher Tara West, KinderLiteracy® is a popular curriculum found
on Teacherpayteacher.com and espoused on West's website, littlemindsatwork.org, and
Facebook page of the same name with 167,000 followers. According to West's website,
this 35-week "whole group literacy program" grew out of the author's experience with
close reads and inspired her to write lesson plans for close reads centered around popular
children's books (West, 2017).
KinderLiteracy® lessons are organized by weekly themes with daily lesson plans,
essential questions aligned to Common Core Standards, learning targets for students,
phonemic awareness objectives, shared reading, independent practice, and writing (West,
n.d.). While KinderLiteracy®’s focus is comprehension, there is no explicit connection to
or instruction of foundational skills. There has been no published research to date
regarding this program.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

31

Teacher Preparation
Content Knowledge
With reading instruction being increasingly heralded as a science, teachers
responsible for its instruction must be schooled in instructional strategies and content
knowledge. With foundational reading skills, content knowledge includes understanding
brain and skills development, print concepts, and phonemic and phonological awareness
(Didion et al., 2020; Lyon, 1996; Moats, 2009; National Research Council, 1998). Moats
and Foorman (2003) suggested, "Even with a structured program, teachers need specific
and explicit linguistic knowledge to recognize and address the needs of all children on the
continuum of reading and language proficiency" (p. 24).
In the era of the current Every Student Succeeds Act, legislators across the
country are catching on with dozens of states implementing structured literacy policies.
Pennsylvania just recently passed Act 55, which establishes programs for in-service
teachers in structured literacy and teacher preparation requirements relative to the
teaching of reading (Act 55 of 2022, 1949/2022).
A wealth of research suggests that those teaching our youngest students to read
are not secure in their content knowledge. In a study of teachers in New Zealand, Arrow
et al. (2019) found that teachers taught what was given to them but lacked an
understanding of why they were teaching it. This same study found that teachers felt
more confident in teaching comprehension and vocabulary than phonemic awareness,
phonics, and fluency. There was little correlation between the two when comparing
assessed teacher knowledge and teacher perception of that knowledge.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

32

Moats and Foorman (2003) conducted a four-year, longitudinal study in lowperforming, high-poverty urban schools. In surveying teachers' knowledge, they
established a "modest predictive relationship" between this knowledge, student reading
achievement levels, and teacher-observed competence. Surveys of kindergarten through
fourth grade teachers indicated a weak understanding of phonological and phonemic
awareness. One-third of second and third-grade teachers did not know how to improve
reading fluency, and almost one-half of third and fourth grade teachers could not
diagnose core reading difficulties in written or oral language. Open-ended question
responses were rarely accurate or well-articulated.
Seven hundred twenty-two kindergarten through third-grade teachers in northern
California with an average of 11.97 years of experience were surveyed by Cunningham
and her team. Specific to phonological awareness, teachers were asked to count the
number of phonemes in words. 20% of respondents got all questions incorrect, 30%
earned a score of 50%, and less than 1% could score 100%. In a phonics knowledge
survey, teachers identified regular and irregular spelling patterns and conventions of the
English language. Concerning these two tasks, only 11% of respondents earned scores of
100% when identifying spelling patterns, and less than 1% earned scores of 100%
relative to conventions of the English language. Overall, teachers in this study
overestimated their understanding of core knowledge when compared to the actual results
of knowledge surveys (Cunningham et al., 2004).
Bos et al. (2001) conducted research on 252 preservice and 286 in-service
teachers in the Midwest, Southwest, and Northeast regions of the United States. As the
other two studies highlighted, both preservice and in-service teachers lacked an

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

33

understanding of phonological awareness. When feeling prepared to teach reading to
struggling or at-risk learners, both groups responded that they felt only "somewhat"
prepared.
Effect of Professional Development on Teacher Readiness
If teachers lack the confidence to teach struggling readers and the content
knowledge needed to teach all readers, districts must invest in effective professional
development. While there is no one best way to prepare educators to teach reading
(Hoffman & Pearson, 2000), what researchers have agreed on is that professional
development must be ongoing, embedded, and supported (Dennis & Hemmings, 2019;
Ehri & Flugman, 2017; Hudson et al., 2021; National Research Council, 1998; Stein et
al., 2008).
Dennis and Hemmings (2019) explored the impact of job-embedded professional
development on a single teacher. This professional development consists of a review and
analysis of videotaped lessons of the subject's guided reading groups over a four-month
period, as well as feedback and iterative discussions between the subject and the
researcher. The subject grew in his pedagogical knowledge and his ability to teach more
explicitly (Dennis & Hemmings, 2019).
In examining the impact of year-long mentoring for kindergarten through thirdgrade teachers in explicit and systematic phonics instruction preceded by a summer
institute, Ehri and Flugman (2017) observed that teachers made gains in their phonics
instruction. Of note was that second-grade teachers were less likely to teach the specific
phonics program when their mentor was absent than their kindergarten and first-grade
colleagues. Stein et al. (2008) found that teachers were more likely to implement a

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

34

program with fidelity when the helper/mentor was present. The results of the Ehri and
Flugman (2017) study were also remarkable in impact on teacher attitude toward explicit
phonics instruction. Teachers of kindergarten and first grade increased both their
acceptance of the phonics program and decreased their resistance to learning over the
year. For second and third-grade teachers, however, their acceptance (low) and resistance
to change (high) remained stagnant. Despite this resistance, students within classes where
mentoring was present, regardless of grade, showed increases in decoding and reading
comprehension as compared to classes without a mentor (Ehri & Flugman, 2017).
In its recommendations regarding professional development for teachers, the
National Reading Council (1998) endorsed continuous support from both colleagues and
specialists and highlighted the importance of self-reflection to improve practice. These
recommendations continue to be supported in more recent research. Goldberg and
Goldenberg (2022) have suggested that teachers must be involved in reading instruction
research to bridge the gap between research and practice.
Effectiveness of Professional Development on Student Growth and Achievement
Hattie has repeatedly stated the impact of high-quality teachers. In 2016, he
emphasized Collective Teacher Efficacy as the new top-rated influence, or the belief of
teachers in their ability to effect positive change, with an effect size of 1.57 (Hattie,
2017). As Mathes et al. (2005) concluded, students with skilled teachers with less scripted
programs are able to make similar gains to those teachers with more substantially scripted
programs. Piasta et al. (2009) found that student performance decreased as time with a
teacher of weaker skills increased. Therefore, when considering professional

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

35

development, the ultimate effect of that professional development must be focused on
student growth and achievement.
In a meta-analysis of the effects of teacher professional development on student
achievement, Didion et al. (2020) did not find any one type of professional development
method that impacted student achievement more than another. However, multiple
researchers have found that some form of professional development positively affects
student achievement. In Ehri and Flugman (2020), despite poor teacher attitude, students
in grades 2 and 3 still made gains in phonics when their teachers were provided with
ongoing professional development. Didion et al. (2020) meta-analysis concluded that
students whose teachers received professional development performed better in reading
assessments than those with teachers who had not.
Hudson et al. (2021) analyzed 14 studies on teacher preparation, training, and
student achievement. They found moderate to large effect sizes on student performance in
phonological awareness assessments. The same study found that in 13 studies related to
phonics instruction, there was a significant effect size on student achievement; not
enough data could be collected to determine the effect size on morphological awareness
performance. The researchers concluded that the gains observed may translate to overall
gains in word-reading ability.
Finally, Scanlon et al. (2008) researched the effectiveness and differences among
three experimental groups: professional development for Tier 1 kindergarten teachers,
small group, Tier 2 intervention for at-risk students, and professional development and
Tier 2 intervention. Results indicated that overall student performance increased as
teacher expertise increased and that the number of students identified as at-risk decreased

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

36

as the year went on. Specifically, for the treatment which only included professional
development for the Tier 1 teacher, the number of students identified as at-risk was
reduced by 50% (Scanlon et al., 2008). Therefore, professional development provided to
classroom teachers will have a more far-reaching positive effect earlier on student
achievement than interventions aimed at small populations once deficits have been
identified.
Instructional Practices
Time
It is common to hear teachers sharing that they do not have enough instructional
time during the school day. At the primary level in the Dover Area School District,
schedules are impacted by Morning Meetings, lunch, specials, recess, intervention, and
Closing Circle daily, leaving teachers with approximately four hours and 35 minutes for
core instruction (English Language Arts, math, science, and social studies).
Although one would assume that increased instructional time would result in
increased achievement, a review of the literature did not uncover any studies that could
specify how much time should be allotted for reading instruction. In their investigation
into the relationship between teaching the alphabetic principle and phonemic awareness,
Foorman et al. (2003) saw a marked difference in the performance of students who only
received 45 minutes of literacy instruction daily and those who received 90. However,
"marked" was not defined quantitatively. As Rehman (2021) and Ahmadi (2021) have
identified, it is not necessarily the amount of time allotted but rather how that allotted
time is used.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

37

Ehri et al. (2001) reviewed the meta-analysis findings of the National Reading
Panel evaluating the effects of phonemic awareness instruction and discovered that the
effect sizes for phonemic awareness instruction were more significant when the annual
time spent on such instruction ranged between five and 18 hours. The researchers did
indicate that this should be interpreted with caution given that time spent must be
sufficient to meet the needs of diverse learners. The popular Heggerty curriculum, if
adhering to its 10-12 minutes daily over 35 weeks, exceeds the maximum recommended
hours by 11 hours.
Duke and Block (2012) uncovered that kindergarten and first-grade teachers spent
half their allotted instruction time focused on word recognition and phonics instruction
with limited time on vocabulary. This was of concern given that the decreased time spent
in science and social studies at the primary grades to increase reading instruction time has
impacted older students' vocabulary acquisition. Furthermore, Duke and Block's research
built upon that of Ehri et al. (2001) in that primary teachers spent far more time than
recommended on phonological awareness tasks, one of which was phonemic awareness.
While specific time allotments are not supported in the research, it must be emphasized
that time spent only on constrained skills stymies growth in others which may inhibit the
widely accepted simple view of reading in that without language comprehension,
decoding alone cannot support reading comprehension.
Grouping Structures
It is a general practice that reading instruction takes place in a blend of wholegroup and small-group structures. Students participating in interventions do so in small
groups within or outside of the regular classroom. Given that students acquire skills at

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

38

different rates, teachers must implement flexible grouping strategies to focus on
individual needs (Foorman et al., 2003). This is especially important for students entering
school with significant deficits, where more time spent in small groups at the
instructional level proves more effective than time in whole-group instruction (Juel &
Minden-Cupp, 2000).
The benefits of small group reading instruction include increased explicit
instruction, emotional/social support, more intensive given the teacher-to-student ratio,
and more student-teacher interactions (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001). While these
characteristics are observed in Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention groups once a student has
been identified as at-risk, educators must consider the implications of using this type of
grouping proactively and purposefully. Marulis and Neuman (2010) found that students'
oral language improved more in whole group instruction than in small or individualized
groups.
Instructional Activities
In 1998, the International Reading Association and the National Association for
the Education of Young Children offered a joint statement regarding best instructional
practices when teaching young students to read and write. Their recommendations for
instructional activities in kindergarten through grade 2 included daily read-alouds and
individual reading, balanced literacy, daily writing, small group instruction and practice,
engaging and challenging curriculum, and adapted strategies based on the needs of the
student (International Reading Association and National Associate for the Education of
Young Children, 1998).

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

39

That same year, the National Reading Council published its report. It purported
that activities essential to initial reading include students reading to gain meaning, having
“frequent and intensive opportunities to read,” becoming aware of letter-sound
relationships, learning about writing words, and developing phonemic awareness and oral
language (National Reading Council, 1998, p. 3). As in most of the literature, explicit
instruction is emphasized. The report further asserted that success hinged on four
conditions: cognitive and sensory abilities of students, positive literacy experiences
before entering school, supportive and positive models, and a culture for learning
(National Reading Council, 1998).
In 2000, the National Reading Panel followed with its report and
recommendations of best practices. It established the five core pillars of reading
instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) and
provided instructional suggestions for each based on its meta-analysis of the research.
Common themes emerged in the Panel’s recommendations for each of the five pillars:
explicit and systematic instruction, support in making connections between the student
and the new content/skill, multiple opportunities for practice, shared experiences/group
learning, modeling and student-teacher interaction, frequent assessment, and multisensory activities.
While the above recommendations are appropriate for all readers, there has been a
great deal of research specific to best practices for struggling or at-risk readers. Teaching
to a student's Zone of Proximal Development, where learning can happen without
frustration, has received significant attention (Connor et al., 2007; Florida Center for
Reading Research, 2022; Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000). Phonics instruction must be paired

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

40

with phonemic awareness and vice versa (Baker et al., 2018; Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000;
National Reading Panel & National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, 2000). Instruction for struggling readers must also go beyond phonics and
phonological awareness. While struggling readers need intensive phonics instruction,
focusing only on phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and phonics, will not
allow students to develop fully as readers, and will, therefore, not close the skills gaps
between struggling and proficient readers (Indrisano & Chall, 1995; Juel & MindenCupp, 2000; McCardle et al., 2001).
Explicit Instruction
As previously defined, explicit instruction is when the teacher clearly states the
skill or strategy being taught and models how it is used effectively. The Florida Center
for Reading Research just published its most recent components of effective instruction
in 2022, and further explains that explicit instruction includes using “precise instruction”
(Florida Center for Reading Research, 2022, p. 1). Every major report listed in this
review has cited the importance of explicit instruction as a research-based strategy in
young students’ acquisition of foundational reading skills (Institute of Education
Sciences, 2016; National Reading Council, 1998; National Reading Panel & National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000). In Juel and Minden-Cupp's
(2000) research, students who received the most explicit instruction in sounding out and
blending made the most progress. Connor et al. (2007) discovered that students with the
lowest scores in letter and word reading at the beginning of first grade made compelling
gains when provided with explicit instruction in the alphabetic principle.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

41

Additionally, Morris (1993) found that in kindergarten classrooms where students
received explicit instruction, 84% of students could demonstrate concepts of words in
text compared to 50% of those who had not received instruction at 50%. 71% were able
to segment words as compared to only 17% in the comparison group. In studying
vocabulary development of kindergarten students, Marulis and Neuman (2010) found that
explicit vocabulary instruction yielded larger effect sizes than implicit instruction (1.11
vs. .62). When explicit instruction was paired with application activities, the effect size
was even more significant (1.21).
Assessment
Regardless of the amount of time allotted, grouping structures, instructional
activities, or explicit vs. implicit instruction, the efforts are futile if students are not
achieving or growing. It is imperative that students are assessed frequently and their data
be carefully analyzed to determine whether the implemented instructional practices are
meeting their needs. For beginning readers, growth should be monitored frequently in the
alphabetic principle, phonemic awareness, and phonics, as early detection of deficits will
lead to early intervention. The longer students struggle with foundational skills, the more
significant of an impact there will be on reading comprehension, as students are not able
to cognitively engage in activities where those foundation skills are prerequisites
(McCardle et al., 2001; Schaars et al., 2017; Schatschneider & Torgesen, 2004).
Paige et al. (2019) suggest that summative assessments generally do not gauge a
student's proficiency in essential reading subskills, nor do educators genuinely understand
the impact of these essential skills on summative assessment performance. Therefore,
assessments must be frequent and skill-focused, with student instructional needs being

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

42

determined from multiple data points (Foorman & Moats, 2004; McCardle et al., 2001).
Foorman and Moats (2004) also found that students were most appropriately identified as
being at-risk when a team of professionals conducted data analysis. Filderman et al.
(2021) further asserted that there is a positive relationship between teachers receiving
data analysis training and identifying struggling readers. However, of concern from this
study was that professional development specific to data-driven instructional decisionmaking only predicted teachers' use of the data for students receiving math intervention.
Peters et al. (2021) determined in that same year that the use of data-based decisionmaking, while it may lead to differentiated instructional practices in the general education
classroom, did not significantly impact performance for struggling readers. If assessment,
and data derived from assessment, are to be used to drive instruction that drives student
achievement and growth, it is critical that this instructional practice receive attention
commensurate to selecting an instructional approach, programs and curricula, and
instructional activities.
Summary
Reading instruction in the primary grades receives much attention in the literature.
Over the last 90 years, researchers have suggested multiple approaches and practices to
facilitate learning to read, with a sizeable focus on struggling readers. Today, the Science
of Reading framework has grown in its popularity due to research in best approaches for
students with dyslexia. However, the majority of students learn to read in a large-group,
general education setting. Only after failure to make progress in this core setting are
students identified as needing additional supports.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

43

Ainsworth et al. noted in 2012, "The search for the ultimate literacy strategy is
perhaps as elusive as the everlasting explanation for the Holy Grail. Educators are always
trying to find better strategies; yet, these are often misguided endeavors (Ainsworth et al.,
2012, p. 79.) Rather than looking to find something new, it is the intent of this study to
determine what instructional practices and strategies are being used in the primary
classrooms of the Dover Area School District for all students and how students are
performing given these practices. Understanding foundational reading skills, researchbased effective approaches and practices, and teacher preparation will provide focus to
the research and a lens through which to examine the findings.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

44

Chapter III
Methodology
The review of the literature revealed that philosophical approaches to reading
instruction have changed multiple times over the last century. Most recently, former
Pennsylvania Governor Wolf signed Act 55 of 2022 into law, mandating that the
Pennsylvania Department of Education establish a plan for professional development and
applied practice in structured literacy. This mandate forces all LEAs to provide training to
professional staff in structured literacy and all teacher preparation programs to do the
same for its teacher candidates (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2023). Given
this mandate, this research will inform the Dover Area School District administration of
the current instructional practices within the primary grades specific to reading, as well as
teacher perspectives, and identify professional learning needs relevant to reading
instruction.
This chapter outlines the purpose of the action research project and establishes
context with a thorough description of its setting and participants. The research plan
outlines the research design and data collection methods, which are further explained in
detail, including an account of specific data collected relevant to the research questions.
The chapter ends with a report on how validity was established through methods that
supported credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
Purpose
The focus of this action research was to explore the key foundational reading
skills and effective practices in teaching, such as indicated in the literature in grades
kindergarten through second grade in the Dover Area School District. Three research

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

45

questions were answered through data collection and analysis. The project researched
Dover Area School District primary grade teachers’ current perceptions and
understanding of instructional practices, as well as training and support provided to
teachers specific to the instruction of foundational reading skills. The researcher observed
actual instructional practices within the classroom setting. Additionally, the researcher
examined diagnostic and benchmark data for all kindergarten through second-grade
students in the Dover Area School District for the 22-23 school year.
The Dover Area School District Comprehensive Plan for 2020-23 identified
“Establish a district system that ensures the consistent implementation of effective
instructional practices across all classrooms in each school” as a goal (Dover Area School
District, 2020). Furthermore, in examining data from the last three years, the current
Comprehensive Plan Committee observed that elementary student performance on the
ELA PSSA remains below pre-pandemic levels. Thus, the committee has determined that
the district will establish a comprehensive literacy plan to include high-quality instruction
in English Language Arts in elementary classrooms, focusing on Structured Literacy, to
be included in the 2023-2026 Comprehensive Plan.
While the disruption of learning caused by the COVID-19 pandemic must be
recognized, Grade 3 student performance on the PSSA was below 70% before 2020.
Specifically, proficient and advanced proficient performance was 65.5% in 2015, 58.9%
in 2016, 70.2% in 2017, 69.4% in 2018, and 65.4% in 2019. When state assessments
resumed, third-grade students’ proficient and advanced proficient performance for 2021
was 60.9% in 2021 and 58.7% in 2022. Historical fall diagnostic Exact Path data since
2019 indicates that student readiness for third-grade reading has declined and that student

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

46

gains in foundational reading skills during first and second grade are minimal.
Additionally, performance is not commensurate with gains in other tested areas such as
vocabulary, reading literature, and reading informational texts.
Given the Dover Area School District’s continued focus on literacy, this research
will provide information through answers to the following research questions to guide
administrative decision-making.
1. What instructional strategies and methods are used to teach foundational
reading skills in the Dover Area School District?
2. How do students perform on reading diagnostic and benchmark assessments in
kindergarten through second grade?
3. How do teachers use assessment data to drive instruction?
The Literature Review discussed the century-old “Reading Wars,” competing
philosophies, and suggestions of what “good teaching” is with respect to reading
instruction. With the amendments to Chapter 49 of Title 22 of the Pennsylvania Code as
of April 23, 2022, the newly created Structured Literacy Program Framework will
become practice for all public schools in the Commonwealth for the 2023-24 school year
(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2022). The desired outcome of this research will
be to provide specific data relative to current instructional practices in reading within
kindergarten, first, and second grades to support the district’s implementation of this
framework in the coming years.
Setting and Participants
The Dover Area School District is located approximately 30 miles southwest of
the state capital, Harrisburg. Serving both the Dover Borough and Dover Township, the

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

47

42-square-mile district is a mixture of rural and suburban communities. One high school,
grades 9-12, a middle school, grades 6-8, four elementary schools, grades K-5, and a K12 Dover Cyber Academy provide educational services to the district’s more than 3,200
students.
District staffing consists of 244 professional staff, 209 support staff, two school
social workers, three certified school psychologists, and 21 administrators. Specific to
this study, two elementary schools have two reading specialists each, and two
elementaries have one reading specialist each. These individuals provide in-class and
pull-out support to struggling readers through Title I or Tier 2 intervention. Additionally,
each elementary school has a dean/intervention specialist who provides Tier 3 reading
intervention.
As of February 2023, the Dover Area School District’s average percent of
economically disadvantaged students was 51.7%, with one elementary school,
Weigelstown Elementary, at 65.2%. The English Language Learner population for the
district is 2.3%. 16.8% of students districtwide receive special education services and
supports, while 2.4% receive gifted services and supports, and 2.4% are considered youth
experiencing homelessness or are in foster care. 77.6% of Dover students are Caucasian,
12.5% are Hispanic, 4.8% are two or more races, 4.2% are Black, .6% are Asian, and .2%
are American Indian/Alaskan Native (Future Ready PA Index, n.d.).
Impacting this study is the district’s transfer of several elementary teachers to
different buildings and/or different grade levels over the last two years. In January 2021,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled to permit Washington Township to secede from
the Dover Area School District, resulting in a move of approximately 200 students to the

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

48

Northern York County School District, including 100 students from the North Salem
Elementary School, in July of 2021. As a result, most North Salem teaching teams were
reduced from three teachers to two. An enrollment study that began in 2021 revealed that
the Weigelstown Elementary enrollment would be significantly increasing over the next
five years due to new housing developments. Therefore, in the summer of 2022, borders
for the North Salem and Weigelstown elementaries were realigned, moving more than
100 students from Weigelstown to North Salem for the 22-23 school year, thus requiring
additional teacher transfers to support the growth of one school and loss of another. This,
and additional requests for transfers, resulted in six teachers in grades kindergarten
through second grade throughout the four elementary buildings being new to teaching or
new to their grade level for the 2022-2023 school year.
It should also be noted that, relative to the Washington Township secession, the
district has experienced a net loss of more than $4 million in revenue annually. This loss,
coupled with rising healthcare costs and PSERS contributions, has created a financial
burden the district has never experienced and will likely impact programming as the
district adjusts to its new financial parameters.
An additional phenomenon impacting this study is the turnover in administrators
at both the building and central office levels. Since 2021, there have been changes to
three out of four elementary principals, the superintendent and assistant superintendent,
as well as three out of six secondary administrators. These changes have affected support
provided to teachers for reading instruction, as well as expectations for student
performance. The current superintendent has a goal of reading proficiency for all third
grade students.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

49

Participants in this study included teachers in grades kindergarten through second
grade. Upon approval from the Institutional Review Board, an email was sent to these
teachers with a link to a teacher survey via Google Forms. An informed consent was
included in the form which required the teacher’s approval to proceed. If the individual
disagreed, the survey automatically thanked the individual for their time and closed.
Teachers in kindergarten through second grade also received letters sent to them
individually regarding a classroom observation and semi-structured interview. These
letters explained participation details and a place for individuals to agree to participate
via handwritten signature.
While students did not directly engage in this research, performance data was
retrieved three times during the school year through district-level reports. These reports
were redacted by the district data manager or teacher lead (ESGI) in order to remove any
personally identifiable student and teacher information and ensure anonymity.
Research Plan
Data collection began on October 22 based on receipt of IRB approval (Appendix
G) and written approval to conduct research received on July 11, 2022 from the Dover
Area School District superintendent (Appendix F). The researcher initiated an informed
consent and an online survey of classroom teachers in kindergarten through second grade,
as noted in Appendices A and B. The researcher emailed teachers using their schoolbased email on October 5, 2022, briefly explaining the request and a link to a Google
Form. This Google Form, entitled Teacher Survey: Classroom Teachers’ Practices and
Perceptions Regarding the Instruction of Foundational Reading Skills in the Primary
Grades (K-2), began with Informed Consent, the acceptance of which provided access to

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

50

the survey questions. Due to the limited number of participants per grade level and the
desire to preserve anonymity, teachers were only asked to identify themselves by grade
taught.
In order to maximize transparency and support for participation, the researcher
contacted the Dover Area Education Association’s co-president, an elementary teacher,
on October 7, 2022, to inform her of the research and offer a review of the approved
survey questions and settings, which ensured that email addresses and personally
identifiable information would not be collected. The researcher emailed reminders to the
teachers on October 14, 2022, October 24, 2022, and November 9, 2022. The survey was
closed on November 12, 2022. Before starting the survey, the researcher met with
building principals to discuss the forthcoming research. Additionally, an email was sent
to principals on October 16 to remind them that the survey results and subsequent
observations would be kept strictly confidential and could not be shared with them.
Of the 35 teachers to whom the survey was distributed, 17 participated. As
explained previously, teachers were transferred between buildings and grade levels due to
shifting enrollments. Six current kindergarten through grade two teachers were either new
to teaching or their grade level at the start of the 2022-23 school year, leaving only 29
teachers with one or more years of experience. Additionally, one veteran teacher left for
FMLA unexpectedly, which reduced the number of teachers with experience teaching
reading at these grade levels to 28. The researcher received emails from four of the seven
inexperienced teachers indicating they felt they needed more experience to complete the
survey. Ultimately seven kindergarten, seven first-grade, and three second-grade teachers
completed the survey.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

51

Also, in October 2022, letters of informed consent, provided in Appendix C, were
mailed to each kindergarten, first, and second-grade teacher at their school buildings.
These letters requested participation in a classroom observation and semi-structured
interview following the observation. Informed consent letters were returned to the
researcher in provided envelopes through inter-school mail. Upon return of the letters, the
researcher emailed each prospective participant to arrange for a mutually agreed-upon
date and time for an observation based on the teacher’s instructional schedule. These
agreed-upon dates and times were documented in calendar invitations. Semi-structured
interviews, using questions provided in Appendix D, were also scheduled in this manner.
Observations began in November 2022 and concluded in January 2023. Ten teachers
participated in the observation and semi-structured interviews: four kindergarten, five
first grade, and one second grade.
In addition to teacher surveys and observations, the researcher gathered core
instructional materials to familiarize herself with the materials and expectations written
by the publishers. The materials reviewed included teacher manuals for
Heggerty Phonemic Awareness, Fundations®, and Houghton Mifflin
Harcourt’s Journeys. The research also examined an overview of Tara
West’s KinderLiteracy®. This exercise provided further insight into the programs and
support for how to complete program-specific checklists during classroom observations.
According to the Dover Area School District’s Assessment Calendar, diagnostic
and benchmark data collection occurred three times during the school year. Approval to
gather this data had been previously approved by the superintendent, as noted in
Appendix F. Fall, winter, and spring assessment windows were established in the summer

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

52

of 2022 in order to gather student performance data using Acadience benchmark
assessments for all students in grades kindergarten through second grade and ExactPath
diagnostic assessments for students in grades one and two. Upon closure of the
assessment windows, the data manager redacted the districtwide data to remove student
and teacher names and provided the electronic files as spreadsheets to the researcher.
The ESGI was utilized to gather benchmark data for kindergarten students four
times during the school year. This data was downloaded and redacted by a kindergarten
teacher who serves as the data manager for this assessment. On February 22, 2023, the
researcher met with this kindergarten teacher to learn more about the configuration of the
ESGI and its reports, as this assessment is unique to one grade level.
Research Design, Methods, & Data Collection
This action research used a mixed-methods approach. This approach was chosen
based on the need to provide a more in-depth understanding of reading instruction in the
primary grades through the intersection of both quantitative and qualitative data and data
collection. Student performance cannot be explained fully with only benchmark and
diagnostic data. Instead, the information related to instructional planning and practices
provides context to the performance and allows the researcher to form a more complete
answer to the research questions, thus leading to more substantiated conclusions
(Hendricks, 2017; Mertler, 2022).
This action research began with retrieving and reviewing archived diagnostic and
benchmark data for students in kindergarten through second grade and third-grade PSSA
data in order to determine a research focus and create a research proposal in July 2022.
Research questions were generated based on this focus and included examining

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

53

instructional strategies and methods used in the instructional of foundational reading
skills, analyzing student performance on reading diagnostic and benchmark assessments,
and determining how teachers use assessment to drive instruction.
Upon IRB approval on October 4, 2022, the researcher distributed an informed
consent for a survey, Appendix A, to kindergarten through second-grade teachers to
gather information about teachers’ perception and use of instructional practices and
assessment, Research Questions 1 and 3. This 25-question survey provided both
quantitative and qualitative data for analysis. Table 1 provides a classification of each
survey question as it relates to the research questions.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

54

Table 1
Classification of Survey Questions, Appendix B
Question(s)

Type of question(s)

Purpose

1

Multiple choice: grade level

Disaggregate data

2-4

Multiple choice: quantitative data

Research Question 1

5

Open-ended: quantitative, “other” response Research Question 1

6

Open-ended: qualitative, station rotation

Research Question 1

7

Grid: quantitative data, frequency of
core components instruction

Research Question 1

8-13

Open-ended: quantitative data, materials
used to teach core components

Research Question 1

14

Open-ended: qualitative data, teaching
materials provided by the district

Research Question 1

15-16

Likert-type scale: quantitative data, teacher Research Question 1
perceptions of reading instruction

17

Grid: quantitative data, teacher
professional learning

Research Question 1

18

Multiple choice/multiple answers:
quantitative data, types of assessments

Research Question 3

19

Open-ended: quantitative, “other” response Research Question 3

20

Grid: quantitative data, teacher use of
Assessments

Research Question 3

21

Open-ended: qualitative data, teacher use
of assessments

Research Question 3

22

Open-ended: qualitative data, data analysis Research Question 3

23

Grid: quantitative data, teacher use of data Research Question 3

24

Likert-scale: quantitative date, teacher
perceptions of reading instruction

25

Open-ended: optional qualitative data

Research Questions 1
and 3

Research Questions 1
and 3
_____________________________________________________________________

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

55

Classroom observations were conducted from November 2022 through January
2023 to gather additional quantitative and qualitative data on instructional practices and
strategies. A letter of informed consent, Appendix C, was sent to all kindergarten, first,
and second-grade teachers. Upon receipt of the informed consent, the reviewer scheduled
the classroom observations with the teacher. Data were gathered utilizing four separate
checklists as provided in Appendix E. Three of these checklists were developed by the
researcher based on the fidelity of implementation checklists provided by the publishers
of both Heggerty and Fundations®, with format and items streamlined for easy data
collection. The researcher developed an additional checklist to document instructional
practices and strategies separate from those prescribed through the Heggerty,
Fundations®, and Journeys programs and supported by the literature. All checklists
allowed for the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data.
Observations were followed by semi-structured interviews through which
additional qualitative and quantitative data relative to instructional decision-making and
Research Question 3 was obtained. A semi-structured format was used to create
consistency among questions and interviews while allowing the researcher to ask probing
questions should a participant’s response warrant such (Appendix D). Interviews were
conducted via Zoom to allow for recording upon participants’ consent. The researcher
also took anecdotal notes during the interviews to record additional thoughts or prompt
additional questions.
Quantitative data collection for Research Question 2 included the ESGI,
Acadience, and ExactPath assessments administered in the fall, winter, and spring of the
2022-23 school year in kindergarten, first, and second grades (Table 2). An additional

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

56

baseline assessment of the ESGI is conducted at the start of kindergarten (Table 3). This
data collection led to the researcher comparing student data against established local or
national norms. To ensure confidentiality and the safety of the students (minors), all data
were collected using the assessment tools’ reports systems by the district data manager or
kindergarten teacher serving as ESGI data manager. The data manager removed all
identifiable information from the reports, including names, identification numbers, and
teachers, leaving only grade levels and scores. Once this information was removed, the
data manager sent the redacted reports and data sets to the researcher as a spreadsheet for
sorting and analysis.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

57

Table 2
Data Collected Per Assessment Period, Acadience and Exact Path
Fall Administration

Winter Administration

Spring Administration

Acadience
RCS
Kindergarten FSF
LNF

RCS
FSF
LNF
PSF
NWF-CLS
NWF-WWR

RCS
LNF
PSF
NWF-CLS
NWF-WWR

Acadience
Grade 1

RCS
PSF
NWF-CLS
NWF-WWR

RCS
PSF
NWF-CLS
NWF-WWR
ORF WC
ORF Retell

RCS
PSF
NWF-CLS
NWF-WWR
ORF WC
ORF Retell

Acadience
Grade 2

RCS
ORF WC
ORF Retell

RCS
ORF WC
ORF Retell

RCS
ORF WC
ORF Retell

Exact Path
Grade 1

Overall Performance
Reading Foundations

Overall Performance
Reading Foundations

Overall Performance
Reading Foundations

Exact Path
Grade 2

Overall Performance
Reading Foundations

Overall Performance
Reading Foundations

Overall Performance
Reading Foundations

Note. RCS = Reading Composite Score, FSF = First Sound Fluency, LNF = Letter
Naming Fluency, PSF = Phonemic Segmentation Fluency, NWF-CLS = Nonsense Word
Fluency, Correct Letter Sounds, NWF-WWR = Nonsense Word Fluency, Whole Words
Read, ORF WC= Oral Reading Fluency, Words Correct

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

58

Table 3
ESGI Data Collection with Baseline Assessment Administration
ESGI

Baseline
Identify Rhyming
Words
Count and
Segment
Syllables
Blend Syllables

Fall

Winter

Identify Rhyming Produce Letter
Words
when Given
Sound
Segment Onset
and Rime
Produce
Rhyming
Blend Onset and
Words
Rime
Blend Phonemes
in CVC Words
Segment
Phonemes in
CVC Words

Spring
Produces Letter
when Given
Sound
Produce
Rhyming
Words
Blend Phonemes
in CVC Words
Segment
Phonemes in
CVC Words

Note. CVC = Consonant Vowel Consonant
With respect to this research plan, fiscal implications are minimal. Surveys were
developed using Google Forms, a web-based free tool application that also allowed for
sorting within a Google sheet. The researcher developed observation data collection tools
using fidelity checklists readily available electronically by the publishers of Fundations®,
Heggerty, and Journeys. Participants completed the survey via Google Forms at times
convenient for them. Likewise, interviews following observations were scheduled based
on teacher availability, generally during a teacher’s planning period or before or after
school. Compensation was neither offered nor expected. Classroom observations were
conducted during regular school hours, requiring no additional planning from the teacher
participants. Benchmark and diagnostic data were collected from reports included in the
assessment packages already purchased by the school district. Therefore, the only cost to

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

59

the district to replicate this research plan would be to purchase assessment packages
which include downloadable reports and a spreadsheet program, should the district not
wish to utilize the Google platform.
Validity
Mertler (2022) describes validity as “the extent to which the data collected
accurately measure what they purport to measure” (p. 203). Given that this research was
conducted using a mixed-methods approach, the researcher scrutinized the validity of
both quantitative and qualitative methods and data utilizing trustworthiness criteria:
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Gay et al., 2009; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985).
In order to establish credibility given the complexity of the problem being
studied, the research project included data collection from a survey, classroom
observations, semi-structured interviews, and student benchmark and diagnostic
assessments. This triangulation provided a comprehensive examination and analysis of
instructional practices in reading at the primary level. Semi-structured interview question
responses were significant in providing perspective for phenomena observed in both
classroom observations and in the assessment data. Additionally, respondent validation
was used during the semi-structured interviews to ensure accurate observation data. The
researcher reviewed observation notes with each participant, allowing changes and
soliciting additional information the participant deemed relevant. Lastly, the researcher
engaged in negative case analysis with respect to assessment data which was not
supported by classroom observation and survey data, as well as survey data which was
not supported by classroom observation data.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

60

Transferability accounts for the degree to which the research results may be used
by and relevant to another researcher and within other settings (Hendricks, 2017; Mertler,
2022). The setting of this research project has been described thoroughly to illuminate the
context in which the study has taken place. While not all districts may face the
considerable loss in revenue that the Dover Area School District faces, they experience
administrative and staff turnover and fluctuations in enrollment. Additionally, given the
impact of poverty and reading proficiency on student success, researchers may find the
Dover Area School District’s percentage of economically disadvantaged students
particularly useful in planning similar studies (Hernandez, 2011).
The participants of this study were limited to kindergarten, first, and second-grade
teachers with the indirect participation of students in these same grade levels through
their benchmark and diagnostic data. Although building configurations vary from district
to district, these grade levels are common. Lastly, the programs used to measure student
performance, namely Acadience, Exact Path, and ESGI, provide a discrete set of norms
unique to their products which may influence another researcher’s choice of data sources.
Similar to this research being transferable, it is also dependable in its capacity to
be replicated. Multiple data sources were used to collect quantitative and qualitative data,
including surveys, observations, semi-structured interviews, and student performance
reports on benchmark and diagnostic assessments. These data collection methods can be
implemented within any school setting and at no cost. Fidelity checklists for specific
programs, such as Fundations® and Heggerty, were obtained via an internet search and
adapted by the researcher to collect data relevant to the research questions.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

61

Classroom observation and semi-structured participant interviews are consistent
with current supervision and evaluation models within most school settings in
Pennsylvania. All professional staff in the Commonwealth must participate in the form of
observation annually, with pre- and post-observation meetings occurring with the staff’s
supervisor. While not evaluative, the procedures outlined in this research are
commensurate with current supervisory practices.
Because this research study involved human participants, it was expected that
flexibility in coordinating observations and interviews would be necessary. Teachers who
completed the informed consent for the observation and semi-structured interview were
contacted directly by the researcher and asked to provide dates and times when an
observation would be possible. In order to gather accurate data that could be generalized
across classrooms, the observations needed to take place when reading instruction
typically occurred during the school day, suggesting that instructional practices and
student response to those practices would be consistent regardless of the observation date.
Additionally, the researcher collected student benchmark and diagnostic data at the close
of the established assessment windows. While student absences may have resulted in data
not being collected for those students, this is a natural occurrence in schools, and
assessments conducted individually after a window has closed for the general population
reduce the standardization provided during the actual administration.
In order to ensure that the research was free of bias, the researcher took numerous
steps to confirm anonymity and accuracy. The teacher survey was structured so that
access to the survey was not permitted until the individual read and agreed to the
informed consent. The settings were such that participants’ email addresses were not

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

62

collected, and no personally identifiable questions were asked. Additionally, the settings
and questions were provided to the co-president of the professional association to confirm
confidentiality and ensure harm-free participation. Observation and interview data were
collected using a coding system that included the grade level and an additional symbol
(e.g., K-1, 1-A, 2-B) to remove personally identifiable information. Copies of observation
and interview notes were made available to individual teacher participants for review.
Individual student performance data was collected from reports generated directly by the
assessment programs. These reports were downloaded by the district Data Manager or
kindergarten data manager and redacted prior to being sent to the researcher. All student
and corresponding teacher information was removed, leaving only grade level and
performance data. Reports for overall performance specific to foundational reading skills
at each grade level were also generated directly from the assessment programs,
eliminating the opportunity for data manipulation.
Furthermore, upon conclusion of this research, all electronic data will be printed
and secured in a confidential location with all other physical artifacts, such as observation
sheets and interview notes. Electronic documents, including the Google Form through
which survey data was collected, and stored data will be permanently deleted unless
district administration should request this data for future use. If so, the requested items
will be provided for storage in another separate electronic location and then deleted from
the researcher’s files.
Summary
While a review of the literature did not identify a single best approach to reading
instruction in the primary grades, it did identify instructional practices that have led to

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

63

student growth and achievement. The design of this research was intended to reveal
which practices are being utilized in the kindergarten, first-grade, and second-grade
classrooms in the Dover Area School District, as well as how students are performing,
given the current instructional practices. Specifically, the research sought to answer the
following:
1. What instructional strategies and methods are used to teach foundational
reading skills in the Dover Area School District?
2. How do students perform on reading diagnostic and benchmark assessments in
kindergarten through second grade?
3. How do teachers use assessment data to drive instruction?
This Methodology chapter provided details of the purpose, setting, participants,
research plan, research design and data collection, and assurances of validity. The mixedmethods approach, as described, intended to utilize both qualitative and quantitative
methods of data collection in order to provide data leading to a comprehensive
understanding of instructional practices. The next chapter will present the specific data
gathered and an analysis of that data relevant to the research questions.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

64

Chapter IV
Data Analysis and Results
This chapter includes action research results investigating the instructional
practices in primary classrooms in the Dover Area School District relative to foundational
reading skills. Qualitative and quantitative data was collected from teacher surveys, direct
classroom observations, semi-structured teacher interviews, and diagnostic and
benchmark data from kindergarten through second-grade students during the 2022-2023
school year. The collected data will provide an impression of the instructional practices
being used in the primary classrooms and how students respond to these practices, as
indicated in the benchmark and diagnostic assessment data collected three times
throughout the school year.
The data collected served to answer the following questions:
1. What instructional strategies and methods are used to teach foundational
reading skills in the Dover Area School District?
2. How do students perform on reading diagnostic and benchmark assessments in
kindergarten through second grade?
3. How do teachers use assessment data to drive instruction?
This chapter will present information through graphs, tables, charts, and narrative
text which has been gathered specifically to answer these questions.
Data Analysis
A teacher survey was created using a Google form. When the window for
participation was closed, the researcher utilized the “View in Sheets” function, which
converted all responses to a spreadsheet format. The researcher created additional

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

65

spreadsheets and calculated percentages or noted narrative responses relevant to each
grade level per question to disaggregate the data into grade levels. Data from this survey
informed Research Questions 1 and 3.
With respect to classroom observations, informing Research Question 1, all data
was collected using checklists and field notes. The researcher coded each classroom
according to grade level (1A, 1B, etc.) and created spreadsheets for each of the four
checklists. Data from the checklists were entered by hand. Field notes were also entered
into the spreadsheets to code themes relative to the specific program or general
observations as necessary. Data from semi-structured interviews were sorted and
analyzed similarly, with interview notes given the same code as the respective classroom
observation notes. Data were entered into spreadsheets, coded by themes, and provided
information for Research Questions 1 and 3.
In order to collect and analyze student performance data relative to Research
Question 2, the district data manager downloaded grade-level data for each of the
benchmarking periods. The data were redacted, removing all identifiable student and
teacher information, and sent to the researcher via Microsoft Excel software. The
researcher combined each of the data sets from each building into one sheet per grade
level, per benchmarking period. Excel sorting functions were utilized to sort data into
assessment-specific reporting categories, with student performance within each being
hand- and electronically tallied. Trends in data were highlighted for comparison among
assessments.
After all data were analyzed relative to their respective research questions, the
researcher began the triangulation process, examining highlighted themes and trends and

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

66

re-examining data sources to support or refute findings. Additional spreadsheets were
created and coded according to relationships among data.
Results
Teacher Survey Results
Kindergarten, first, and second-grade teachers were invited to complete a 25question survey regarding their practices and perceptions regarding foundational reading
skills instruction. Responses provided data for Research Questions 1 and 3. Surveys were
created using Google Forms and structured to not retain personally identifiable
information through questions asked or the Google settings. Informed consent was
provided within the form itself. Of the 35 teachers to whom the survey was distributed,
17 participated: seven kindergarten teachers, seven first-grade teachers, and three secondgrade teachers.
The first part of the survey focused on the English Language Arts instructional
block, its length, how it is used, and how often the key components of reading instruction
are taught. With respect to the number of daily minutes devoted to reading instruction,
seven teachers reported more than 120 minutes, four reported 106-120 minutes, 2
reported 91-105 minutes, one reported 76-90 minutes, two reported 61-75 minutes, and
one reported 46-60 minutes. In disaggregating this data by grade level, it was discovered
that in kindergarten, time spent on reading instruction ranges from 61 to more than 120
minutes daily. In first grade, it ranges from 76 to more than 120 minutes daily. In second
grade, it ranges from 46 to 120 minutes daily.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

67

Questions three and four asked teachers to share how often they provide small
group reading instruction and its purpose. Figure 1 details how often teachers reported
they engaged in small-group instruction.
Figure 1
Frequency of Small Group Instruction per Six-Day Cycle

Frequency of Small Group Instruction
Daily
Five times
Four times
Three times

Two times
One time
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Number of Classrooms

Further analysis revealed that the frequency at which small group instruction is
provided is highly variable within kindergarten and first grade. Of the seven kindergarten
teachers who responded, three teachers reported that they provided small group
instruction daily; one responded four times per cycle, one responded twice per cycle, and
two responded once per cycle. These data are inconsistent with the direct classroom
observations in which small group instruction was observed in all four kindergarten
classes and semi-structured interviews, which indicated that teachers provide small group
instruction as part of their Daily 5. These results were similar to those derived from firstgrade responses in which only one teacher responded that he/she provides small group

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

68

instruction daily. However, direct observation and interview data indicate otherwise. In
second grade, three teachers indicated that they provide small group instruction three
times per cycle, while one indicated five times per cycle.
Regarding the purpose of small group instruction, 14 respondents indicated that
they provide both initial instruction of new skills and remediation/practice of taught
skills. Two responded that they used it only for remediation/practice, and one teacher
indicated, in response with “other” and further explained in question five, that she
conducts enrichment activities for students in addition to initial instruction and
remediation/practice.
Question six asked teachers to describe the activities in which students are
engaged in “station rotation” when not meeting with the teacher (Table 4). In
kindergarten, students are most often engaged in word work, writing, reading to self,
listening to reading, and reading to someone. In four kindergarten classrooms, teachers
reported that students utilize preloaded apps on their iPads. None of the kindergarten
respondents reported using Exact Path. In first grade, students mainly engage in word
work, Exact Path, reading to self, writing, and reading to someone. Three first-grade
teachers reported that students listen to reading, and four reported using apps other than
Exact Path. Of the second-grade teachers who responded to the survey, all teachers
reported students reading to self, doing word work, writing, and listening to reading most
often when working independently. Two of the respondents reported students using Exact
Path and reading to someone. None of the second-grade teachers reported that students
use any app other than Exact Path.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

69

Table 4
Station Rotation Independent Activities per Grade Level
Activity

Kindergarten

First Grade

Second Grade

read to self

6

5

3

word work

7

6

3

writing

7

5

3

listen to reading

5

3

3

Exact Path

0

6

2

read to someone

5

5

2

another app

4

4

0

Note. Numbers indicate the total number of classrooms reporting activity use.
Questions seven through 14 asked teachers to share information about the
teaching of the core components of reading instruction: letter names, phonics, phonemic
awareness, vocabulary, comprehension, and oral reading fluency. In the survey, each
component was defined to ensure a clear and consistent understanding of the components
across respondents.
In question seven, teachers were to quantify how often per six-day cycle they
taught each core component. Of the six, phonics was reported as being taught most
frequently, with 13 of 17 teachers reporting daily instruction, and four of 17 reporting
instruction five times per cycle. Phonemic awareness instruction was reported as being
taught daily by 12 of 17 teachers and five times per cycle by four teachers. One second
grade teacher reported that she does not teach phonemic awareness at her grade level.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

70

Other core components yielded highly variable results. Figures 2 through 4 represent the
frequency of instruction of each of the core components at each grade level.
Figure 2
Frequency of Core Components of Reading Instruction in Kindergarten
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Daily

Five Times

Four Times

Three Times

Two Times

Once

Not taught

Note. ORF = Oral Reading Fluency
Figure 3
Frequency of Core Components of Reading Instruction in First Grade
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Daily

Five Times

Four Times

Three Times

Note. ORF = Oral Reading Fluency

Two Times

Once

Not taught

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

71

Figure 4
Frequency of Core Components of Reading Instruction in Second Grade
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Daily

Five Times

Four Times

Three Times

Two Times

Once

Not taught

Note. ORF = Oral Reading Fluency. Only three second grade teachers responded to the
survey as compared to seven each in kindergarten and first grade.
Teachers were asked to list what materials they used to teach specific core
components in questions eight through 14. Concerning teaching Letter Names, 16 of 17
teachers stated they used Fundations®, and 7 of 17 stated they also used Heggerty
materials. Six teachers reported using other materials, such as games and teacher-created
activities in addition to the district-provided Fundations® and Heggerty, two of whom
specifically listed Tara West materials (creator of KinderLiteracy®). The teacher who
said she did not teach Letter Names at this level responded with Not Applicable.
All teachers reported using Fundations® to teach Phonics, with five teachers
sharing that they also use Heggerty, two also using Tara West materials, and one also
using a variety of songs and games. Heggerty materials were reported as being used in all
classrooms to teach Phonemic Awareness. Nine teachers also use Fundations®, and three

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

72

kindergarten teachers reported using KinderLiteracy® in addition to Heggerty. The
teacher who said she did not teach Phonemic Awareness at this level responded with Not
Applicable.
The results of questions regarding the vocabulary and comprehension instruction
were discernible based on the grade taught. Kindergarten teachers all reported using
KinderLiteracy® to teach vocabulary, with two kindergarten teachers also listing
informational texts and FOSS Science materials. All teachers in first and second grade
reported using Journeys to teach vocabulary, with one teacher listing trade books and
another listing Teacher-Pay-Teacher materials.
Comprehension materials results were similar to vocabulary, with all kindergarten
teachers reporting using KinderLiteracy®. All first and second-grade teachers reported
using Journeys stories. Two first-grade teachers use trade books and leveled readers in
addition to Journeys stories, and two second-grade teachers use Teacher-Pay-Teacher
materials. One second-grade teacher also reported using decodable readers.
Concerning Oral Reading Fluency (ORF), materials varied at all levels. At the
kindergarten level, one teacher had reported she does not teach ORF and, therefore,
responded with Not Applicable to this question. Of the remaining kindergarten teachers,
two reported using KinderLiteracy®; one reported using leveled readers; one reported
using Heggerty; and two who had responded with a frequency with which they teach
ORF wrote Not Applicable. Because this was an anonymous survey, it was not possible
for the researcher to contact the respondents for clarification.
Question 14 was open-ended, asking if teachers believed they had enough
materials to teach reading provided by the district. Eleven teachers responded that they

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

73

believe they have been provided enough materials. Four teachers responded that they
agreed with enough materials but would like more. They were unsure that there are
enough materials to teach vocabulary. They feel there needs to be more planning and
collaboration time and insufficient time to teach everything. A kindergarten teacher
reported she had bought most of her materials except for Fundations® and Heggerty,
while another kindergarten teacher believes there is a need for additional decodables.
Question 15 asked teachers to rate their confidence level in teaching the six core
components of reading. Again, each component was defined within the survey for
clarification. In kindergarten, teachers felt most confident in teaching Letter Names and
Phonics, with all seven teachers responding “very confident” in their ability to teach these
components. First-grade teachers also felt most confident in these two components, with
five teachers feeling “very confident” in teaching Letter Names and four feeling “very
confident” in teaching Phonics. There was no consistency in confidence among the three
second-grade teachers.
Kindergarten teachers felt equally confident in their abilities to teach Phonemic
Awareness, Vocabulary, and Comprehension, with four teachers responding “very
confident” and three teachers responding “confident” in each category. There were mixed
responses to the teaching of Oral Reading Fluency, with one teacher selecting Not
Applicable due to not teaching ORF at this level and another rating herself as “not
confident.” First-grade teachers felt least confident in the teaching of vocabulary, with
five teachers indicating they are “confident” and two indicating they are “somewhat
confident.” Responses to other components were mixed. In second grade, one teacher

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

74

marked that she is “not confident” in teaching any of the six core components. Responses
to other components were mixed seen in Table 5.
Table 5
Teachers’ Levels of Confidence in Teaching the Core Components
Component
Kindergarten
Letter Names
Phonics
Phonemic Awareness
Vocabulary
Comprehension
ORF
First Grade
Letter Names
Phonics
Phonemic Awareness
Vocabulary
Comprehension
ORF
Second Grade
Letter Names
Phonics
Phonemic Awareness
Vocabulary
Comprehension
ORF

Very
Confident
%

Confident Somewhat
%
Confident
%

Not
Confident
%

N/A
%

100
100
57
57
57
29

----43
43
43
43

----------14

-------------

----------14

71
57
43
--14
14

14.5
43
43
71
86
43

14.5
--14
29
--29

----------14

-------------

33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3
33.3

33.3
--33.3
-------

33.3
----33.3
-----

--33.3
33.3
--33.3
33.3

--33.3
--33.3
33.3
33.3

For question 16, teachers rated their need for professional learning opportunities
in each of the six core components as the following: not having a need for professional
learning, welcoming professional learning, liking professional learning, or needing
professional learning. None of the teachers responded that they needed professional
learning opportunities in the six areas. Two kindergarten teachers believed they did not
need professional learning opportunities in any areas of reading instruction. For Letter

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

75

Names, 14 of the teachers feel they do not need professional learning opportunities, two
would welcome such, and one teacher does not teach Letter Names at her level. Ten of 17
teachers do not feel they need professional learning opportunities in Phonics while seven
would welcome it. Phonemic Awareness had mixed results, with seven teachers feeling
they did not need professional learning opportunities, eight would welcome it, one would
like it, and one reporting she does not teach Phonemic Awareness at her level. For both
Vocabulary and Comprehension, five teachers do not feel they need professional learning
opportunities, nine would welcome professional learning opportunities, and three would
like professional learning opportunities. Lastly, three teachers do not believe they need
professional learning opportunities in ORF, nine would welcome it, four would like it,
and one teacher does not teach ORF at her level.
Question 17 asked teachers to share the sources of professional learning
opportunities in which they have engaged independent of the Dover Area School District
for each core component. Teachers could select the Lincoln Intermediate Unit, PaTTAN,
a college or University Class, Professional Reading, or Other Source. Seven of the 17
teachers have engaged in professional learning opportunities only through college or
university classes, three teachers have utilized other sources, and one teacher has only
engaged in professional reading. Both the LIU and PaTTAN have been used minimally,
with three teachers engaging in LIU trainings for Letter Names, Phonics, and Phonemic
Awareness, and one teacher engaging in PaTTAN training for Letter Names, Phonics,
Phonemic Awareness, and Vocabulary.
The survey’s focus turned to assessment and data in questions 18 through 23.
Question 18 asked teachers to indicate what types of assessments they use to measure

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

76

growth and achievement. 100% of respondents indicated they use formative, non-graded
assessments. 100% also use observation. 64.7% use some form of a skills checklist.
82.4% use summative assessments, 76.5% use diagnostic assessments, and 88.2% use
benchmark assessments. Eight teachers use all listed types of assessments to measure
student growth and achievement. Four first-grade teachers use most assessments, with
two indicating they do not use diagnostic assessments, and three indicating they do not
use skills checklists. Two of the three second-grade teachers do not use benchmark
assessment data or skills checklists to measure student growth and achievement. One
second-grade teacher indicated that she only utilizes formative, non-graded assessments
and observation. There were no responses to question 19, as it asked for an explanation
had a teacher responded with “other” in question 18.
Question 20 inquired about the frequency at which teachers reviewed data
collected from each assessment type. 13 of the 17 respondents reviewed at least one data
set daily, with observation data being reviewed most frequently (daily for 76% of
teachers). Diagnostic assessment data are reviewed less frequently than all other
assessments, with eight teachers reporting they review it quarterly or after the assessment
is given, four teachers reviewing it monthly, four teachers reviewing it weekly, and one
teacher not reviewing it due to not using the assessment type. All first-grade teachers
reported reviewing observation data daily and summative assessment data weekly. In all
assessment categories, the results for kindergarten and second-grade teachers were highly
variable. However, all teachers indicated they reviewed each of the utilized data sources
at least quarterly. Kindergarten teachers reported reviewing assessment data more often

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

77

than their first and second-grade colleagues, with more frequent review daily and 2-3
days per week.
Teachers were asked in question 21 to describe circumstances under which they
would review individual student data more frequently than indicated in question 20. Of
the 14 optional responses, all teachers review data more frequently for struggling
students. Six teachers review data more frequently for students who need to be
challenged, and one teacher specifically mentioned reviewing data for students referred
for learning support.
Question 22 inquired about teachers’ use of a protocol when reviewing or
analyzing student data. Fourteen teachers responded to this optional question. Four
teachers listed a data protocol used by the data teams, and two teachers listed conducting
item analysis. The remaining responses listed did not answer the question, with several
teachers listing how data may be used once analyzed and one responding that she seeks
help from the reading specialist. One teacher responded that this question was not
applicable.
The last survey question with respect to assessment and data asked teachers to
share how they used student data after analysis. Purposes that teachers identified as “most
frequent” were creating small groups (16/17 respondents), planning for small group
instruction (15/17 respondents), and providing data for additional supports such as
intervention groups, Title I, or special education (13/17 respondents). 11 of 17 teachers
also use data most frequently to plan for whole group instruction, and 10 use it to reflect
on their instructional practices. Providing performance updates to parents yielded six
“most frequently” responses, nine “occasionally” responses, and two “rarely” responses.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

78

Eight teachers reported using data to plan for individual student practice most frequently;
seven use it for this purpose occasionally; one teacher uses it rarely, and one never uses it
to plan for individual students. Lastly, eight teachers use data to collaborate with
colleagues most frequently, while six use it occasionally, and three use it rarely to
collaborate.
Question 24 asked teachers to use a Likert scale to respond to five opinion
questions. Data was analyzed for group responses as well as grade-level responses. Most
teachers believe that they have enough materials and appropriate materials for teaching
reading, with 16 responding that they strongly agree or agree with having enough
materials and 15 responding that they strongly agree or agree that the materials they have
are appropriate for the skills they teach. 13 teachers strongly agree or agree that they have
enough time to teach reading. At the same time, four disagree or strongly disagree with
that statement. Twelve teachers strongly agree or agree that they receive support and
feedback for their reading instruction, while five teachers disagree. With respect to being
provided enough time to review and analyze data, one teacher strongly agrees, six agree,
six disagree, and four strongly disagree. Grade-level analysis is provided in Table 6.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

79

Table 6
Grade-Level Responses to Belief Statements
Statement
Kindergarten
1. Enough time for
reading instruction
2. Enough materials
3. Materials are
appropriate for skills
4. Enough time for data
analysis
5. Support and
feedback
First grade
1. Enough time for
reading instruction
2. Enough materials
3. Materials are
appropriate for skills
4. Enough time for data
analysis
5. Support and
feedback
Second grade
1. Enough time for
reading instruction
2. Enough materials
3. Materials are
appropriate for skills
4. Enough time for data
analysis
5. Support and
feedback

Strongly
Agree %

Agree %

Disagree %

Strongly
Disagree %

57

43

---

---

43
43

57
57

-----

-----

---

43

28.5

28.5

14

57

29

---

29

43

14

14

29
29

71
57

--14

-----

14

28.3

28.3

23.3

14.5

71

14.5

---

33.3

33.3

33.3

-----

66.7
66.7

33.3
33.3

-----

---

33.3

33.3

33.3

---

33.3

66.7

---

The survey’s final question asked respondents to provide additional feedback
regarding reading instruction. Four teachers provided individual responses. One teacher
thanked the researcher for the opportunity to participate in the study and stated they were
open to meeting with the researcher regarding their reading instruction. Due to the

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

80

anonymity of the survey, it is unknown whether this respondent also participated in the
data collection process’ classroom observation and interview portion. One teacher
responded that they feel they have enough time to teach reading but not enough time for
small group instruction. Another shared that they have begun using “more of a Science of
Reading approach” this year for small-group instruction. The last teacher would like
professional development in the Science of Reading, more access to decodable readers,
and more time to prepare materials.
Classroom Observation Results
Ten teachers in grades kindergarten through second provided informed consent for
the researcher to observe reading instruction. All teachers observed have been teaching at
their respective grade levels within the Dover Area School District for at least five years.
Data collected provided evidence to inform Research Question 1: What instructional
strategies and methods are used to teach foundational reading skills in the Dover Area
School District? Data was collected using four separate checklists, three of which were
specific to the Fundations®, Heggerty, and Journeys programs being used, and one was a
form for general best instructional practices derived from a review of the literature
(Appendix D). The Journeys checklist was not utilized for the kindergarten observations
because the program was not used at that level.
Heggerty. Heggerty is a Phonemic Awareness, explicit instruction curriculum
used for whole-group instruction in all kindergarten, first, and second-grade classrooms
in the Dover Area School District. The researcher created a checklist by adapting a
publisher-created fidelity checklist. This curriculum was observed being utilized in nine
out of ten classrooms. In the tenth classroom, Heggerty was on the schedule but not

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

81

observed during the time allotted for reading instruction. In the nine classrooms where
Heggerty was used, all teachers used the manual and the lesson sequence as written.
Eight out of nine teachers provided explicit directions for each skill practiced, and five
out of nine provided examples for each skill prior to engaging in practice with the
students. Six teachers were observed delivering error correction, which consisted of
stopping the students, restating the direction, providing an example, and trying again. The
publishers of Heggerty suggest that a lesson should take no longer than 15 minutes. All
classrooms met this criterion, with times ranging from seven to 12 minutes. Student
engagement in the lesson, particularly with the hand motions, increased when teachers
provided reminders of the need to make the hand motions, modeled the hand motions
throughout the lesson, and instructed with an animated tone of voice.
Fundations®. Fundations® is a multi-sensory, explicit instruction curriculum
used as a primary resource for whole-group phonics and spelling instruction in
kindergarten, first, and second grade. Like Heggerty, the researcher collected data using a
checklist derived from publisher-created fidelity checklists available on the internet. Also
similar to Heggerty, Fundations® was observed in nine out of ten classrooms, with the
tenth classroom listing Fundations® as part of the schedule. Given the checklist, all nine
teachers were observed implementing the components of the lesson with fidelity. When
student materials were necessary, all students were able to access them independently
with minimal loss of instructional time (< 2 minutes). Nine out of ten classrooms had
Fundations® posters and sound cards on display.
All nine teachers provided explicit directions for each lesson segment, and four of
the nine teachers provided examples before the guided practice. Five teachers were

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

82

observed providing error correction immediately. According to the publisher of
Fundations®, a lesson should take no more than thirty minutes daily. Eight of the nine
classrooms were able to stay within this limit, ranging between eight and 23 minutes. In
the second-grade classroom, the lesson was 38 minutes. Instructional time was lost due to
student behavior and the need for the teacher to provide redirection often.
Journeys. This program was observed in all first and second-grade classrooms. A
data collection sheet was developed based on the Journeys program’s components to
observe each classroom consistently. Journeys was used for whole group instruction in all
six first and second grade classrooms. In two classrooms, program elements were also
used during small group instruction. Considering the core components of reading
instruction, comprehension instruction was observed in all six classrooms, while
vocabulary instruction was observed in four. Phonics instruction was observed twice,
fluency once, and phonemic awareness once. Letter naming instruction is not a
component of the Journeys program.
Similar to the observations of Heggerty and Fundations® instruction, the
researcher also noted explicit directions, examples, and error correction. Two teachers
provided explicit directions for activities, and three provided examples/models before
starting the activity. No teachers were observed providing error correction during wholegroup instruction. In three classrooms, students used the student text, with one classroom
of students having to share as the teacher reported she did not have enough student texts.
Three classrooms also used leveled readers from Journeys during small group or
independent reading. Four teachers used Think Central, the online version of Journeys in

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

83

lieu of student texts. There is no recommended duration for Journeys instruction.
Therefore, the actual number of minutes was not tracked as a criterion of fidelity.
General observations. The researcher also kept general observation notes to
gather additional qualitative and quantitative data regarding instructional practices. Notes
were taken on a checklist observation form with space for field notes and then transferred
to a spreadsheet.
Four kindergarten classrooms were directly observed during their designated
reading blocks. Class sizes were 22, 18, 15, and 19 students. In first grade, class sizes
were 18, 19, 16, 18, and 20 students. The second-grade class had 21 students. These class
sizes were commensurate with other district kindergarten, first, and second-grade
classrooms. All classrooms featured wall displays relevant to reading. Nine out of ten
classrooms displayed Fundations® posters and cards; nine classrooms had word walls for
sight words or heart words; seven classrooms had a version of the Daily 5 activities; three
classrooms had sound walls; three classrooms had specific trick word displays; one
classroom had a Vowel Valley; and the second-grade classroom had posters for syllables
and core vocabulary. All classrooms had student texts organized into bins by level.
Classroom observations supported the variable time allotted to reading instruction
indicated in the teacher survey. In kindergarten, the reading block ranged from 85
minutes to 160 minutes. In first grade, it ranged from 75 minutes to 180 minutes. The
second-grade classroom had 130 minutes allotted for reading instruction. Within these
blocks of time, students in eight out of ten classrooms engaged in select activities from
The Daily 5, a literacy framework developed by Boushey and Moser in 2006 and
includes the following five activities: read to self, read to someone, listen to reading,

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

84

work on writing, and word work (Boushey & Moser, 2014). During this independent
work time, students also met with the teacher in small groups. In one kindergarten class,
students only engaged in “read to self” for 80 minutes while the teacher pulled students to
conduct progress monitoring and baseline assessments for a new student. Small group
instruction was not observed in the second-grade classroom. Word work consisted of
independent and paired multi-sensory activities in three of the four kindergarten
classrooms where a full Daily 5 menu was utilized. Word work in all first grade
classrooms consisted of a series of worksheets.
In three first-grade classrooms, an additional independent activity, students
working on Exact Path, was observed. Exact Path is a diagnostic/prescriptive learning
tool created by Edmentum and utilized in second through eight grade classrooms in the
Dover Area School District. Three times per school year, Exact Path diagnostics are
administered on student iPads, and individual learning paths are created based on
students’ performance. Students may work on these learning paths when in the
classroom. ABCmouse, an educational app, was also observed in two of the four
kindergarten classrooms as an alternate independent activity during the Daily 5.
In all first-grade classrooms and two of three kindergarten classrooms in which
Daily 5 activities were observed, activities were pre-selected by the teacher. In one
kindergarten classroom, students were provided a visual checklist and responsible for
selecting their activities and marking off their accomplishments. The observer
interviewed five students in the classroom about this process, and each student was able
to explain what they were to do with respect to selecting and marking their activities.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

85

Another five students were interviewed regarding the activities they chose, and all five
were able to explain the directions and purpose of the activities.
In the kindergarten class in which students were instructed to read to self for
eighty minutes, each student had his/her bin of materials consisting of a Fundations®
journal and three or four leveled readers. The observer moved about the room during this
time and was engaged by four students, each asking to read aloud. The observer sat on
the floor with each student and listened to them read, modeling and prompting them to
use learned strategies from Heggerty and Fundations®. All four students required
support. Intervals of time on task were taken for 40 of the 80 minutes. On average, 36%
of students appeared on task during the 40-minute collection window when not engaged
with the teacher or observer.
During the time in which students received small group instruction or worked on
Daily 5 activities, students in some classrooms were pulled for support. In two
kindergarten classrooms, students were called individually into the hall to work on skills
with parent volunteers for approximately five minutes each. Skills were determined by
the teacher using data from the ESGI benchmarks, skills checklists, and observation.
Students were later pulled in small groups to receive formal intervention with the reading
specialist or her aide during whole-group literature time. In another kindergarten
classroom, a building aide came into the classroom and ran a second small group session
in tandem with the classroom teacher using lessons created by the teacher. Two of the
five first-grade teachers did not have additional adult support during this portion of
reading instruction. Another two had students leave the classroom for formal Tier 2 (Title
I) intervention with the reading specialist, replacing their independent work. In the last

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

86

first-grade classroom, students were pulled from the classroom during whole-group
instruction to receive Title I support. No students received intervention in the secondgrade classroom during the observation period.
Due to the districtwide implementation of Fundations® and Heggerty in all
kindergarten through second-grade classrooms, direct, explicit instruction was observed
in nine out of ten classrooms. Of the nine classrooms, eight teachers followed the lesson
script verbatim. One teacher followed the script but inserted additional verbiage,
repeating it in their own words. In the tenth classroom, neither Fundations® nor Heggerty
instruction was observed, although the Fundations® journal was used to record words
copied from the board that were identified as “words of the week.” While error correction
was previously noted as being observed in both Heggerty and Fundations® lessons, two
kindergarten teachers also used an errorless teaching procedure. This procedure is
typically used when working with students with Autism or Intellectual Disabilities. This
prompt/transfer/distract/check technique allows teachers to correct student errors
immediately by providing them with the correct answer (prompt), having the students
repeat it (transfer), moving on to something else (distract), and then coming back to the
concept on which the student errored to check for retention (check).
In six classrooms, students worked with one or more partners to complete tasks.
Kindergarten students worked in partners during Daily 5 activities, whereas students in
first and second grade worked together to complete Journeys-related tasks.
Six of the teachers used a form of “think-pair-share” in which the teacher posed a
question, and the students then talked with a partner while the teacher listened to the

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

87

groups discuss. After listening to the groups, the teacher called on groups to share who
had correct answers.
In addition to think-pair-share, nine out of ten used a variety of means to check
for understanding. All nine used observation during whole and small group instruction,
moving about the room to listen to students or observing motions and mouths while in
whole group and watching intently as students completed tasks while in small group. One
teacher used individual whiteboards to check for understanding, while another used
random questioning. All Pupil Responses (thumbs up/thumbs down; number of fingers
raised) were used in one classroom for students to self-assess their readiness for the next
activity. In two of the kindergarten classrooms, teachers played a version of “I Spy,”
where the teacher would call out an initial sound or letter or spell a color word, and
students had to find a matching object in the rooms quickly. Random students were called
on to share what they had chosen.
While teacher modeling is an expectation when teaching a Heggerty or
Fundations®, the observer also noted how often teachers explicitly provided models for
students during small group sessions, Journeys lessons, and other literature-based
activities. Of the eight classrooms in which small groups were observed, kindergarten
teachers modeled what the students were to do an average of four times per 15-minute
session. First-grade teachers modeled an average of three times per 15-minute session.
During first-grade Journeys lessons, while all teachers provided directions for each
activity, two of the four teachers modeled the expectations. In the three kindergarten
classes where literature-based activities were observed, the lesson focused on listening

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

88

for words with key sounds. All three teachers modeled finding the sounds and saying the
words for students to repeat.
Notably, in one first-grade classroom, the teacher often referred to Heggerty and
Fundations® protocols when using the Journeys program, specifically when introducing
new vocabulary and when coming upon multi-syllabic words in the text. The teacher
would pause and direct students to “get out their choppers” as they segmented and
blended the word parts as a class. If 100% participation was not observed, the teacher
would remind the students again of the expectation and repeat the activity. This practice
was observed only in this one classroom.
Semi-structured Teacher Interview Results
A secondary component of the classroom observation was a semi-structured
interview (Appendix E) conducted with each teacher participant via Zoom. Interviews
were recorded with permission, and questions/discussions transcribed following the
interview. Transcriptions were available to teachers for review. Four pre-determined
questions were asked, with opportunities for teachers to provide additional information as
desired.
The first question asked teachers to explain their process in planning for reading
instruction, specifically addressing how they use data in the process. All teachers shared
that they follow the scope and sequence/scripts from both Fundations® and Heggerty.
Three of the four kindergarten teachers said they follow the themes in KinderLiteracy®.
Four first-grade teachers and the one second-grade teachers said they follow the Journeys
scope and sequence, while one of the first-grade teachers shared that she provides
extension activities for writing due to Journeys' limited focus on writing. One first-grade

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

89

teacher said that she “picks and chooses” what she uses from Journeys since “Journeys is
a bear” with “too many components.”
In describing the data sources used when planning for reading instruction,
responses varied among participants and within grade levels (Table 7). The Dover Area
School District has determined common assessments to be administered at various times
throughout the school year. Acadience™ benchmarks in foundational reading skills are
administered three times per school year as benchmark assessments. Progress monitoring
data from Acadience™ is also gathered on an interval basis depending on the level of
intervention the students receive. Exact Path diagnostic assessments are administered
three times per year to students in first through eighth grades, with reports available to
teachers for students who engage in their prescribed pathway activities independently.
Heggerty, Fundations®, and Journeys have end-of-unit summative assessments which are
to be used by all teachers.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

90

Table 7
Data Sources Used to Plan for Reading Instruction by Number of Interviewed Teachers
Assessments
Acadience™
Exact Path

Kindergarten
1/4

First Grade

Second Grade

4/5

0/1

---

1/5

0/1

ESGI

4/4

---

---

Journeys unit tests

---

3/5

1/1

Fundations unit tests

1/4

3/5

1/1

Heggerty unit tests

1/4

1/5

0/1

Observation

4/4

0/5

0/1

Freckle

0/1

1/5

0/1

Next Steps/Guided Reading

0/1

1/5

0/1

While one first-grade teacher did acknowledge the use of Exact Path data, she
also commented that she feels the reports give “some good data,” but she does not feel
very confident in using it due to a lack of training, a sentiment echoed by another firstgrade colleague. Another first-grade teacher stated that she uses Freckle and Next Step in
Guided Reading (NSGR) data instead of Exact Path because she has not been trained in
Exact Path and “no one has told them” how to use the data from Exact Path. One
kindergarten teacher commented that while she administers the Fundations® and
Heggerty assessments, she does not use the data in her planning because they are “too
much like benchmarks,” not providing the immediate data she gets through observation.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

91

The second question asked of teachers was, “Do you collaborate with anyone to
plan for instruction? If so, with whom do you plan? How often do you collaborate? All
participants commented that they formally planned with their grade-level colleagues
within their buildings at least once per week, except for the second-grade teacher, who
responded three times per month. One kindergarten and one first-grade teacher shared
that they also plan on a rotating weekly basis with the reading specialist,
dean/intervention specialist, and ESL teacher. Two first-grade teachers and the secondgrade teacher shared that they meet twice monthly for “student success” meetings with
their grade level colleagues, school counselor, dean/intervention specialist, principal, and
other rotating staff, but those meetings focus primarily on behavior rather than
instruction.
Next, teachers were asked how they adjust their planned instruction for struggling
students. All teachers shared that they adjust their small group instruction to focus on
areas they observe or the data reveals to be an area of need. One first-grade teacher
commented that she would adjust whole-group instruction, specifically repeating a lesson
in Fundations® or Heggerty, if she noticed most students were struggling. One
kindergarten teacher shared that she monitors and adjusts both small group and whole
group instruction “on the fly” when she observes her students not acquiring or retaining
new skills as expected.
The last question asked teachers to share information regarding progress
monitoring practices, specifically the frequency, support from others, instructional
activities for those not being progress monitored, and how the data is used if different
from their responses for adjusting planned instruction. Progress monitoring is completed

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

92

in grades kindergarten through five using Acadience™ and scheduled according to
students’ performance on triennial benchmarks. Eight out of ten respondents confirmed
they were using this protocol, with students performing in the “blue” or above benchmark
not being progress monitored, those in the “green” or at benchmark being progress
monitored monthly, and those in the red or yellow who are below and well below
benchmark being progress monitored bi-weekly. Students receiving tiered intervention
from the reading specialist or dean/intervention specialist are monitored weekly.
Eight of the ten teachers commented that they receive no assistance in progress
monitoring their students who do not receive interventions. Two kindergarten teachers
are assisted by reading or building aides. All teachers shared that the individual providing
the intervention progress monitors those who received tiered intervention. All teachers
also shared that students engage in Daily 5 activities while the teacher conducts progress
monitoring, with one teacher explicitly stating that students engage in “read to self.”
During the classroom observations, the researcher documented students leaving
for 30 minutes of Title I or reading support services during the English Language Arts
block in two kindergartens and four first-grade classrooms. In the two kindergarten
classrooms and one first-grade classroom, students leaving missed whole group
instruction in which the core component of comprehension was the focus. A question was
developed to inquire about this practice, specifically, “How often do students receive
Title 1 or reading support, and how is it determined when they will leave?” Of the six
classrooms where this was observed, all six teachers commented that those students
receive 30 minutes daily of Tier 2 support five days per six-day cycle. All six teachers
also shared that the times for this support was given to them without input and based on

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

93

the collective needs of the building. Further inquiry revealed that when students miss core
comprehension instruction, one teacher had a formal plan for “catching them up” on
Fridays. The others did not.
Benchmark Data Results
Benchmark data for the 22-23 school year was used to answer the second research
question: How do students perform on reading diagnostic and benchmark assessments in
kindergarten through second grade?
ESGI. ESGI is a one-to-one, customizable benchmarking tool used by all Dover
Area School District kindergarten teachers. Students are first administered a baseline
assessment and subsequent benchmarks per quarter to measure the acquisition of core
skills. The program includes reports which allow teachers to conduct item analysis for
each sub-assessment.
Four untimed assessments are administered at baseline and every quarter for all
kindergarten students: Upper Case Letters, Lower Case Letters, Letter Sounds, and Sight
words. Percentage correct was calculated for each class per marking period (Table 8.)
Table 8
Mean Growth of Students with 100% Accuracy for Yearlong ESGI Assessments
Baseline

End of Year

Growth

Upper Case Letters
(26)

50.7

98.8

+48.1

Lower Case Letters
(26)

44.9

98.6

+53.7

Letter Sounds (26)

41.8

97.7

+55.9

Sight words (67)

11.5

71.9

+60.4

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

94

Nineteen additional untimed assessments are administered at various times
throughout the school year at the discretion of the kindergarten teacher, although there are
suggested administration periods (quarters) for each. Reports are generated to indicate the
percentage of accuracy for each student on each assessment. Teachers administer a
baseline assessment to each student and record performance on subsequent benchmarks
measuring the same skill. Because these administrations are left to teacher discretion,
some teachers may elect to only administer one subsequent benchmark depending on
individual student performance while others may administer several. Therefore, the data
represented is not indicative of true growth across standard administrations or end-ofyear proficiency (Table 9).

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

95

Table 9
Student Accuracy in Standards Based on Final ESGI Administration
Suggested Administration Period/Skill

Mean Student
Accuracy/Final
Administration

Quarter 1
Identifies rhyming words

77

Identifies parts of a book

88

Concepts of print

80

Counts and segments syllables

75

Blends syllables

89

Answers questions about key details in the text

79

Identifies the role of the author and illustrator

67

Quarter 2
Answers questions about key details in the text

87

Identifies rhyming words

86

Segments onset and rime

75

Blends onset and rime

74

Quarter 3
Produces letter when given sound

91

Produces rhyming words

82

Blends phonemes in CVC words

89

Segments phonemes in CVC words

92

Answers questions about key details in the text

95

Quarter 4
Informational text: identifies main idea and retells

86

key details
Literature: answers questions about the text

88

Produces letter when given sound

98

Note. Numbers shown are percentages of accuracy.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

96

Acadience™. Acadience™ is a universal screening assessment tool that measures
the acquisition of foundational literacy skills. These timed benchmark assessments are
administered by trained school personnel three times per school year. Additionally,
students who require intervention are also administered Acadience™ progress monitoring
weekly or biweekly. Only benchmark data was collected for this research study focusing
on core instructional practices for all students.
Scores are reported as raw scores and benchmark status descriptors: well-below
benchmark, below benchmark, at benchmark, and above benchmark. Some assessment
results are also reported in National Percentile Rank (NPR). Students scoring above
benchmark have a 90-99% probability of meeting early literacy goals; those at
benchmark have a 70-85% probability of meeting early literacy goals; those below
benchmark have a 40-60% probability of meeting early literacy goals; and those wellbelow benchmark have a 10-20% probability of meeting these goals. Cut points and
benchmark goals for each administration indicate how students are expected to perform at
each administration, assuming core instructional support for students initially scoring at
or above benchmark and strategic instructional support for students initially scoring
below or well-below benchmark (Good & Kaminski, 2011). Therefore, while students'
raw scores may increase over the three administrations, they may not increase enough to
meet the expected cut scores and benchmark goals for the students in the spring.
Kindergarten students were administered four assessments: First Sound Fluency
(FSF), Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (PSF), and
Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF). Each assessment is given a one-minute time limit. The
FSF benchmark was administered during the fall and winter, requiring the assessor to say

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

97

a word aloud for the student to then say the first sound they hear. Of the 223 students
assessed, 89 showed growth from the fall to the winter, as defined by moving from one
status to another. The most significant growth was observed in students moving from
well-below benchmark status to at-benchmark status (32 students) followed by those who
moved from well-below benchmark to below benchmark (24 students.) 65 students
maintained their status from the fall to the spring, while 69 students demonstrated
negative growth. Of the students who demonstrated negative growth, 43 scored above
benchmark in the fall and moved to either at or below benchmark.
The LNF assessment, in which students read from a randomized list of upper- and
lower-case letters in one minute, was administered in the fall, winter, and spring. All
students experienced growth from the fall to the spring benchmark, naming a mean of
13.9 letters in the fall and 43.2 letters in the spring. Despite this growth, National
Percentile Ranks declined for 109 students from the fall to the spring administrations.
One hundred thirty-six kindergartners were considered at or above benchmark in the
spring.
The PSF assessment required students to say the sounds they heard in the words
read by the assessor in one minute and was administered in the winter and the spring. 61
of the 223 students assessed demonstrated growth, moving from one benchmark status to
another, while 69 demonstrated negative growth. Ninety-three students remained within
the same status from winter to spring. Notably, 90 students were at benchmark during the
winter administration. Twenty-two of these students grew to above benchmark status, 44
remained at benchmark, and 24 fell below benchmark.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

98

To assess basic phonic understanding, students were administered the Nonsense
Word Fluency (NWF) and were assessed on their ability to produce the individual sounds
of the nonsense word (Correct Letter Sounds or CLS) and blend the individual sounds
into a word (Whole Words Read or WWR) during the winter and spring. Regarding the
NWF-CLS, 42 students showed gains in moving from one benchmark status to another,
while 80 showed losses. One hundred one students maintained their benchmark status. Of
the 85 students who were at benchmark on the initial winter administration, 41 fell below
benchmark. Similarly, 42 students tested above benchmark in the winter, and 28 were
able to maintain this status in the spring. Concerning the NWF-WWR, the kindergarten
group saw an increase from 1.7 to 4 whole words read correctly. 101 of the 223 students
could not read any whole words in both the winter and the spring assessments.
Overall student performance is represented by a Reading Composite Score (RCS).
In the spring of 2023, 47 students were above benchmark, 65 were at benchmark, 71 were
below benchmark, and 40 were well-below benchmark. (See Table 10.) Based on the
initial assessment status, 86 students made gains, 80 maintained status, and 57
experienced losses relative to expected growth.
All first-grade students were assessed for both LNF and PSF in the fall of the year.
Regarding LNF, students scored a mean of 37.6 letter names, with 50% scoring within
the average band of 25th to 75th percentile. With respect to PSF, 15% of first graders
were well-below benchmark, 40% were below benchmark, 23% were at benchmark, and
22% were above benchmark.
Nonsense Word Fluency, both Correct Letter Sounds (CLS) and Whole Words
Read (WWR), was assessed during all three administrations for first graders. With

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

99

respect to the NWF-CLS, 72 of 238 students showed gains in moving from one
benchmark status to another, while 71 showed losses. Ninety-five students maintained
their benchmark status. Of the 28 students who were at benchmark in the fall, 15 fell
below or well-below benchmark status. When students were assessed for WWR in the
fall, no students were well-below benchmark. At the spring administration, 55 students
were well-below benchmark. In total, 55 students showed gains in moving from one
benchmark status to another, while 108 exhibited losses.
Beginning with the winter administration, all first graders were assessed for Oral
Reading Fluency (ORF) Correct Words Per Minute (WC) and Accuracy to measure
advanced phonics skills and fluent reading of connected text. During this assessment,
students are asked to read three different grade-level passages in one minute each while
the assessor marks for errors such as substitutions, omissions, and hesitations that last
longer than three seconds. If a student hesitates for more than three seconds, the word is
marked as incorrect. The total number of words read correctly is calculated for each
timing, with the median of the three used as the total score. Students are only
administered all three passages if they can read at least 10 words correctly in the first
passage (Good & Kaminski, 2011).
From the winter the spring administrations, 31 students grew in their benchmark
status relative to their median words read correctly (WC), and 22 decreased. The
remaining 185 maintained their status, with 95 students well-below benchmark, 14 below
benchmark, 15 at benchmark, and 61 above benchmark. Accuracy is calculated using the
following formula:

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

100

median words correct
---------------------------------------------------median words correct + median errors
Forty-four first graders showed gains, while 24 showed losses, and 170 maintained their
status. Of the 170, 86 remained well-below benchmark, 7 remained below benchmark, 20
remained at benchmark, and 56 remained above benchmark.
If students read at least 40 words correctly, they were also asked to retell the
passage in one minute. Responses were scored according to the number of connected
words in the retelling related to the story from the first word spoken and the number of
details provided. Of the 238 students assessed, 115 were asked to provide at least one
retelling during the winter and spring administration, indicating that they had read at least
40 words correctly in one passage. Sixty-three students did not provide a retelling during
either administration, indicating they had not read at least 40 words correctly in one
passage. Six students provided retellings only during the winter administration, and 54
students did so only during the spring. Benchmark status descriptors were given only at
the spring administration. Of the 169 students who provided retellings during the spring
administration, 63 were below benchmark, 13 were at benchmark, and 91 were above
benchmark with respect to retellings with numbers of words related to the passage. Of the
115 students with winter and spring retell scores, 46 advanced from below to at
benchmark, 21 remained below, 120 remained at benchmark, and eight moved from at
benchmark to below benchmark. For these students, retell quality was also assessed but
not given a benchmark descriptor for first-grade students. Fifty improved the quality of

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

101

their retellings, 22 students performed more poorly during the spring, and 43 maintained
the same quality.
Overall student performance is represented by a Reading Composite Score (RCS).
In the spring of 2023, 66 first-grade students were above benchmark, 46 were at
benchmark, 29 were below benchmark, and 97 were well-below benchmark (Table 10).
Based on the initial assessment status, 81 students made gains, 105 maintained status, and
33 experienced losses relative to expected growth.
Students in second grade are administered NWF and ORF. The NWF is
administered only during the fall, while the ORF is administered during the fall, winter,
and spring. Of the 219 students who completed the NWF-CLS, 72 were well-below
benchmark, 62 were below benchmark, 39 were at benchmark, and 46 were above
benchmark. Concerning NWF-WWR, 59 were well-below benchmark, 54 were below
benchmark, 52 were at benchmark, and 54 were above benchmark.
For the ORF-WC, 27 students advanced in their benchmark status from fall to
spring, 43 declined, and 149 maintained their status. Of these 149, 65 remained wellbelow benchmark, 23 below benchmark, 11 at benchmark, and 49 above benchmark. A
total of 125 students were below or well-below benchmark in the spring. Calculated
accuracy yielded results of 43 students advancing, 51 declining, and 125 maintaining. Of
those 125 who maintained their benchmark status, 40 students remained well-below, 11
remained below benchmark, 15 remained at benchmark, and 54 remained above
benchmark.
Regarding the ORF retellings, 171 second graders were given the opportunity to
provide retellings during all three administrations, indicating that 48 students could not

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

102

read 40 words correctly per minute in any passage across all three administrations. Of the
171 who were, 50 students made gains in their benchmark status, 47 had losses, and 74
maintained their status. Of those 74 who maintained, 19 were well-below benchmark, 23
were below benchmark, 14 were at benchmark, and 18 were above benchmark. Retell
quality was assessed during the winter and spring. Of the 195 students who at least at
winter and spring retell scores, 46 advanced from below to at benchmark, 21 remained at
below benchmark, 120 remained at benchmark, and eight moved from at benchmark to
below benchmark.
Overall student performance is represented by a Reading Composite Score (RCS).
In the spring of 2023, 50 second-grade students were above benchmark, 50 were at
benchmark, 50 were below benchmark, and 69 were well-below benchmark. (See Table
10.) Based on the initial assessment status, 31 students made gains, 128 students
maintained status, and 60 experienced losses relative to expected growth.
Table 10
Acadience™ Reading Composite Scores by Grade Level
Grade

Students
Well-Below
Benchmark

Students
Below
Benchmark

Students
At Benchmark

Students
Above
Benchmark

Kindergarten
Fall
Spring

78
40

46
71

43
65

56
47

First Grade
Fall
Spring

125
97

45
29

26
46

42
66

Second Grade
Fall
Spring

68
69

23
50

71
50

57
50

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

103

Exact Path. Exact Path is an online diagnostic prescriptive assessment
administered three times per year in first through eighth grades in the Dover Area School
District, the results of which place students on individualized learning paths based on
performance. For this study, only first and second-grade results will be analyzed.
Diagnostic results are reported in scale scores, National Percentile Ranks, and grade-level
performance descriptors. Before analyzing the data, the researcher removed all data for
students who did not take all three benchmarks to limit independent variables, leaving
data only for those students who had participated in all three diagnostic administrations.
In first grade, 231 students participated in the fall, winter, and spring diagnostic
assessments. Of those 231, 26 showed negative growth in their scale scores from fall to
winter, and 53 showed negative growth from winter to spring. 10 of the 53 students
completed the assessment in less than the recommended 10-25 minutes. Based on their
scale scores, students are assigned grade-level performance descriptors based on expected
performance in the spring of first grade (Table 11).
Table 11
First Grade Performance on Exact Path Diagnostic Assessments
Descriptor

Fall

Winter

Spring

Below Expectations

47

33

38

Approaching Expectations

88

77

76

Meets Expectations

87

102

88

9

19

29

Exceeds Expectations

Note. Numbers represent the number of students performing at that level at that time.
Exact Path produces a Skills Performance Report, which breaks down student
performance into performance on specific skills assessed during each administration. In

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

104

first grade, Reading Foundations skills include Sounds in Words, Phonics and Word
Analysis 1, Phonics and Word Analysis 2, Phonics and Word Analysis 3, and Reading
Text Fluently. (See Appendix I for descriptors of each skill.) Performance on these skills
in each diagnostic assessment yields results indicating whether students are not ready for
the skill, struggling with the skill, have mastered the skill, are practicing the skill (within
their current prescribed learning path), or have placed above and do not require practice.
Table 12 presents students at all three administrations who were not ready for a skill
compared to those placed above or “tested out” of a skill.
Table 12
First Grade Performance on Exact Path Reading Foundations Skills
Skill

Fall
Percentage

Winter
Percentage

Spring
Percentage

Sounds in Words
Not Ready
Placed Above

71
3

10
65

0
88

Phonics and Word Analysis 1
Not Ready
Placed Above

90
0

34
23

12
57

Phonics and Word Analysis 2
Not Ready
Placed Above

94
0

67
23

41
57

Phonics and Word Analysis 3
Not Ready
Placed Above

97
0

73
13

43
16

Reading Text Fluently
Not Ready
Placed Above

97
0

84
13

81
16

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

105

In second grade, 216 students participated in all three Exact Path assessments
during the 22-23 school year. Of those 216, 26 showed negative growth in their scale
scores from fall to winter, and 42 showed negative growth from winter to spring. 17 of
the 42 students took less than the recommended 30-60 minutes to complete the
assessment. Based on their scale scores, second grade students are assigned grade-level
performance descriptors based on expected performance in the spring of second grade
(Table 13).
Table 13
Second Grade Grade-Level Performance on Exact Path Diagnostic Assessments
Descriptor

Winter

Spring

30

38

26

Approaching Expectations

111

73

65

Meets Expectations

43

71

86

Exceeds Expectations

32

34

39

Below Expectations

Fall

Note. Numbers represent the number of students performing at that level at that time.
With respect to the Skills Performance Report, second grade Reading Foundations
skills include Less Common Vowel Teams, Silent Letters, Word Analysis 1, Word
Analysis 2, Word Parts, Unusually Spelled Words, and Reading Text Fluently. (See
Appendix I for descriptors of each skill.) Like first grade, performance on these skills in
each diagnostic assessment yields results indicating whether students are not ready for the
skill, struggling on the skill, have mastered the skill, are practicing the skill (within their
current prescribed learning path), or have placed above and do not require practice. Table

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

106

14 shows students at all three administrations who were not ready for a skill as compared
to those who were placed above or “tested out” of a skill.
Table 14
Second Grade Performance on Exact Path Reading Foundations Skills
Skill

Fall

Winter

Spring

Less Common Vowel Teams
Not Ready
Placed Above

73
11

11
67

2
95

Silent Letters
Not Ready
Placed Above

NT
NT

NT
NT

5
95

Word Analysis 1
Not Ready
Placed Above

84
4

29
39

9
76

Word Analysis 2
Not Ready
Placed Above

NT
NT

NT
NT

21
76

Word Parts
Not Ready
Placed Above

89
4

52
35

22
58

Unusually Spelled Words
Not Ready
Placed Above

90
4

58
35

36
58

Reading Text Fluently
Not Ready
Placed Above

97
4

58
35

37
58

Note. Numbers represent number of students within the percentile band. NT = Not Tested

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

107

Discussion
The purpose of this research was to answer the following questions:
1. What instructional strategies and methods are used to teach foundational
reading skills in the Dover Area School District?
2. How do students perform on reading diagnostic and benchmark assessments in
kindergarten through second grade?
3. How do teachers use assessment data to drive instruction?
Data collected from teacher surveys, classroom observations, teacher interviews, and
student performance reports in the ESGI, Acadience™, and Exact Path provide multiple
data points needing triangulation and discussion.
Research Question 1
Data with respect to instructional strategies and methods were collected through
teacher surveys, classroom observations, and teacher interviews. Teachers reported
highly variable blocks of time allotted for reading instruction during the school day,
ranging from 46 to more than 120 minutes. This variability was confirmed during
classroom observations, where reading instruction ranged from 85 to 160 minutes. While
research on time spent on reading instruction is limited, research does support
instructional activities which focus on the five core components of reading rather than
just constrained skills or those that have a finite quantity of items/skills to be acquired,
such as letter naming, phonics, and high-frequency word lists.
Ehri et al. (2001) concluded that the effect size of phonemic awareness instruction
is greatest when the annual hours spent is between five and 18. Direct classroom
observations yielded an average of 10 minutes per day using the Heggerty curriculum or

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

108

30 hours in a 180-day school year. Heggerty publishers promote no more than 15 minutes
per day. Duke and Block (2012) further found that kindergarten and first-grade teachers
focus half of their instruction on word recognition and phonics instruction instead of
vocabulary. Observation data supported this research in that vocabulary instruction was
observed in one kindergarten classroom and was reported to be taught between two and
six times per cycle as compared to phonics being daily. In first grade, vocabulary
instruction was observed in four out of six classrooms. In considering the average time
spent on phonics via Fundations® daily (16 minutes) and the average time on phonemic
awareness via Heggerty (10 minutes), and considering the focus of Daily 5 activities
which are generally 30 minutes daily, students in kindergarten through second grade are
receiving a significant amount of instruction and practice in these two foundational
components daily.
With respect to oral reading fluency, in which students apply their understanding
of these foundational skills. At the same time, only three of 17 teachers reported they do
not teach oral reading fluency, this component was not observed in any classrooms. One
classroom did engage in choral reading, but there was associated instruction or feedback
provided to students. This skill begins to be assessed in the winter of first grade via
Acadience™. Because oral reading fluency was not observed, how teachers move
students from the understanding to the applying phase of their foundational skills cannot
be determined.
A review of the literature indicated a need for flexible grouping structures within
the classroom to address student needs (Foorman et al., 2003; Foorman & Torgesen,
2001; Juel & Minden-Cupp). Small group instruction was observed in eight out of 10

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

109

classrooms as part of the Daily 5. During this small group instruction, teachers provided
explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics using data derived from various
assessments. Whole group instruction was observed in nine out of 10 classrooms using
Fundations®, Heggerty, and Journeys programs. Fidelity checks for Fundations® and
Heggerty revealed that all nine teachers provided instruction with relative fidelity. (One
teacher did not use either, although both were listed as part of the daily agenda.) Using
Heggerty, teachers utilized all components and followed the lesson outline and script
with 100% accuracy. However, only six of the nine teachers provided error correction
during the lesson. Using the lesson outline and script was done with similar fidelity in
Fundations®. However, only four of nine teachers provided examples before students
practiced a skill, and five of nine provided error correction. Providing examples and error
correction are key elements of explicit instruction, but omission of this could impact
student acquisition and retention of skills.
Observation data of whole group Journeys instruction revealed similar practices:
examples and models were provided to students in three out of six classrooms, error
correction was not provided in any classroom, and explicit directions, another key
element of explicit instruction, were only given in two of six classrooms.
All teachers reported consistency of Daily 5 activities in their classrooms,
although this was not observed the second-grade classroom. Activities include
opportunities supported by the National Reading Council (1998) and National Reading
Panel (2000), such as reading to self, word work, writing, listening to reading, reading to
someone, and student-teacher interaction.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

110

According to the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network
(2018), within the MTSS/RtI framework, Tier 2 is instruction aimed at providing
intervention in addition to the core, or Tier 1 instruction, for struggling readers. In this
study, the researcher observed students in two kindergarten classrooms and one firstgrade classroom being pulled for intervention for 30 minutes during whole-group, core
instruction time. In three additional first-grade classrooms, students were pulled for
intervention for 30 minutes during the time allotted for Daily 5, which is where smallgroup instruction takes place. In this case, intervention, which focuses only on
phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and phonics, is supplanting rather than
supplementing core instruction. When asked how and when students receive missed
instruction, only one teacher had a plan for this (“catch-up” time on Fridays). Research
indicates that instruction for struggling readers must go beyond phonological awareness,
phonemic awareness, and phonics in order for students to develop as readers (Indrisano &
Chall, 1995; Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000; McCardle et al., 2001). The current procedure
for pulling students for intervention in the observed classrooms fails to observe both the
practices of RtI and research.
Related to teachers’ perceptions of instruction, teachers were asked to identify
their confidence levels in teaching the core components of reading and their need for
professional learning opportunities. While reports of confidence levels varied relative to
the reading component, and at least one teacher indicated they were not confident in
teaching a component, no teacher indicated a need for professional learning
opportunities. However, some teachers indicated they “would welcome” or “would like”
professional development in each component. Because phonemic awareness and phonics

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

111

are being taught primarily through scripted programs, it may be the belief that
professional development is unnecessary. However, given that small group instruction
does not rely on these programs, it is imperative that teachers possess both the knowledge
and the confidence to teach these skills in the absence of a script. Additionally, a review
of the literature indicates that many teachers overestimate their understanding of content
(Arrow et al., 2019; Cunningham et al., [WTD1] 2004; Moats & Foorman, 2003). Given
the mandatory training in Science of Reading, this topic requires further discussion.
Planning for instruction questions revealed some inconsistencies. All teachers
reported following the lesson plans in Heggerty and Fundations® for whole-group
instruction. Three of four kindergarten teachers follow Tara West’s KinderLiteracy®
themes, and four of five first-grade teachers and the second-grade teacher follow the
Journeys scope and sequence. One first-grade teacher picks and chooses what she wants
to use from Journeys because of the overwhelming number of components, and another
first-grade teacher shared that she creates additional writing opportunities due to the lack
of emphasis in Journeys. In looking at data used to plan instruction, the four kindergarten
teachers reported using the ESGI tool and daily observation. They do not use
Acadience™ data or summative assessments. First-grade teachers primarily use
Acadience™ data and the summative assessments from Journeys and Fundations®. The
second-grade teacher only uses summative assessments from Journeys and Fundations®.
This lack of consistency in planning for instruction, coupled with a reported lack of
formal time for instructional collaboration, is problematic because not all students may
receive the instruction they need to become proficient readers.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

112

Research Question 2
The second research question asked, “How do students perform on reading
diagnostic and benchmark assessments in kindergarten through second grade?” Yearlong
data from the ESGI, Acadience™, and Exact Path assessments were collected and
analyzed.
Kindergarten students were assessed using the ESGI and Acadience™. When
analyzing comparable skills assessments from both benchmarks, there was a significant
performance discrepancy, possibly due to ESGI assessments being untimed, whereas
Acadience™ is timed. If students have not been practicing for automaticity, it is likely
that their Acadience™ scores appear depressed. Based on the ESGI, 98.8% of all
kindergarten students can name all upper-case letters, and 98.6% can name all lower-case
letters. However, on the spring administration of the LNF in Acadience™, only 136 of
223 students were considered at or above benchmark.
Similarly, according to ESGI data, 75% of kindergarten students could segment
onset and rime with 100% accuracy, and 92% could segment phonemes in CVC words
with 100%. In the corresponding Acadience® PSF assessment, 165 students performed at
or above benchmark in the spring, and for the NWF-CLS, only 95 students were at or
above benchmark. With respect to blending onset and rime, ESGI indicated 74% of
kindergarten students could perform this task with 100% accuracy. 89% could blend
phonemes in CVC words with 100% accuracy. Compared to these ESGI assessments, the
results of the spring NWF-WWR established that 102 students could not blend any
sounds to produce nonsense words.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

113

The discrepancies in these data sets are significant in that while students are
learning, they are not learning these essential reading skills to automaticity which will
impact their ability to learn and apply more complex phonics patterns. The work of
Adams and Osborn (1990) and White et al. (2021) reminds us that automaticity and the
ability to decode nonsense words sets a foundation for students to read more complex,
unfamiliar words independently, thus impacting comprehension.
Another consideration is the teacher choice variable in the ESGI administration,
except for the yearlong skills of upper- and lower-case letter naming, letter sound
naming, and sight words. For all other skills, assessment periods were suggestions, and
the number of times a teacher would retest a student on a skill was not established.
Therefore, the end-of-year totals for students demonstrating 100% accuracy in each skill
may be skewed, as the totals were calculated from the last time the student’s score was
recorded, which could have been during the second marking period or the fourth. This
variability in deciding when to stop assessing a student may have also impacted the
students’ Acadience™ scores, given that scores may only indicate acquisition rather than
retention. If students did not continue to practice known skills before they were secure,
this may explain as to why kindergarten students experienced losses in their benchmark
status.
First and second-graders are assessed in both Acadience™ and Exact Path. In
addressing comparable skills between the two assessments, 55% of students were below
or well-below benchmark in PSF in the fall, which is the only time this subtest is
administered. In Exact Path, 71% of assessed students were considered “not ready” for
Sounds in Words. There is evidence to support that students did receive instruction in

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

114

these skills given that at the spring Exact Path administration, 88% of students placed
above the need for instruction in this skill.
Acadience™ NSW-CLS yearlong data indicates that an equal number of firstgrade students experienced gains as losses, and whereas no students were well-below
benchmark in NSW-WWR in the fall, 55 students were well-below in the spring. In
reviewing the Reading Foundations Skills Performance (Table 12), progress in Phonics
and Word Analysis appears to have slowed as more advanced phonics skills were
assessed. If benchmark status in Acadience™ is based on expected level of performance
at an assessment period, these data points indicate that while students are learning, they
are not learning at the rate expected of first grade students.
ORF is the ability for students to apply decoding skills to read connected text.
ORF was assessed in the winter and spring assessment windows. In the spring, 109
students were considered below or well-below benchmark in their ability to read a gradelevel passage fluently. Additionally, as the retelling portion of the ORF was based on a
student’s ability to read 40 or more words correct per minute, 63 first grade students were
unable to meet this expectation during both the winter and spring administration. While
there is no equivalent subtest in first grade for Exact Path, the Skills Report noted that
81% of first graders were not ready to read text fluently based on their assessed skills. In
reviewing the frequency with which teachers reported they teach ORF, the number of
teachers who would welcome or like professional development in ORF, and classroom
observation notes in which ORF instruction was not observed, first-grade performance in
ORF may be due to a lack of explicit instruction.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

115

While overall student growth was seen in both Acadience™ and Exact Path data,
52.9% of students were considered below or well-below benchmark in Acadience ™
basic reading skills, and 49.3% were below expectations or approaching expectations as
they leave first grade.
Second-grade students were only administered the NWF-CLS and NWF-WWR in
the fall, with 132 students falling below or well-below benchmark for correct letter
sounds and 113 falling below or well-below benchmark for whole words read. This lack
of skill supports students’ initial performance on Exact Path Reading Foundation skills in
which 73% were not ready for Less Common Vowel Teams, and 84% or more were not
ready for all other second-grade foundational reading skills. However, a review of the
Exact Path Skills Report indicates that second-grade students did improve in their
decoding as there were significant decreases in the number of students not ready for skills
and increases in students who were placed above or tested out.
ORF performance for second graders was similar to first graders in that 125
students were below or well-below benchmark at the spring administration, with 88
students remaining at this status through all three administrations. In considering the
criterion for the retelling of reading at least 40 words correctly per minute in a passage,
48 second graders, or 22%, were unable to meet this expectation throughout the school
year.
Overall performance in Acadience™ for second grade (Table 10) suggests that
second-grade students experienced more losses than gains, with an increase of 28
students falling to below and well-below benchmark. There were conflicting results in
overall Exact Path performance, with 50 students advancing from below or approaching

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

116

expectations to meeting or exceeding expectations. As all assessments are timed in
Acadience™, scores may be depressed but support the lack of automaticity in basic
reading skills. Given a lack of second-grade teacher participation in this study compared
to kindergarten and first grade, additional research is necessary.
As a general observation with respect to all students’ performance in Acadience™,
there is a noticeable trend in students who are performing at or above benchmark initially
in all subtests to lose ground. This is especially seen in kindergarten in NWF-CLS, PSF,
and FSF, in first grade in NWF-CLS and NWF-WWR, and in second grade ORF. This is
a phenomenon worthy of exploration to determine why students who have demonstrated
proficiency in these skills cannot maintain this level for subsequent assessments.
Research Question 3
The final research question explored how primary teachers in the Dover Area
School District are using assessment data to drive instruction. To answer this question,
information was collected through the anonymous teacher survey and post-observation
interviews. Survey data regarding how data is used after analysis was further supported
by interview responses. Most teachers use the data to create small groups and plan for
small-group instruction. Thirteen of seventeen teachers in the survey also mentioned they
provide data to inform decision-making for additional services such as Tier 2
intervention, Title I, and special education evaluations. While eleven of seventeen survey
participants noted they use data most frequently to plan for whole group instruction, no
teachers interviewed mentioned this as a purpose of data analysis. This could be due to
the reliance on the Heggerty, Fundations®, and Journeys programs for much of the whole
group instruction.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

117

According to survey data, all respondents use both formative assessment and
observation data most frequently, followed by summative assessment data, benchmark
assessment data, and diagnostic assessment data. The frequency of data review is relative
to the administration of the assessment. However, teachers indicate they review data
more often for students who are struggling or who need to be challenged. When asked
about a protocol for reviewing data, only four survey participants indicated they used
one, with the remaining respondents incorrectly answering the question. This is
concerning given that the Dover Area. School District established a districtwide data
protocol in 2018.
Kindergarten teachers shared in semi-structured interviews that they use ESGI
and observational data to plan instruction. Although they administer Acadience™
benchmarks for all students and progress monitoring for a select group of students, the
data does not inform instruction. Four out of five interviewed first-grade teachers use
Acadience™ data, and three of five use summative assessments from Journeys and
Fundations® to plan for instruction. Despite administering the Exact Path diagnostic
assessments and having the expectation of using the prescribed learning paths with their
students, only one of five first-grade teachers interviewed uses data from Exact Path, with
two commenting that they were not provided professional development to use the
learning paths or the data effectively, and one further commenting she uses other
assessments instead. The second-grade teacher only uses summative assessment data
from Journeys and Fundations® to plan instruction. Given the data analysis conducted by
this researcher regarding student performance on Acadience™ and Exact Path, this lack

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

118

of data analysis on the part of the teacher is problematic in that teachers rely on minimal
data points to plan for instruction.
According to the research, the use of minimal sources of data, particularly
summative as a sole source, does not provide the data necessary to identify specific skill
gaps (Foorman & Moats, 2004; McCardle et al., 200; Paige et al., 2019). Therefore, if
this group of educators is representative of the entire primary cohort of teachers in the
Dover Area School District, there may be students whose needs are not being met as the
data relevant to those needs has not been analyzed. Student performance on Acadience™
and Exact Path assessments support this assertion. Survey data indicate that teachers do
not feel they have enough time to analyze data. This, coupled with the concern for not
having time to collaborate with colleagues, may also be impacting the degree to which
data is analyzed.
Summary
The data analysis has provided multiple levels of insight into the instruction of
foundational reading skills in the primary grades. In answering Research Question 1,
survey results, teacher interviews, and classroom observations revealed consistencies in
implementing of Fundations® and Heggerty programs and the practice of small group
instruction during the Daily 5. Inconsistencies were noted in the use of key elements of
explicit instruction, time devoted to reading instruction and planning for instruction.
While teachers’ reported confidence in teaching core components of reading varied, none
felt they needed professional development. It was also noted that students are losing core
instruction time to attend intervention groups without opportunities to receive that core
instruction.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

119

With respect to Research Question 2 and how students in kindergarten, first, and
second grade are performing on benchmark assessments, the researcher analyzed data
from the ESGI, Acadience™, and Exact Path. Data for students not participating in all
yearlong assessments were removed from the collection sheets. Analysis revealed that
there is little relationship between ESGI and Acadience™ data and that students’
proficiency in foundational kindergarten reading skills, as noted in the ESGI, differs
significantly from that measured by Acadience™. One explanation that may indicate
discrepancies with Exact Path Data may also be that Acadience™ assessments are timed
whereas the other assessments are not. While data indicate that some students are
progressing, they are not demonstrating automaticity. Additionally, some students testing
initially at or above benchmark are losing ground as the year progresses. Performance in
ORF is of particular concern, and teachers’ instructional practices support this
performance.
Inconsistencies were also noted when analyzing data for Research Question 3
regarding how teachers use assessment to plan for instruction. Most teachers did not
understand data protocol and commented they did not have enough time to analyze data.
Additionally, when sharing what assessment data they used to plan for instruction, most
utilized minimal data points, relying primarily on observation and summative
assessments rather than Acadience™ and Exact Path data which revealed specific skill
gaps.
The next chapter will draw further conclusions to answer the three research
questions and identify the study's limitations. As this data analysis has uncovered
additional questions relative to reading instruction, the next chapter will also provide

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

120

recommendations for practice and future studies to guide the Dover Area School District
in solidifying core instructional practices related to foundational reading skills.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

121

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The research presented in this project answered three questions related to the core
instruction of foundational reading skills in the Dover Area School District. A review of
the literature provided an historical overview of reading skills instruction in the primary
grades throughout the last century. In contrast, the data analysis and results provided a
detailed view of the current instructional practices within the district and related student
performance data. Discussing the research findings drew connections among the research
questions, literature, and collected data.
This chapter will present conclusions drawn from the research, including the
potential application of the findings and fiscal implications of such application. It will
also discuss the limitations of the research and conclude with recommendations for future
study.
Conclusions
This research project sought to answer questions relative to the core instruction of
foundational reading skills in the primary grades (K-2), including instructional practices
to teach skills, how students perform with respect to the skills taught, and how teachers
use assessment to drive instruction.
Research Question 1
The first research question examined the instructional strategies and methods for
teaching foundational reading skills. Data analysis revealed that teachers in each grade
level (kindergarten, first, and second) consistently use instructional materials, particularly
Heggerty, Fundations®, and Journeys. There was also consistent fidelity of

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

122

implementation of both the Heggerty and Fundations® programs in cases where
Heggerty and Fundations® were observed. All teachers used some version of the Daily 5
in which students participated in independent and occasional paired activities when not
meeting in a small group with the teacher. All teachers also reported using small group
instruction to address skill deficits revealed through data collection. Teachers across
grade levels teach letter names, phonics, and phonemic awareness with similar frequency
and are most confident in their instruction of letter names, phonics, phonemic awareness,
and comprehension. Overall, teachers are least confident in teaching oral reading
fluency.
No teachers feel they “need” professional learning opportunities concerning
foundational reading skills. All kindergarten teachers feel they have enough time to teach
reading and that the materials they have are appropriate. All kindergarten and first-grade
teachers feel they have enough materials to teach reading. All kindergarten teachers also
reported using the ESGI and observation to collect student data.
While there were consistencies noted in practices, there were many
inconsistencies. These inconsistencies included the time allotted daily for reading
instruction, the frequency of small group instruction, and the frequency of instruction in
vocabulary, comprehension, and oral reading fluency. With respect to practices related to
data collection and analysis, there was a high degree of variability in the sources of data
used and the protocols used to analyze data. The levels of instructional confidence in all
areas varied among second-grade teachers. There was less consistency in implementing
Journeys specific to program elements in both first and second grades. Teacher modeling
prior to student practice was also inconsistent. When students are pulled for additional

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

123

support, intervention time varies among the classes, with some students missing small
group instruction and others missing initial core instruction. There was a mixed response
to teachers feeling they have enough time to collaborate instructionally with colleagues,
enough time to analyze data, and that they receive support and feedback relative to their
instruction.
An overall impression with respect to the strategies and methods used to teach
foundational reading skills is that there is not “consistent implementation of effective
instructional practices across classrooms,” as has been a goal of the Dover Area School
District for more than a decade (Dover Area School District, 2020). While primary
teachers are teaching some of these skills using research-based explicit instruction
principles, these principles are isolated to the Heggerty and Fundations® programs
provided to the teacher and only used consistently when teaching phonemic awareness
and phonics within these programs. There exist inconsistencies in applying these skills in
other areas of instruction and when using other programs, the frequency in which skills
are taught, and the confidence teachers possess in teaching these skills.
Research Question 2
The second research question focused on student performance on diagnostic and
benchmark assessments, particularly the ESGI in kindergarten, Exact Path in grades one
and two, and Acadience™ in all three grades. When examining data from these
assessments, one must understand the difference in types of assessments when analyzing
data, as well as the conditions under which the assessments are administered.
The ESGI, a benchmark tool used by kindergarten teachers, is a series of untimed
skills-based assessments administered by the teacher. In reviewing yearlong data for each

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

124

assessment, the researcher found inconsistencies in administering baseline assessments
and the frequency with which teachers continued to assess students in specific skills.
End-of-year data is not entirely based on year-end achievement, as some teachers stopped
formally assessing students using the ESGI on specific skills midway through the school
year. Additionally, year-end data on the ESGI does not align with year-end Acadience™
data. This may be a function of the timed element of all Acadience™ skills assessments
or the lack of ongoing assessment to ensure skills retention. The latter may explain the
number of students experiencing negative growth, particularly those who were at or
above benchmark.
Students’ performance on the Acadience™ ORF assessments in first and second
grade is commensurate with teachers’ reported lack of confidence in the teaching of ORF
and their reported frequency of ORF instruction. This performance is also aligned with
the number of students deemed “not ready” for reading text fluently on the spring
benchmark in Exact Path in first grade (81%) and second grade (37%).
While overall performance comparisons between Acadience™ and Exact Path
assessments must be made with caution due to Exact Path’s additional assessment of textbased literature and informational text skills, when disaggregating results by skills, the
data suggest that students in both first and second grade are making gains in their
foundational reading skills but not at the expected rate within a normed sample. Firstgrade students in Acadience ™ saw an overall improvement of 15% from fall to spring in
students who were well-below and below benchmark in the fall, whereas second-grade
students saw an overall loss of 12%. However, in Exact Path, first-grade students’ overall
performance from the below and approaching expectations only increased by 2% from

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

125

fall to spring, whereas second graders increased by 16%. An examination of foundational
reading skills performance in both assessments indicates that approximately half of the
first and second-grade students are not secure in these skills after a year of instruction.
Research Question 3
The last research question investigated how teachers use assessment to drive
instruction. Through the teacher survey and the semi-structured interviews, teachers
shared that they use data most often to plan for small-group instruction but feel they do
not have enough time to analyze data. Responses also indicated that most teachers do not
understand how to analyze data effectively given their lack of understanding of a data
protocol. Despite research to the contrary, teachers are using minimal data points when
planning for instruction. Thus, essential information about students’ skills acquisition is
omitted during instructional planning and may contribute to students’ lack of growth or
regression.
Effectiveness
The data collection methodology and instruments effectively produced data to
inform the three research questions. A mixed-methods approach allowed for both
quantitative and qualitative data to be collected, analyzed, and triangulated to provide a
deeper understanding of phenomena and lead to further research questions.
Data was collected through surveys, direct classroom observations, and semistructured interviews for the first research question regarding instructional strategies and
methods. Data from the classroom observations and interviews either supported or
refuted that which was reported through the surveys. Additionally, survey data provided a

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

126

broader perspective of instructional practices than the classroom observations due to the
number of participants (10 observed versus 17 survey participants).
Data collected for each of the assessment periods were disaggregated by skill,
allowing the researcher to examine performance in each skill in isolation and then
compare it to overall performance to answer research question two. Multiple reports
provided data points to be compared across administrations and between assessments in
that performance in many foundational reading skills could be tracked in both ESGI and
Acadience™ and both Acadience™ and Exact Path. This permitted the researcher to
consider assessment design as a factor impacting performance as well as explore patterns
in the data.
Survey and interview responses yielded data specific to the third research
question regarding how teachers use assessment to drive instruction. Like results
concerning instructional practices, data collected from interviews were used to support or
refute what was reported in the surveys. Interviews also allowed the researcher to explore
the survey questions in more depth and clarify generalized responses. Data used to
answer this question included data analysis procedures and an understanding of best
practices related to data analysis.
Application
The data collected through this research project provided an awareness of
foundational reading skills instruction within the primary grades in the Dover Area
School District. The newly drafted Comprehensive Plan for the Dover Area School
District prioritizes establishing a comprehensive literacy plan. Therefore, the suggested
application of this research, and subsequent implications, will align with this priority.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

127

The conclusions drawn with respect to instructional strategies indicate significant
inconsistencies in the primary classrooms. Therefore, it is suggested that the district
create professional learning opportunities for all primary teachers and paraprofessionals,
including learning support teachers, paraprofessionals, reading specialists, reading aides,
and principals, in the Science of Reading and any instructional programs used. As per Act
55 of 2022, schools in Pennsylvania are now mandated to provide professional
development in scientifically based reading research. This training should include an
overview of the research so that professionals understand the impact of high-quality,
systematic instruction on student progress, in addition to focused instruction and guided
practice in the teaching of the five pillars of reading instruction: phonemic awareness,
phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and oral reading fluency. Principals must actively
participate in this training to provide ongoing support to the teachers through fidelity
checks and continued professional learning opportunities.
In addition to training in the Science of Reading, teachers and principals should
be provided “refresher” (for current practitioners) or initial professional development in
implementing programs such as Heggerty and Fundations®. Given that the district will
pilot a new English Language Arts program during the 23-24 school year, district
leadership should plan to provide training in the selected program before teacher
implementation. In considering teachers’ inconsistencies in the use of various elements of
Journeys, special attention should be paid to determining the required elements of the
program in accordance with the English Language Arts curriculum.
A review of the literature indicated that teachers were more likely to implement
new practices with fidelity when provided continuous mentoring or support (Ehri &

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

128

Flugman, 2017; Stein et al., 2008). Therefore, to provide ongoing support, principals
should be trained to conduct fidelity checks of effective reading instruction. This training
should be done in concert with Science of Reading and program training and give
principals opportunities to participate in inter-rater reliability, where principals are able to
practice conducting fidelity checks together prior to doing so individually. During the
first year of implementation, principals may wish to conduct instructional rounds,
whereby a pair or group of principals conduct walkthroughs together utilizing fidelity
checklists and then discuss their observations. Additionally, all elementary learning
support teachers participated in a year-long training in the Science of Reading during the
22-23 school year. They and the reading specialists should be paired with regular
education colleagues within their buildings to offer informal support.
In considering time for instruction, principals should work together to establish
common instructional block durations and required instructional activities for those
blocks. School teams should then establish a schedule for intervention so that struggling
readers are not missing initial instruction and are provided the supplemental instruction
intended in an MTSS/RtII model.
In addition to instructional blocks, school teams must establish a scheduled time
for staff to analyze data and collaborate for instruction. The results of research question
three regarding how teachers use assessment to drive instruction indicated that teachers
not only feel they do not have time to analyze data, but they also do not know how to do
so. Therefore, teachers must be trained on a specific data analysis protocol and how to
interpret multiple data points specific to the assessments administered in order to plan for
instruction if the data analysis is to positively impact student performance (Filderman,

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

129

2021). Subsequent collaboration meetings should include reading specialists, intervention
specialists, and learning support teachers in order to problem-solve how to address
students’ needs.
Another consideration for increasing collaboration and ensuring consistency
across classrooms would be reconfiguring the four elementary buildings into two primary
buildings (grades K-2) and two intermediate buildings (grades 3-5). This reconfiguration
would allow professional development to be customized to the grade level bands’ needs
and focus administrative and other building supports (reading specialists, intervention
specialists, and special education) on a discreet set of developmental skills.
Fiscal Implications
The fiscal implications for this research and associated recommendations are
minimal. The structured literacy (Science of Reading) training is a statewide initiative
supported by funds set aside for Training and Consultation (TaC) endeavors at the
Lincoln Intermediate Unit, and, therefore, provided at no cost to the Dover Area School
District. Professional development days built into the school calendar may be used to
train professional staff and principals. As 20 highly qualified hours are required of
reading aides and special education paraprofessionals, costs already budgeted for these
hours may be used to offset costs for those who were not trained in the Science of
Reading during the 22-23 school year. In order to prepare principals to run fidelity checks
and support the implementation of scientifically based practices, TaC facilitators from the
Lincoln Intermediate Unit may be brought into monthly principal meetings or a separate
training during the summer months or school year, again at no cost paid to the IU. As
principals work 261 days, there would be no additional salary or benefit costs.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

130

Should the district choose to provide additional coaching training for its six
reading specialists outside of the contracted 190 days, given the current hourly rate plus
benefits, there may be a cost of approximately $5000 for four days of training which
could, again, be done through the Lincoln Intermediate Unit, PaTTAN, or district
administrators. This salaries and benefits cost could be applied to Title II funds. Because
reading aides participated in the elementary learning support Science of Reading training
arranged through the Office of Exceptional Children during the 22-23 school year, they
would not require training.
As indicated through teacher responses to the number of appropriate materials for
teaching foundational reading skills, there is no need to purchase additional resources.
However, if the district continues to utilize Fundations®, there will be an estimated
annual cost of $17,600 to replace consumable student materials. This is not an added cost
relative to the district’s annual budget to maintain its programs. The Dover Area School
District will be piloting a new English Language Arts program during the 23-24 school
year with an intent to adopt a new program, replacing Journeys, in 24-25. While not
directly related to this research, the estimated seven-year cost of the new English
Language Arts program is $558,840.
Should the district elect to reconfigure its elementary buildings as suggested as an
option, there would be a one-time moving cost of approximately $30,000 due to the
professional contract, which provides for one paid moving day for professional staff
moving rooms and two paid moving days for professional staff moving buildings. There
is also the possibility that additional hours may be required of custodial staff to assist
with the move. Lastly, there may also be an impact on transportation costs, but there are

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

131

too many unknown variables to estimate such. Due to these costs, a decision to
reconfigure should be made only after a careful study of its implications and based on
numerous factors and the benefits of instructional consistency.
Limitations
Several limitations impacted the overall results of this study. First, the sample size
with respect to teacher participants was small, with 17 kindergarten, first, and secondgrade teachers participating in the survey (49% participation rate) and ten teachers
participating in the observation and semi-structured interviews (29% participation rate).
Participation was influenced by teacher transfers, resulting in six teachers new to the
primary grades or new to the profession. The researcher received comments directly from
some teachers that they did not feel comfortable participating. Additionally, two teachers
went on maternity leave, and another was on intermittent and then long-term FMLA
leave. These factors reduced the number of primary teachers with more than one year of
experience in kindergarten through second grade, or those with consistent attendance, to
26. It is unknown how these staffing changes impacted student performance.
Another limitation of this study was the minimal participation of second-grade
teachers. Only three of the 17 teachers who participated in the survey were second-grade
teachers. Despite numerous outreach attempts, only one second-grade teacher agreed to
participate in the direct observation and semi-structured interview. Therefore, teacher
data specific to second grade must be interpreted cautiously.
The timing of the third Exact Path benchmark may have resulted in depressed
results. While the administration window was open for the entire month of May, some
first and second-grade teachers did not administer the assessments until the Friday before

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

132

the Memorial Day break, which also aligned with end-of-year schoolwide celebrations.
This disruption in routine and academic focus may have distracted students and impacted
scores.
Lastly, to preserve anonymity and protect minor participants, all identifiable data,
including student names, identification numbers, teacher names, and buildings, were
redacted from data sets before being given to the researcher. This anonymity prevented
potential relationships from being established between observed and reported practices
and student performance data. The district is encouraged to explore these relationships as
part of the recommendations for future research.
Recommendations for Future Research
Considering the data collected in this research, several recommendations for
future plans and topics require further examination. There was a notable discrepancy in
kindergarten student performance on the ESGI and Acadience™ benchmarks. As the
timing of the Acadience™ has been identified as a variable that may have largely
affected scores, the district may want to determine to what extent kindergarten teachers
require students to respond to prompts in letter naming, sound naming, segmenting and
blending sounds, and reading sight words within a given time frame. ESGI data was also
inconsistent in when teachers chose to stop collecting data on specific skills. The
rationale for these decisions should be examined with the intent of establishing specific
cut scores for all students.
Intervention, considered Tier 2 (or Tier 3, depending on the discrepancy of scores
and response to Tier 2), is provided to students performing below pre-determined cut
scores on Acadience™ benchmarks three times per year. This intervention is provided by

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

133

reading specialists, their aides, or an intervention specialist. Given the data collected and
the apparent regression or stagnation of some students, the DASD may wish to explore
how intervention can be provided to those students who score well above these cut scores
to minimize regression and increase growth.
As second-grade participation was limited in this study, the district may wish to
gather more data on instructional practices in second-grade relative to foundational
reading skills. Should the district follow the application recommendations of this research
study, it would be wise to replicate this study to determine the impact of the training,
support, and consistent practices on student performance.
Because agreement with feedback and support for reading instruction varied
among teacher participants, a potential extension of this study would be to examine the
degree to which building principals feel confident in their ability to provide purposeful
feedback and support. This could take the form of a pre-training and post-training
survey.
Finally, as a point of self-reflection and personal research, and as supported by the
National Reading Council (1998) and Goldberg and Goldenberg (2022), teachers should
use their newly acquired, or perhaps better-informed, data analysis skills to compare endof-year student performance data pre-training and post-training to determine the
effectiveness of their professional growth on the achievement of their students. This may
be a worthy project for teachers engaging in Differentiated Supervision Plans in lieu of
formal observations or when establishing areas of focus for their annual Student
Performance Measures.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

134

Summary
This chapter has presented the conclusions of a year-long study of the core
instructional practices related to foundational reading skills in Dover Area School
District’s primary classrooms. This research was prompted by an examination of
longitudinal third-grade PSSA data indicating that, on average, less than 60% of the
district’s third graders have been able to reach proficiency in the last seven years, the
perennial objective of establishing consistent, effective instructional practices, and the
current superintendent’s goal of all third-grade students reaching proficiency on the
PSSAs.
Analysis of data collected through a survey, classroom observations, and
interviews has established that the district continues to fall short in its consistent,
effective instructional practices. Inconsistencies exist within and among the kindergarten,
first, and second-grade classrooms, and range from instructional time to teacher
confidence in teaching foundational reading skills. Additionally, data analysis protocols
are widely misunderstood, with teachers reporting the use of minimal data points to drive
instruction and limited time to review data.
Student performance data was collected and analyzed from three different
assessments: the ESGI, Acadience™, and Exact Path. When disaggregated by skills, data
indicated inconsistent performance among similar skills assessments except for Oral
Reading Fluency. An overall examination of the data suggests that while some students
are making gains in their acquisition of foundational reading skills, many are not, and
many are not growing at the rate expected of kindergarten, first, and second grade when
measured against criterion-referenced and norm-referenced benchmarks.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

135

These conclusions have resulted in several recommendations to apply what has
been learned through the research in order to improve practices. These recommendations
focus predominantly on training for professional and support staff as well as building
principals to institute consistent understandings of effective instructional practices and
consistent expectations of those practices. The fiscal implications on the district budget
are minimal in that the training for these practices is largely supported by the Statesponsored structured literacy initiative funneled through the Lincoln Intermediate Unit’s
Training and Consultation division and that the trainings can be provided during calendar
days earmarked for professional development.
This study was not without its limitations. Sample size, lack of second-grade
teacher participation, the timing of assessments, and the inability to establish direct
relationships between instructional practices and student performance may have impacted
the results of this study.
When considering future research relative to foundational reading skills, the
district should examine the continued use of the ESGI for its alignment with other
assessments and the consistency with which the kindergarten teachers use it. Due to the
noticeable regression of students testing at and above expectations or benchmark early in
the year, the district should investigate how to provide intervention for those students to
maintain or increase skills. Principal perceptions and additional second-grade
teacher/classroom data would provide the district information that could not be gathered
through this study. Lastly, teachers should be encouraged to reflect upon their
professional growth through focused training and its impact on student growth and
achievement.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

136

References
Act 55 of 2022, Pennsylvania Stat. § 24 (1949 & rev. 2022). https://www.legis.state.pa.
us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2022&sessInd=0&act=55
Adams, M., & Osborn, J. (1990). Beginning reading instruction in the United States.
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED).
Ahmadi, M. (2021). The use of instructional time in early grade reading classrooms: A
study in Herat Province of Afghanistan. International Journal of Educational
Development, 84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102435
Ainsworth, M., Ortlieb, E., Cheek, E., Pate, R., & Fetters, C. (2012). First-grade teachers’
perception and implementation of a semi-scripted reading curriculum. Language and
Education, 26(1), 77-90.
Al-Bataineh, A., & Sims-King, S. (2013). The effectiveness of phonemic awareness
instruction to early reading success in kindergarten. International Journal of Arts and
Sciences, 6(4), 59-76.
Arrow, A., Braid, C., & Chapman, J. (2019). Explicit linguistic knowledge is necessary,
but not sufficient, for the provision of explicit early literacy instruction. Annals of
Dyslexia, 69, 99-113.
Au, K., Carroll, J., & Scheu, J. (1997). Balanced literacy instruction: A teacher’s
resource book. Christopher-Gordon Publishers.
Baker, S., Beattie, T., Nelson, N., & Turtura, J. (2018). How we learn to read: The critical
role of phonological awareness. U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of Special Education
Programs, National Center on Improving Literacy.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

137

Blomert, L., & Froyen, D. (2010). Multi-sensory learning and learning to read.
International Journal of Psychophysiology, 77, 195-204.
Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and
knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading intervention.
Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97-120.
Boushey, G. & Moser, J. (2014). The daily 5 (2nd ed). Stenhouse Publishers.
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development (2nd ed). Harcourt Brace.
Connor, C., Morrison, F., & Underwood, P. (2007). A second chance in second grade: The
independent and cumulative impact of first- and second grade reading instruction and
students’ letter-word reading skill growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 199233.
Cunningham, A., Perry, K., Stanovich, K., & Stanovich, P. (2004). Disciplinary
knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early
literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 139-167.
Dehqan, M., & Samar, R. (2014). Reading comprehension in a sociocultural context:
Effect on learners of two proficiency levels, Procedia – Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 98, 404-410.
Dennis, D., & Hemmings, C. (2019). Making the simple more complex: The influence of
job-embedded professional development in supporting teacher expertise in reading.
Literacy, 53(3), 143-149.
Didion, L., Toste, J., & Filderman, M. (2020). Teacher professional development and
student reading achievement: A meta-analytic review of the effects. Journal of
Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(1), 29-66.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

138

Dover Area School District. (2020). Dover Area School District district level plan
07/01/2020 – 06/30/2023. https://www.doversd.org/downloads/documents_and_
forms/comprehensive_plan/2020-2023_dasd_comprehensive_plan.pdf
Duke, N., & Block, M. (2012). Improving reading in the primary grades. Future of
Children, 22(2), 55-73.
Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2002). The development of epiphonological and
metaphonological processing at the start of learning to read: A longitudinal study.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 17(1), 47-62.
Educational Research Institute of America. (2016). Journeys reading program: An
efficacy study. https://s3.amazonaws.com/prod-hmhco-vmg-craftcmspublic/research/HMH_Journeys_RM_1_5_Spring_2016_Final.pdf
Ehri, L. (1987). Learning to read and spell words. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19(1), 531. https://doi.org/10/1080/10862968709547485
Ehri, L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its
relationship to recoding. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading
acquisition (pp.107-143). Erlbaum.
Ehri, L. (2020). The science of learning to read words: A case of systematic phonics
instruction, Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), S45-S60. https://doi.10.1002/rrq.334
Ehri, L., & Flugman, B. (2017). Mentoring teachers is systematic phonics instruction:
Effectiveness of an intensive year-long program for kindergarten through 3rd grade
teachers and their students. Read Writ, 31, 425-456.
Ehri, L., Nunes, S., Willows, D., Schuster, B., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T.,
(2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

139

the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250287.
Ehri, L. & Wilce, L. (1985). Movement into reading: Is the first stage of printed word
learning visual or phonetic? Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 163-179.
https://doi.org/10.2307/747753
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. §6301 (2015). https://www.congress.gov/114/
Plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf
Filderman, M., Toste, J., & Cooc, N. (2021). Does training predict second-grade teachers’
use of student data for decision-making in reading and mathematics? Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 46(4), 247-258.
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2022). Features of effective instruction overview.
Florida Department of Education.
Foorman, B., Chen, D., Carlson, C., Moats, L., Francis, D., & Fletcher, J. (2003). The
necessity of the alphabetic principle to phonemic awareness instruction. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 289-324.
Foorman, B., Francis, D., Fletcher, J., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of
instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37-55.
Foorman, B., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small group
instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 16(4), 203-212.
Future Ready PA Index. (n.d.). Dover Area SD. https://futurereadypa.org/District/Fast
Facts?id=077059217152145023233206228207166046015224051045

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

140

Gamse, B., Tepper-Jacob, R., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F. (2008). Reading First
impact study: Final report. Institute for Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education.
Goldberg, M., & Goldenberg, C. (2022). Lessons learned? Reading wars, Reading First,
and a way forward. The Reading Teacher, 75(5), 621-630.
Good, R., & Kaminski, R. (2011). Acadience™ reading assessment manual. Dynamic
Measurement Group, Inc.
Goodman, K., & Goodman, Y. (1976). Learning to read is natural (ED155621). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED155621.pdf
Goodman, K. (1992). Why whole language is today’s agenda in education. Language
Arts, 69(5), 354-363.
Goodman, K. (2001). Acquiring literacy is natural: Who skilled Cock Robin. Theory into
Practice, 16(5), 309-314.
Goss, C., & Brown-Chidsey, R. (2012). Tier 2 interventions: Comparison of Reading
Mastery and Fundations double dose. Preventing School Failure, 56(1), 65-74.
Gregory, E. (2016). Learning to read: A third perspective. Prospects, 46, 367-377.
Hattie, J. (2017). 250+ influences on student achievement. Visible Learning Plus.
www.visible-learning.org
Heggerty, M., & VanHekken, A. (2020a). Phonic awareness: Primary version. Literacy
Resources, LLC.
Heggerty, M, & VanHekken, A. (2020b). Phonic awareness: Kindergarten version.
Literacy Resources, LLC.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

141

Hernandez, D. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third grade reading skills and poverty
influence high school graduation. The Anne E. Casey Foundation.
https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-DoubleJeopardy-2012-Full.pdf
Hoffman, J., & Pearson, D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next millennium:
What your grandmother’s teacher didn’t know that your granddaughter’s teacher
should. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 28-44.
Hoover, W., & Tunmer, W. (2018). The simple view of reading: Three assessments of its
adequacy. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5), 304-312.
Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127-160.
Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt. (n.d.) Journeys Scope and Sequence Grades K-6.
https://bit.ly/3MhwbK3
Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt. (2022). Journeys: Guide young readers to new heights.
https://www.hmhco.com/programs/journeys#about
Hudson, A., Moore, K., Han, B., Koh, P., & Binks-Cantrell, E.(2021). Elementary
teachers’ knowledge of foundational literacy skills: A critical piece of the puzzle in the
science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 56(S1), S287-S315.
https://doi:10.1002/rrq.408.
Indrisano, R., & Chall, J. (1995). Literacy development. Journal of Education, 177(1),
63-82.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for
understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade. National Center for Educational
Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide/21

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

142

Institute of Education Sciences. (2022). NAEP Report Card: 2022 NAEP Reading
Assessment. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov
International Reading Association and National Associate for the Education of Young
Children. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices
for young children. The Reading Teacher, 52(2), 193-216.
Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and
instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 458-492.
Learning Point Associates. (2004). A closer look at the five essential components of
effective reading instruction: A review of scientifically based reading research for
teachers. Learning Point Associates.
Lyon, G. (1996). Learning disabilities. The Future of Children, 6(1), 54-76.
Marulis, L., & Neuman, S. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young
children’s word learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3),
300-335.
Mathes, P., Denton, C., Fletcher, J., Anthony, J., Francis, D., & Schatschneider, C. (2005).
An evaluation of two reading interventions derived from diverse models. Reading
Research Quarterly, 40, 148-182. https://doi:10.1598/rrq.40.2.2
McCardle, P., Scarborough, H., & Catts, H. (2001). Predicting, explaining, and
preventing children’s reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 16(4), 230-239.
Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Read Writ,
22, 379-399. https://doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

143

Moats, L., & Foorman, B. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language
and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23-45.
Morris, D. (1993). The relationship between children’s concept of word in text and
phoneme awareness in learning to read: A longitudinal study. Research in the Teaching
of English, 27(2), 133-154.
Moss, M., Fountain, A., Boulay, B., Horst, M., Rodger, C, & Brown-Lyons, M. (2008).
Reading First implementation evaluation: Final report. Abt Associates.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/6023
National Reading Panel & 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. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development.
Oakland, T., Black, J., Stanford, G., Nussbaum, N., & Balise, R. (1998). An evaluation of
the dyslexia training program: A multisensory method for promoting reading in
students with reading disabilities. Journal of Reading Disabilities, 31(2), 140-147.
Olson, R. (2011). Genetic and environmental influences on phonological abilities and
reading achievement. In S. Brady, D. Braze, & C. Fowler. (Eds.), Explaining
individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 197-216). Psychology
Press.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

144

Orton, S. (1929). The “sight reading” method of teaching reading, as a source of reading
disability. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 20, 135-143.
http://nottrivialbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1929-Orton-article.pdf.
Paige, D., Smith, G., Rasinski, T., Rupley, W., Magpuri-Lavell, T., & Nichols, W. (2019).
A path analytic model linking foundational skills to grade 3 state reading achievement.
The Journal of Educational Research, 112(1), 110-120.
Paris, S. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Reading Research
Quarterly, 40(2), 184-202.
Pearson, P. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 216-252. https://doi:
10.1177/0895904803260041
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2014). Academic standards for English
language arts: Grades pk-5. https://static.pdesas.org/content/documents/PA%20Core
%Standards%20ELA%20PreK-5%20March%202014.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2023). PSSA results, 2022 [Data set].
https://www.education.pa.gov/DataAndReporting/Assessments/Pages/PSSAresults.aspx
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. (2018). Response to
intervention. https://www.pattan.net/Multi-Tiered-System-of-Support/MULTITIERED-SYSTEM-OF-SUPPORTS/Response-to-Intervention-RTI
Peters, M., Förster, N., Hebbecker, K., Forthmann, B., & Souvignier, E. (2021). Effects of
data-based decision-making on low-performing readers in general education
classrooms: Cumulative evidence from six intervention studies. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 54(5), 334-348.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

145

Pfost, M., Hattie, J., Dörfler, T, & Artelt, C. (2014). Individual differences in reading
development: A review of 25 years of empirical research n Matthew effects in reading.
Review of Educational Research, 84(2), 203-244.
Piasta, S., Connor, C., Fishman, B., & Morrison, F. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of
literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 13(3), 224-248.
Pressley, M., Roehrig, A., Bogner, K., Raphael, L. & Dolezal, S. (2002). Balanced
literacy instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(5), 1-14.
Rehman, A. (2021). The impact of reading instructional time in the classroom: Early
grade reading time policy initiative in Pakistan. Journal of Education, 9(3), 88-107.
Resendez, M., & Azin, M. (2013). A study on the effects of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’s
Journeys program: Year 2 final report. PRES Associates, Inc. https://s3.amazonaws.
com/prod-hmhco-vmgcraftcmspublic/research/HMHJourneys_RCT_Final_2013.pdf
Ritchey, K., & Goeke, J. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-based reading
instruction: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 171183.
Robinson, C., & Wahl, M. (2004). Fundations. Florida Center for Reading Research.
https://www.wilsonlanguage.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/FCRR_Fundations_
report.pdf
Scanlon, D., Gelzheiser, L., Vellutino, F., Schatschneider, C., & Sweeney, J. (2008).
Reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional development for
classroom teachers versus direct interventions for children. Learning and Individual
Differences, 18, 346-359.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

146

Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language to later reading (dis)abilities:
Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickenson. (Eds.), Handbook of
early literacy research (1st ed., pp. 97-110). Guilford Press.
Schaars, M., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2017). Word decoding development during
phonics instruction in children at risk for dyslexia. Dyslexia, 23, 141-160. https://doi:
10.1002/dys.1556
Schatschneider, C., Francis, D., Carlson, C., Fletcher, J., & Foorman, B. (2004).
Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 265-282.
Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2004). Using our understanding of dyslexia to support
early identification and intervention. Journal of Child Neurology, 19(10), 759-765.
Schwartz, S. (2019). A comparative analysis of student achievement of first grade
students using Fundations vs. Heggerty and Words Their Way (Publication No.
27671879) [Doctoral dissertation, Lindenwood University]. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global.
Semingson, P., & Kerns, W. (2021). Where is the evidence? Looking back to Jeanne
Chall and enduring debates about the science of reading. Reading Research Quarterly,
56(S1), S157-S169.
Slavin, R., Lake, C., Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Davis, S. (2009). Effective reading
programs for the elementary grades: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 79(4), 1391-1466.
Snow, C., & Matthews, T. (2016). Reading and language in the early grades. Future of
Children, 26(2), 57-74.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

147

Spear-Swerling, L. (2018). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices:
Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 51(3), 201-211.
Stein, M., Berends, M., Fuchs, D., McMaster, K., Sáenz, L., Yen, L., Fuchs, L., &
Compton, D. (2008). Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among
teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance across different
sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(4), 368-388.
Stewart, M. (2004). Early literacy instruction in the climate of No Child Left Behind. The
Reading Teacher, 57(8), 732-743.
Storch, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2002). Oral language and code-related pre-cursors to
reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology,
38(6), 934-947.
United States Department of Education. (n.d.). The nation’s report card. National Center
for Educational Statistics. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
United States Department of Education. (2010, July). WWC intervention report:
Fundations. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Intervention/735
West, T. (n.d.) Kinderliteracy® curriculum. www.teacherspayteachers.com
West, T. (2017). Kindergarten step by step: All things KinderLiteracy!
https://littlemindsatwork.org/kindergarten-step-by-step-all-things/
White, S., Sabatini, J., Park, B., Chen, J., Bernstein, J., & Li. M. (2021). Highlights of the
2018 NAEP oral reading fluency study. NCES. U.S. Department of Education.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

APPENDICES

148

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

149

Appendix A
Teacher Survey Informed Consent
Dear Faculty Member,
As a teacher of Kindergarten, first grade, or second grade in the Dover Area School
District, you are being asked to participate in a research study to evaluate core practices
in the instruction of foundational reading skills in primary grades (K-2) in the Dover Area
School District. Your participation in the study will help the researcher collect and
analyze data to summarize current instructional practices with respect to foundational
reading skills.
What will I be asked to do it I take part in this study?
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an electronic
survey through Google Forms. Participants will be asked to answer selected-response and
open-ended questions regarding current foundational reading skills instructional
practices. Additional opportunities for participation through observations and interviews
will be presented at a later time and with a separate and unique consent.
Where will this study take place?
The survey portion of this study will be available on Google Forms. Participants may
take the survey at a time and place most convenient for them.
How long will this study last?
The intended duration of this study is nine months. The survey portion of this study will
take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.
What happens if I do not want to participate?
Your participation is voluntary; you may choose whether or not you want to participate in
the study or not. There will be no penalty if you choose not to participate.
May I quit the study before it ends?
Your participation is voluntary. If you do not want to participate in this portion of the
study, please do not complete the survey. Otherwise, by clicking continue, you are giving
consent to participate in the study. If you change your mind after you begin the survey,
close the survey before completion, and no survey responses will be recorded.
What are the risks?
There are minimal risks to this study. You will not answer questions of a sensitive nature,
and you will not be asked to provide personally identifiable information. Settings in
Google Forms will be such that the researcher will not collect email addresses from
participants. The survey questions may make you feel uncomfortable as some individuals
may not like volunteering information which may be perceived as negative. However, in
order for the research to have the greatest impact, it is imperative that responses are
truthful.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

150

Your privacy is important, and the researcher will handle all information confidentially.
The study’s results will not identify you and will not isolate any one building’s data for
scrutiny. The researcher plans to present the study results as a published study and
potentially in journals or periodicals.
How will I benefit from participating?
Should you decide to participate, you will assist the researcher in better understanding
instructional practices with respect to foundational reading skills in the primary grades.
Benefits may include an opportunity to share your perceptions and opinions, analysis of
current practices, and the identification of recommendations for improvement.
Will my responses be kept confidential and private?
The collected survey responses will remain confidential, with only the researcher having
access to the data. The results will be reported in a manner that will not identify you and
will not isolate any one building’s data for scrutiny. Data will be stored on a secure server
which is password-protected or stored in a locked office or a combination of both.
Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?
If you have questions about this study, contact the researcher, Katherine Guyer, at
GUY5405@pennwest.edu or 717-495-7494. If you would like to speak with someone
other than the researcher, contact Dr. David Foley, Associate Professor at PennWest
University, at foley@pennwest.edu.
I have read this form. Any questions I have regarding participation in this study have
been answered. I agree to take part in this study, and I understand that this is voluntary
on my part. I do not have to participate if I do not wish to do so. I may stop at any time
for any reason. If I choose to no longer participation, I will not be asked for an
explanation.
By clicking YES, you agree to participate in this survey.
Approved by the PennWest University Institutional Review Board. This approval is
effective 10/04/22 and expires 10/3/23.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

151

Appendix B
Teacher Survey
Survey: Classroom Teachers’ Practices and Perceptions Regarding the Instruction
of Foundational Reading Skills in the Primary Grades (K-2)
1) What grade level do you currently teach?
a. Kindergarten
b. First
c. Second
2) How much time do you have in your daily schedule dedicated to the teaching of
reading?
a. 0-30 minutes
b. 31-45 minutes
c. 46-60 minutes
d. 61-75 minutes
e. 76-90 minutes
f. 91-105 minutes
g. 106-120 minutes
h. More than 120 minutes
3) How often do you provide small group reading instruction to ALL students?
a. Daily
b. Once per cycle
c. Twice per cycle
d. Three times per cycle
e. Four times per cycle

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

152

f. Five times per cycle
4) Which best describes the purpose of your small group instruction?
a. Remediation/practice of taught skills
b. Initial instruction of skills
c. A combination of both
d. Other (Please explain.)
5) Please provide and explanation if you chose “other” for the previous question.
6) Do you use station rotation within your classroom? If so, what do the students do
when working independently? Please describe the activities and materials used.
7) How often per cycle do you provide instruction to ALL students in the following
core components?
Once

Letter names
(identification
of written upper
and lower case
letters)
Phonics (lettersound
relationships)
Phonemic
Awareness (oral
and auditory
understanding
that words are
made up of
individual
sounds)

Twice

Three
times

Four
times

Five
times

Six
times

I do
not
teach
this at
my
level.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

153

Vocabulary
(meaning of
words)
Comprehension
(deriving
meaning from
what is read)
Oral Reading
Fluency
(reading
accurately at an
appropriate rate
and with
expression)
8) What programs/materials do you use to teach letter names? Respond with “N/A”
if you do not teach letter names.
9) What programs/materials do you use to teach phonics? Respond with “N/A” if
you do not teach phonics.
10) What programs/materials do you use to teach phonemic awareness? Respond with
“N/A” if you do not teach phonemic awareness.
11) What programs/materials do you use to teach vocabulary? Respond with “N/A” if
you do not teach vocabulary.
12) What programs/materials do you use to teach comprehension? Respond with
“N/A” if you do not teach comprehension.
13) What programs/materials do you use to teach oral reading fluency? Respond with
“N/A” if you do not teach oral reading fluency.
14) Do you believe you have enough district-provided materials to teach reading? If
not, please explain what additional materials you believe would be beneficial.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

154

15) Please answer the following with respect to the level of confidence you have in
the listed areas of reading instruction.
I am very
confident in
my ability to
provide
instruction
in this area.
Letter names
(identification
of written upper
and lower case
letters)
Phonics (lettersound
relationships)
Phonemic
Awareness (oral
and auditory
understanding
that words are
made up of
individual
sounds)
Vocabulary
(meaning of
words)
Comprehension
(deriving
meaning from
what is read)
Oral Reading
Fluency
(reading
accurately at an
appropriate rate
and with
expression)

I am
confident in
my ability to
provide
instruction
in this area.

I am
somewhat
confident in
my ability to
provide
instruction
in this area.

I am not
confident in
my ability to
provide
instruction
in this area.

I do not
teach
this at
my
level.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

155

16) Please answer the following with respect to the need for professional learning
opportunities for the listed areas of reading instruction.
I do not need
professional
learning in
this area.
Letter names
(identification
of written upper
and lower case
letters)
Phonics (lettersound
relationships)
Phonemic
Awareness (oral
and auditory
understanding
that words are
made up of
individual
sounds)
Vocabulary
(meaning of
words)
Comprehension
(deriving
meaning from
what is read)
Oral Reading
Fluency
(reading
accurately at an
appropriate rate
and with
expression)

I would
welcome
professional
learning in
this area as a
refresher.

I would like
professional
learning
offered in
this area.

I need
professional
learning in
this area.

I do
not
teach
this at
my
level.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

156

17) If you have engaged in any professional learning opportunities independent of the
Dover Area School District with respect to reading instruction, please indicate the
provider/source.
LIU
Letter names
(identification
of written upper
and lower case
letters)
Phonics (lettersound
relationships)
Phonemic
Awareness (oral
and auditory
understanding
that words are
made up of
individual
sounds)
Vocabulary
(meaning of
words)
Comprehension
(deriving
meaning from
what is read)
Oral Reading
Fluency
(reading
accurately at an
appropriate rate
and with
expression)

PaTTAN

College or
University
Course

Professional
Reading

Other
source

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

157

18) What type of assessments do you use to measure student growth and
achievement? Mark all that apply.
a. Formative, non-graded assessments
b. Observation
c. Skills checklists
d. Summative assessments (e.g., unit tests)
e. Diagnostic assessments
f. Benchmark assessments
g. Other (Please explain.)
19) Please provide an explanation if you chose “other” for the previous question.
20) How often do you review each of the types of data for your students?
daily 2-3
times
per
week
Formative,
non-graded
Observation
Skills
checklists
Summative
assessments
Diagnostic
assessments
Benchmark
assessments
Other

weekly monthly quarterly after
I do not use
benchmarks this type of
are given
assessment.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

158

21) Are there circumstances under which you would review data for individual
students on a more frequent basis than what you have described? If so, please
explain.
22) Is there a protocol you follow when reviewing/analyzing student data? If so,
please explain.
23) After analyzing student data, how do you use it? Mark all that apply.
Most

Occasionally Rarely

Never

frequently
To create student groups for small
group instruction
To create individualized student
practice assignments
To plan for small group instruction
To plan for whole-group instruction
To provide data for additional
potential services (Tier 2/3, special
education)
To provide performance updates to
parents
To reflect on my teaching practices
To collaborate
instruction

with

peers

on

24) Please indicate the level to which you agree/disagree.
Strongly
agree
I have enough time during the day for
reading instruction.
I have enough materials provided to me
for reading instruction.

Agree

Disagree Strongly
disagree

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION
The materials I am provided are
appropriate for the skills I teach.
I am provided adequate time to review
and analyze reading data.
I receive support and feedback in my
reading instruction.

25) Please provide any additional feedback regarding reading instruction.

159

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

160

Appendix C
Classroom Observation and Interview Informed Consent
Dear Faculty Member,
As a teacher of Kindergarten, first grade, or second grade in the Dover Area School
District, you are being asked to participate in a research study to evaluate core practices
in the instruction of foundational reading skills in primary grades (K-2) in the Dover Area
School District. Your participation in the study will help the researcher collect and
analyze data to summarize current instructional practices with respect to foundational
reading skills.
What will I be asked to do if I take part in this study?
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a classroom
observation and debriefing/follow-up interview. Participants will permit the researcher to
observe reading instruction on a date agreeable to both parties. Following the
observations, the participants will engage in a semi-structured interview regarding the
observation as it relates to the teaching of foundational reading skills.
Where will this study take place?
The observation will take place in the participant’s classroom. The interview will take
place at a location mutually agreed-upon by the participant and researcher.
How long will this study last?
The intended duration of this study is nine months. The observation portion duration will
be determined by the individual participant’s schedule. The interview will take
approximately 15-30 minutes.
What happens if I do not want to participate?
Your participation is voluntary; you may choose whether or not you want to participate in
the study or not. There will be no penalty if you choose not to participate.
May I quit the study before it ends?
Your participation is voluntary. If you should change your mind after an observation is
scheduled, you may notify the researcher of your decision. If you change your mind after
the observation is completed, you may notify the researcher, and the observation notes
will be destroyed. If you change your mind after the interview has taken place, both the
observation and interview notes will be destroyed.
What are the risks?
There are minimal risks to this study. Observations are non-evaluative and will follow a
prescribed observation form. Observation notes will be kept confidential without
personally identifiable information. They will not be shared with supervisors. You will
not answer questions of a sensitive nature, and you will not be asked to provide
personally identifiable information, during the interview. The interview questions may

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

161

make you feel uncomfortable as some individuals may not like volunteering information
which may be perceived as negative. However, in order for the research to have the
greatest impact, it is imperative that responses are truthful. Should you wish to not
respond to a question, simply state that for the record.
Your privacy Is Important, and the researcher will handle all information confidentially.
The study’s results will not identify you and will not isolate any one building’s data for
scrutiny. The researcher plans to present the study results as a published study and
potentially in journals or periodicals.
How will I benefit from participating?
Should you decide to participate, you will assist the researcher in better understanding
instructional practices with respect to foundational reading skills in the primary grades.
Benefits may include an opportunity to share your perceptions and opinions, analysis of
current practices, and the identification of recommendations for improvement.
Will my responses be kept confidential and private?
The observation and interview notes will remain confidential, with only the researcher
having access to the data. Observation notes are non-evaluative and will not be shared
with supervisors. The results will be reported in a manner that will not identify you and
will not isolate any one building’s data for scrutiny. Data will be stored on a secure server
which is password-protected or stored in a locked office or a combination of both.
Who do I contact if I have questions about this study?
If you have questions about this study, contact the researcher, Katherine Guyer, at
GUY5405@pennwest.edu or 717-495-7494. If you would like to speak with someone
other than the researcher, contact Dr. David Foley, Associate Professor at PennWest
University, at foley@pennwest.edu.
I have read this form. Any questions I have regarding participation in this study have
been answered. I agree to take part in this study, and I understand that this is voluntary
on my part. I do not have to participate if I do not wish to do so. I may stop at any time
for any reason. If I choose to no longer participation, I will not be asked for an
explanation.
By signing below, I agree to participate in this study. In doing so, I am indicating that I
have read this form and had my questions answered. I understand that it is my choice to
participate, and I may terminate my participation at any time.
Participant Signature ______________________________________ Date _________
Participant Name Printed ________________________________________________
Approved by the PennWest University Institutional Review Board. This approval is
effective 10/04/22 and expires 10/03/23.
Please return to Kathy Guyer at the Dover Administration Office by Friday, October 21.
Thank you!

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

162

Appendix D
Observation Checklists
Heggerty Lesson Observation Form*
Level ________

Lesson Week ________

Component
Teacher has the appropriate
Phonemic Awareness curriculum
manual.
Whole group lesson
All skills in the lesson plan are used.
Teacher follows the lesson as
written.
Teacher uses the correct hand
motions for the following:
Blending
Isolating final or medial sounds
Segmenting
Adding
Deleting
Substituting
Teacher provides directions for each
skill.
Teacher provides examples for each
skill.
Lesson is 15 minutes or less
Teacher provides error correction as
needed.

Lesson Day __________

Observed
Y/N

Comments

Total time:

*adapted from Heggerty Fidelity Checklist for a Phonemic Awareness Lesson, Literacy
Resources, LLC 2020

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

163

Fundations Lesson Observation Form
Level ________

Unit ________

Component
Teacher has the appropriate
Fundations manual.
Whole group lesson
Small group lesson
Teacher follows correct procedures
for the following when used:
Alphabetical Order
Dictation Sounds/Word
Drill Sounds
Echo/Finds Letters
Echo Letter Formation
Letter-Keyword-Sounds
Sky-Write Letter Formation
Story Time
Student Notebook
Trick Words
Word of the Day
Word Talk
Teacher provides directions for each
skill.
Teacher provides examples for each
skill.
Teacher provides error correction as
needed.
Students have all necessary materials.
Lesson is 30 minutes or less.

Day ________

Observed
Y/N

Comments

Total time:

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

164

Journeys Lesson Observation Form
Level ________

Unit ________

Components
Teacher has the appropriate Journeys
manual.
Whole group lesson
Small group lesson
Opening Routines
Read Aloud
Phonemic Awareness
Speaking and Listening
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Fluency
Phonics
Spelling
Grammar
Writing
Teacher provides directions for each
skill.
Teacher provides examples for each
skill.
Teacher provides error correction as
needed.
Students have all necessary
materials:
Leveled Readers
Write-in Reader
Student Text
Reader’s Notebook
Word/sound/vocabulary Cards
Decodable Readers

Lesson ________
Observed
Y/N

Day ________

Comments

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

165

General Observation Form
Grade ________
Components
Time of lesson:
Number of adults in room:
Number of students:
SMART Board use
Student iPad use
Seating arrangement
Supplemental materials used
Teaching strategies observed:
Direct Instruction/Explicit Teaching
Errorless teaching
Think-pair-share/interaction sequence
Partner work
Independent work
Wait/think time
Checking for understanding
Modeling/think aloud
Student movement/brain breaks
Others
Room displays relevant to reading

Comments
Describe roles of each

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

166

Appendix E
Post-Observation Teacher Interview Form
1) Explain your personal process of planning for reading instruction. Specifically
describe how you use data in the planning process.
2) Do you collaborate with anyone to plan for instruction?
a. If so, with whom do you plan?
b. How often do you collaborate?
3) How do you adjust your planned instruction for students who are struggling?
4) How often do you progress monitor all students?
a. Does anyone assist you in progress monitoring? If yes, who?
b. In what types of activities are students engaged when they are not being
progress-monitored?
c. How do you use progress monitoring data in your instructional planning
(if different than above)?

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION
Appendix F
District Letter of Approval

167

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION
Appendix G
IRB Approval

168

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION
Appendix H
Certificates of CITI Course Completion

169

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

170

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

171

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

172

Appendix I
Exact Path Reading Foundations Skills Descriptors

Less Common Vowel Teams - Decode words by applying knowledge of less common
vowel teams. Read common high frequency words.

Phonics and Word Analysis 1 – Decode words by applying knowledge of beginning and
ending digraphs, common long -e and long-a vowel teams, closed and open syllables.
Read common high frequency words.

Phonics and Word Analysis 2 - Decode words by applying knowledge of initial consonant
r-blends, l-blends, and s-blends, r-controlled vowels, and vCe towel teams, r-controlled
syllables. Read common high frequency words.

Phonics and Word Analysis 3 - Decode words by applying knowledge of final consonant
blends, common long-o and long-I vowel teams and inflectional endings -s, -es, -ed. Read
common high frequency words.

Reading Text Fluently – Understand the features of complete sentences and red text
fluently with appropriate rate and expression.

FOUNDATIONAL READING SKILLS INSTRUCTION

173

Silent Letters - Decode words by applying knowledge of silent letter consonant patterns.
Read common high frequency words.

Sounds in Words – Isolate, blend, segment, add, deleted, and substitute sounds in words.

Word Analysis 1 – Decode multisyllabic words by applying knowledge of vCe and vowel
team syllable patterns. Read common high frequency words.

Word Analysis 2 – Decode words by applying knowledge of prefixes and suffixes. Read
common high frequency words.

Unusually Spelled Words - Decode words by applying knowledge of final consonant
blends.