home.lagrange.eduhome.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced programs/m.ed... · web viewthis study...

INTEGRATED LANGUAGE ARTS

Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Thesis Chair. This thesis does not include

proprietary or classified information.

________________________________________________________________________

Evelyn Shaw Herring

Certificate of Approval:

_________________________ _________________________

Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D. Sharon M. Livingston, Ph.D.

Associate Professor & Thesis Co-Chair Assistant Professor & Thesis Co-Chair

Education Department Education Department

Integrated Language Arts ii

INTEGRATED LANGUAGE ARTS

A thesis submitted

by

Evelyn Shaw Herring

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

LaGrange, Georgia

June 29, 2011

Integrated Language Arts iii

Abstract

This study examined the effects of integrated language arts taught for the first

time in a sixth grade classroom. This study is in accordance with the action research

design. The research study took place in a Distinguished School, which is located in a

suburban location in the state of Georgia. This particular school was chosen because the

integration of language arts was taking place in this school for the first time this year. The

study consisted of a study of 71 students in the 2010-2011. The students were selected

from regular education and collaborative learning environments. There were 51 regular

education students and 20 students with cognitive, emotional, and / or physical special

needs. There were 30 females and 41 males in the study. The instructional plan lasted for

a nine week time period of school. The unit of focus from an instructional plan

encouraged the understanding of the interwoven nature of reading, grammar, and writing.

In my nine week instructional plan, students learned about the reading comprehension

skills, research skills, main idea, direct objects, and indirect objects. Mock CRCT scores

in literature and language arts were compared using a pre and post test. A dependent t test

was used to determine significance.

Integrated Language Arts iv

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………….…………. iii

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………..…………..iv

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………..………….v

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………………1Statement of the Problem…....…………………………………………………….1Significance of the Problem …………………………………………………….2Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks……………………………………… ...2Focus Questions……...…………………………………………………………...4Overview of Methodology…...…………………………………………………...5Human as Researcher ..……………………………………………………….......6

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature …………………………………………………….7Effective Strategies for Integrated Language Arts in the Classroom …………......7 Assessment Score Comparisons…......…………………………………………..10 Teacher and Student Attitudes……...…………………………………………...12

Chapter 3: Methodology…………………………………………………………………16Research Design……....…………………………………………………….........18 Setting ……………………………………………………………………………19 Subjects and Participants…....……………………..…………………………….19 Procedures and Data Collection Methods…....…………………………………..20 Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias……....…………………………...22 Analysis of Data……..…………………………………………………………..23

Chapter 4: Results…..……………………………………………………………………25

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results……..…………………………………...37 Analysis…………………………………………………………………..………37Discussion….……………………………………………………………………39 Implications…..…………………………………………………………………..40 Impact on Student Learning ...………………………………………………….41 Recommendations for Future Research……..…………………………………...42

References…..……………………………………………………………………………43

Appendixes…..…………………………………………………………………………..45

Integrated Language Arts v

List of Tables

Table 4.1t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Pre Test - LA Post Test - LAMean 30 31.3943662Variance 63.2 66.07082495Observations 71 71Pearson Correlation 0.864843254Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 70t Stat -2.808629713P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003221554t Critical one-tail 1.66691448P(T<=t) two-tail 0.006443108t Critical two-tail 1.994437086


Pre Test - Lit Post Test - LitMean 25.25352113 26.95774648Variance 48.53480885 50.21247485Observations 71 71Pearson Correlation 0.848684152Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 70t Stat -3.713433888P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000203616t Critical one-tail 1.66691448P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000407233t Critical two-tail 1.994437086

Integrated Language Arts vi

Table 4.3t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means GIRLS

Pre Test - LAPost Test -

LA

Mean32.9333333

3 34

Variance39.0298850

642.8275862

1Observations 30 30

Pearson Correlation0.78775005

7Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 29t Stat -1.39884733

P(T<=t) one-tail0.08623165

4

t Critical one-tail1.69912699

6

P(T<=t) two-tail0.17246330

9

t Critical two-tail2.04522961

1


Pre Test - LitPost Test -

Lit

Mean27.0333333

329.4333333

3

Variance28.2402298

927.0126436

8Observations 30 30



Integrated Language Arts vii

P(T<=t) one-tail0.00033415

3


6

P(T<=t) two-tail0.00066830

6


1

Table 4.5t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means BOYS


LA

Mean27.8536585

429.4878048

8

Variance71.1280487

875.7560975

6Observations 41 41



P(T<=t) one-tail0.00877665

8


4

P(T<=t) two-tail0.01755331

7t Critical two-tail 2.02107537


Pre Test - LitPost Test -

Lit

Integrated Language Arts viii

Mean23.9512195

125.1463414

6

Variance60.3475609

860.3280487

8Observations 41 41



P(T<=t) one-tail0.03506097

5


4

P(T<=t) two-tail0.07012195


Table 4.7t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances GIRLS BOYS

Pre Test - LA Pre Test - LAMean 32.93333333 27.85365854Variance 39.02988506 71.12804878Observations 30 41Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 69t Stat 2.915395147P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002393631t Critical one-tail 1.667238549P(T<=t) two-tail 0.004787262t Critical two-tail 1.99494539


Integrated Language Arts ix

Post Test - LA Post Test - LAMean 34 29.48780488Variance 42.82758621 75.75609756Observations 30 41Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 69t Stat 2.493231474P(T<=t) one-tail 0.007530624t Critical one-tail 1.667238549P(T<=t) two-tail 0.015061249t Critical two-tail 1.99494539


Pre Test - Lit Pre Test - LitMean 27.03333333 23.95121951Variance 28.24022989 60.34756098Observations 30 41Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 69t Stat 1.984033815P(T<=t) one-tail 0.025615718t Critical one-tail 1.667238549P(T<=t) two-tail 0.051231435t Critical two-tail 1.99494539


Integrated Language Arts x

Post Test - Lit Post Test - LitMean 29.43333333 25.14634146Variance 27.01264368 60.32804878Observations 30 41Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 69t Stat 2.783621707P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003465077t Critical one-tail 1.667238549P(T<=t) two-tail 0.006930154t Critical two-tail 1.99494539


REGULAR EDUCATION Pre Test - LAPost Test -

LA

Mean33.2549019

634.7843137

3

Variance39.3537254

933.9325490

2Observations 51 51


1Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 50

t Stat

-2.53428479

9

P(T<=t) one-tail0.00722290

8


6

Integrated Language Arts xi

P(T<=t) two-tail0.01444581

5


2


REGULAR EDUCATION Pre Test - LitPost Test -

Lit

Mean26.6078431

428.5294117

6

Variance30.0031372

530.6541176

5Observations 51 51



t Stat

-3.96245127

9

P(T<=t) one-tail0.00011790

3


6

P(T<=t) two-tail0.00023580

6


2


SPECIAL EDUCATION Pre Test - LAPost Test -

LAMean 21.7 22.75Variance 28.3263157 44.6184210

Integrated Language Arts xii

9 5Observations 20 20



t Stat

-1.19587103

3

P(T<=t) one-tail0.12322937

1


2

P(T<=t) two-tail0.24645874



SPECIAL EDUCATION Pre Test - LitPost Test -

LitMean 21.8 22.95

Variance82.3789473

780.7868421

1Observations 20 20



t Stat

-1.07048375

5

P(T<=t) one-tail0.14890624

8


2

P(T<=t) two-tail0.29781249


Integrated Language Arts 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

This study explored the importance of integrating the elements of reading and

writing together into one class. Many schools throughout the United States teach reading

components of the curriculum in a class entitled literature, and they teach the writing and

grammatical components in a class entitled language arts. Some schools have decided to

make the change to teaching the elements of literature and language arts in one class,

which is the concept behind integrated language arts. Smith (2003) explains, “Teaching

the various components of language arts (reading, writing, grammar, vocabulary, etc.) in

an integrated program allows students to experience how each subject contributes to the

other” (p. 3). It has been found that the cognitive skills needed for reading and writing are

highly similar, so an integration of the two is beneficial for students (Malinowski, 1988).

A problem arises even in the schools where the change to an integrated curriculum has

been made. Although the majority of research states that the components of reading and

writing should be taught together, teachers are often reluctant to change their teaching

practices. Teachers become so comfortable teaching the classes and using the styles that

they have always used; they fear change. Keating-Toro (1998) states, “Ninth grade

teachers in my school cling to the notion that reading, grammar, literature, and

vocabulary should be taught separately, despite instructions and staff development which

suggest the use of an integrated method” (p.3). In order for teachers to make effective

changes in their classrooms, they should know the true benefits of integrated language

arts.


Significance of the Problem

When students do not receive effective linguistic instruction throughout the

elementary, middle, and high school years, they will likely become adults who lack the

ability to communicate effectively. A deficit in reading ability often leads to an inability

to write in an educated manner. In many instances, the written word of a person is the

first impression received. Not only do colleges reject students who lack the ability to

write their entrance essays, companies do not hire employees that are unable to write

appropriate cover letters and resumes. Because of the economical issues in the United

States during this time, the positions in the workforce have become increasingly

competitive. In a time of competition for jobs, literacy skills are a strong tool for

obtaining a higher standard of living.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

Constructivist theory is a foundational tool for the research conducted in this

thesis. The integration of reading and writing taught together in one class ties into

constructivism because of certain constructivist theories and practices. The overall basis

for incorporating the reading and writing elements together will provide students with a

powerful method for constructing valuable language skills. Linguistic comprehension and

communication with others play a role in successful learning. Powell and Kalina (2009)

investigate the differences in cognitive and social constructivism. The research

corresponds closely with the social constructivist views held by Lev Vygotsky, who

strongly believed in the value of constructing knowledge in a social manner. Powell and

Kalina (2009) relay Vygotsky’s views in the social constructivist realm when explaining


that “social interaction is important to effective language usage and the development of

efficient communication in the classroom. Students should use language as much as they

use oxygen,” (p. 245). In addition, “Vygotsky stated that language enhances learning and

that it precedes knowledge or thinking,” (Powell & Kalina, 2009, p. 245). Vygotsky

believed in working together through cooperative learning to create meaningful

experiences in knowledge, and this is a foundational belief in language arts practices. The

authors explain Vygotsky’s theory by explaining, “When students master completion of

projects or activities in a group, the internalization of knowledge occurs for each

individual at a different rate according to their own experience,” (Powell, & Kalina,

2009, p.244). In a comparative essay on the various forms of constructivism, Phillips

(1995) also discusses positive aspects of social constructivist learning by stating,

“Various constructivist sects place on the necessity for active participation by the learner,

together with the recognition… of the social nature of learning,” (p. 11). The integration

of language arts will benefit students in a constructivist manner.

In addition to constructivist theory, the research also relates to the National Board

for Professional Teachers Standards (NBPT), the Georgia Framework for Teaching, and

LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework. The third

proposition in the NBPT states that the teachers must be in charge of managing and

monitoring the learning of students. The research conducted for this thesis enhanced the

ability to teach in a meaningful manner that assists all students. The variety of strategies

outlined through this research led to active student engagement, which is an important

component of the proposition. The fifth domain of the Georgia Framework for Teaching

illustrates the importance in developing teaching practices that are created from a deep


understanding of the content and curriculum as well as the best learning environments for

students. Through an exploration of the research regarding the teaching practices of

reading and writing, this thesis enhances the content knowledge and strategies for

effectively teaching integrated language arts. In Tenet 1 of LaGrange College Education

Department’s (2008) Conceptual Framework, students need to have an enthusiastic

engagement for their learning. Social constructivism is discussed in this tenet, and the

linguistic research practices conducted are based in the social constructivist theory.

Because of a strong knowledge of content, curriculum, and the learners in a classroom,

the research conducted regarding integrated language arts becomes increasingly helpful.

The learning experiences of constructing knowledge of communication through reading

and writing will have real life meaning for students.

Focus Questions

The focus questions created for this thesis all relate to the overall purpose of

finding the most effective ways to teach the integrated version of literature and language

arts. The desired outcome from the research was for students to perform even better than

they did when literature and language arts were taught separately. A goal is for students

to become increasingly engaged and to see the connections between reading and writing.

The three focus questions have a focus on pedagogical content approaches, student

learning outcomes, and reflective practice. The focus questions are as follows:

1.) What strategies are the most effective for integrating reading and writing in the

classroom?


2.) How do student assessment scores compare when literature and language arts are

taught together as opposed to when they are taught separately?

3.) What are the teacher and student attitudes when language arts and literature are

taught together in a school?

Overview of Methodology

This study was conducted through the usage of action research practices in a

Distinguished School in the state of Georgia. The study consisted of an investigation of

the implementation of an integrated language arts classroom. The students were selected

from regular education and collaborative learning environments. A total of 71 students

were studied in the 2010 – 2011 school year. 20 students had Individualized Educational

Plans for their physical, cognitive, and / or emotional needs. Fifty students had regular

education needs. Students who received gifted language arts instruction this year were

not studied. Focus groups were used in the study, which consisted of students and

teachers. While the integration of literature and language arts took place for the first time

as a school all year, the formal study took place in a three week window of time. I used

an instructional plan, which was evaluated and critiqued by an experienced colleague.

The study used both quantitative and qualitative forms of data. Mock CRCT assessments

were compared using a dependent t test for all students in the study. Focus group surveys

consisted of sixth grade students receiving integrated language arts instruction for the

first time in the middle school. I also surveyed seventh grade students receiving the

integrated instruction for the first time in the middle school environment. In addition,

surveys were given to teachers throughout the school who taught integrated language arts

for the first time this year. I completed a reflective journal throughout the teaching


process, and I reflected on my teaching strategies in an integrated language arts

classroom.

Human as Researcher

My experiences at The University of Georgia as a student in the Middle School

Education program initially began my concentrations in language arts and literature. I

chose to take the Praxis II in both the reading and grammatical portions of language arts

to make myself increasingly knowledgeable and marketable in the teaching workforce.

As a fourth year teacher, I have had valuable experiences of teaching literature and

language arts separately. While the reading I conducted for my thesis illustrates a strong

belief in the integration of the reading and writing portions of language arts, I fear

planning difficulties on the teaching end. As much as I agree in the valuable nature of

correlating meaning in reading and writing, I fear that a lack of time to cover as much

material may negatively affect student scores in our first year of integrating language arts

as a school. I do, however, believe that the change to integrated language arts will prove

to be valuable through time. Admittedly, I would like to see an improvement within the

very first year.


CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Effective Strategies for Integrated Language Arts in the Classroom

Historically, reading, writing, and grammar were taught as separate units. When

the integration of language arts occurs in the classroom, the various components of

language arts such as spelling, grammar, vocabulary, reading, and writing are interwoven

and taught together. Bode (1988) maintains that children learn how to write by what they

read and that children learn how to read from what they write. The two processes

correspond with each other in a meaningful way. The concept of integrated language arts

in the classroom works best when students are engaged by learning about units that have

ideas that are associated with one another (Argo, 1995). Incorporating the usage of prior

knowledge and relating differing concepts to one another bring increasing meaning to the

learning process. According to Bush (1994), a team-teaching approach works well with

the integration of language arts because the two teachers convey various motivational

strategies and teaching styles with students in the classroom. Because each and every

child is different, having two teachers with different teaching styles in the classroom can

increase the possibility of each student learning the integrated content in a meaningful

way.

In a study conducted by Stevens (2006), larger, urban middle schools

incorporated the usage of an integrated program entitled The Student Team Reading and

Writing (STRW) program. The program focused on using cooperative learning to teach


reading, writing, and language skills (Stevens, 2006). In addition, the program worked

toward enhancing the cognitive, motivational, and social benefits of the students by

having them work together on one scholastic content. The cooperative learning approach

made a positive difference in student performance. Students performed significantly

higher in the following academic areas: language expression, reading vocabulary, and

reading comprehension.

Montelongo, Herter, Ansaldo, and Hatter (2010) recommend word-in-context

vocabulary lessons as opposed to looking up the definitions of vocabulary words that

have no meaning for the students. Students learned how to use context clues and how to

create sentences of their own with the new vocabulary words (Montelongo et al., 2010).

The next step in the integrated approach involved introducing students to various

paragraph types by showing students that certain words will correspond with the purpose

of the paragraph. For example, the word ‘next’ would signify a sequencing paragraph

(Montelongo et al., 2010). The authors continue to share their strategies for integrated

language arts by explaining a modified sentence completion activity. After students

understand the new vocabulary strategy and how to detect types of paragraphs, students

work with a fill-in-the-blank activity that involves arranging sentences in logical order,

finding the main idea, and completing the sentences with the appropriate word

(Montelongo et al., 2010). Students are able to find a deeper meaning in the sentences by

understanding the purpose for each sentence within the paragraph. The last step in the

integrated language arts approach involves students rewriting a paragraph in their own

words, which enhances writing ability (Montelongo et al., 2010).


Lewis (1985) explains that the processes of goal-setting in both reading and

writing follow a similar pattern. Reading and writing have a natural relationship in which

the two processes correlate and build upon one another. Determining the goals for

reading and the goals for writing will use the same thought processes (Lewis, 1985).

Similarly, writing a first draft and scanning a reading passage for the first time both

involve an alignment of thoughts (Lewis, 1985). Lewis (1985) maintains that a revision

process takes place in both reading and writing. Effective readers must reexamine and

correct a text in his or her mind just as an effective writer must do (Lewis, 1985). The

research demonstrates that students can benefit when reading and writing are taught

together in one academic classroom setting.

In an article which discusses a first year teaching experience in a integrated

language arts classroom, Cheney and Gaillet (2000) explain the mistake he made by

teaching writing separately from reading. When students wrote papers that did not

correspond with reading, their papers had little enthusiasm or ownership (Cheney &

Gaillet, 2000). When Cheney and Gaillet (2000) began sharing writing strategies with his

students that corresponded with reading, the student writing came to life because they

were able to mimic effective writing from the authors in the reading selections. As

students learned more and more about effective writing from what they read, their own

writing became increasingly advanced (Cheney & Gaillett, 2000). Because of the

relationship held between reading and writing, student performance increased

exponentially.

In 1992, Bartch (as cited in Argo, 1995) conducted a study in her own classroom,

which involved incorporating spelling into the reading and writing lessons. The study led


to students becoming independent spellers at their own levels. The interwoven nature

between spelling, reading, and writing benefited the students. When Thames and Reeves-

Kazelkskis studied the effects of an individualized, integrated language arts approach on

the attitudes of struggling readers (as cited in Argo, 1995), student attitudes became

increasingly positive. When students become increasingly excited to learn, additional

achievement takes place. Connecting the various aspects of reading and writing in a

classroom can make a significant impact on student success.

Assessment Score Comparisons

Thames, Reeves, Kazelskis, York, Newell, and Wang (2008) conducted a study

that examined the impact of low readers’ comprehension scores when taught in an

integrated language arts setting. The students in this study were from grades four through

eight, and all students read at a lower level for their grade. The treatment group consisted

of 51 students who received the integrated language arts strategies. In contrast, the

comparison group consisted of 42 students who received basal reading instruction

throughout the study. A pre-test and post-test were given to both groups of students in

this study. A multivariate analysis of covariance was used to interpret the Analytical

Reading Inventory comprehension scores. The vast majority of the statistically significant

differences were found in the treatment group of this study. The results of this particular

study strongly suggest that using an individualized, integrated language arts approach

will benefit students with lower reading levels (Thames et al., 2008).

In 2003, Donahue, Daane, and Grigg (as cited in Stevens, 2006) the National

Assessment of Educational Progress reading report stated that the literacy skills in


reading and writing were declining. Although the scores were declining, teacher and

school accountability was on the rise. Middle schools needed to respond to lower

performance scores. When Stevens (2006) conducted a study involving the integration of

literature and language arts in larger, urban middle schools, the research findings were in

strong favor of the integrated linguistic approach. The implementation of a Student Team

Reading and Writing (STRW) program was set into place in several urban schools. The

program utilized cooperative learning strategies to work with children’s social, cognitive,

and motivational needs. The result findings were that students “performed significantly

higher on reading comprehension, reading vocabulary, and language expression”

(Stevens, 2006).

In a study conducted by Argo (1995) that researched the performance of sixth

grade students who learned in an integrated language arts classroom setting, positive

results resounded for the integrated curriculum. Student academic success grew

exponentially through the usage of the integrated program. There were 228 students

investigated in the study, which took place in two schools in the southern part of Kansas.

Approximately half of the students received traditional language arts instruction while the

other half received integrated language arts instruction. In the traditional approach, the

reading, grammatical, and writing elements were taught separately. In the integrated

approach, linguistic elements were taught in an interwoven fashion. In this study, it is

understood that independent variables existed, such as gender, race, socioeconomic

status, and various teaching styles. The California Achievement test was used for

comparing and contrasting scores in the following portions of the assessment:

vocabulary, reading comprehension, spelling, language mechanics, language expression,


reading total, and language total. There were 28 comparisons made between student

scores, and 13 of those comparisons were found to be statistically significant. The

integrated language arts instruction demonstrated higher testing scores for students in

reading comprehension, spelling, language mechanics, language expression, reading

total, and language total. Female students had higher achievement scores in the integrated

language arts approach of teaching in reading comprehension and language mechanics.

Vocabulary scores were highest in the subsection of students who paid full price for

lunches in school. Caucasian students yielded the highest testing scores in vocabulary,

spelling, and language mechanics in the integrated language arts approach.

Teacher and Student Attitudes When Reading and Writing are Taught Together

Wixon and Stock (1986) explains that although teachers understand that reading

and writing have an innate connection, teachers tend to have the preference of keeping

the two concepts separated in different classes. Teachers are often reluctant to change in

the school setting and changes in lesson plans in the classroom environment because of a

sense of comfort in former routines. In her article, Wixon and Stock (1986) further

illustrates the teacher’s preference for the separation of linguistic components because

teachers feel inundated by the task of integrating the reading and writing materials. A

lack of training for teachers can lead to feelings of inadequate preparation and a readiness

to respond to change in the curriculum. In addition, teachers tend to feel a sense of

concern in covering the materials necessary in reading and writing within a potentially

limited amount of time.


Malinowski (1988) investigates a different perspective in education. According to

Malinowski (1988), college professors experience difficulty with an increasingly large

number of students who have deficiencies in the communication skills of reading and

writing. A frustration among college educators occurs when students are unable to read

and write in a manner that depicts a college education. Because of the large number of

students who are unable to express themselves at the collegiate level, colleges have

created a number of classes, which attempt to assist with the deficit in linguistic

expression for enrolled students (Malinowski, 1988). The classes are designed with the

hope of bridging a deficit in linguistic ability for college level students. As long as

students are performing at lower levels in school, colleges may need to continue to close

the deficit in performance.

Hansen (1993) investigates student opinions and reactions in a language arts

classroom. The teachers in this study respond to the attitudes and feedback from their

students. Hansen (1993) explains that the teachers of reading and writing are continually

growing and changing. She writes that the responses of students can lead to teacher

changes in the classroom. The study took place in a three year time period in an

elementary school in New Hampshire. The school was located in a lower populated,

upper-middle class area. Hansen (1993) interviewed students to discover their personal

values of themselves as the readers of literature and the writers of papers. By engaging in

a question and answer setting, Hansen (1993) learned that students may have differences

in goals and expectations for themselves in reading and writing. The students felt that

their personal reading choices could only take place at home, and their writing goals

occurred most frequently in a school setting. The principal allowed Hansen (1993) to


share her findings in a faculty meeting, and the teachers realized they were placing more

of a focus on teaching the elements of writing than they were on reading. The teachers in

the school initiated a reading program that corresponded with the writing program, and

students were able to have more choice over their reading materials. Reading and writing

became interwoven, and students responded favorably to the changes. Students enjoyed

setting personal goals in both reading and writing. In turn, the teacher attitudes reflected

happiness in the positive learning goals held by their students. A growing trust of

opinions held between the teachers and students enhanced the learning environment in

the school (Hansen, 1993). When teachers are open to change, positive results can occur

in the classroom environment, and student achievement can improve dramatically.

Keating-Toro (1998) explains that teachers consistently believe that reading,

grammar, literature, and vocabulary need to be introduced to students in a separate

manner. According to Keating-Toro (1998), teachers are aware of the research that states

that students learn best in an integrated language arts program, but the change is

particularly difficult to embrace for teachers. Even when teachers understand the

research results, the idea of incorporating the two concepts of reading and writing into

one class is often overwhelming and frustrating for teachers. According to Smith (2003),

teacher attitudes regarding the integration of literature and language arts will take place

when they receive abundant support from the administration. Collaboration between

students, teachers, and parents will allow a shared responsibility for the integration of

language arts because teachers often feel overwhelmed. Encouraging and allowing a

transition time for teachers to make integrative changes in their classrooms will help to


encourage positive opinions and attitudes. New styles of evaluating teachers are also

helpful according to Smith (2003).

Cheney and Gaillet (2000) illustrate the attitudes and perceptions he experienced

throughout his first year of teaching. As a first year teacher, Cheney and Gaillet (2000)

experienced varying feelings of happiness and concern. When Cheney and Gaillet (2000)

discovered that teaching writing separately from reading led to poor writing results from

his students, he made changes. Initially, the student writing demonstrated little

confidence with content, style, or grammar. However, Cheney and Gaillet (2000) made

the choice to integrate reading and writing by having the students respond to literature

and mirror the styles used by the authors of published novels. Through his experience

with integrating reading and writing, student journal entries became increasingly

meaningful. The teacher and student attitudes and confidence grew together (Cheney &

Gaillet, 2000).


CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to explain the methods used to complete the action

research study. The chapter outlines the importance of the usage of action research.

Specific details regarding the setting of the study are included. Details outlining the

population of the study are included in this portion of the thesis. The procedures and data

collection methods used when conducting the research are outlined within this chapter.

Validity, reliability, dependability, and bias strengthen the procedures outlined below.

The conclusion of this chapter consists of an analysis of data outlined by focus question

in the study.

The data shell below (see Table 3.1) lists the three focus questions analyzed in the

study. The three main literature sources used to answer each focus question are listed in

the data shell. Various types of data used throughout the study are listed below. In

addition, the ways in which the data are analyzed as well as a rationale for the usage of

data are included.


Table 3.1. Data Shell

Focus Question Literature Sources

Type: Method, Data, Validity

How are data analyzed

Rationale

FQ1

What strategies are the most effective for integrating reading and writing in the classroom?

Instructional Plan

Argo (1995)

Bush (1994)

Montelongo, Herter, Ansaldo, and Hatter (2010)

Type of Method:Instructional Plan rubric and interview

Type of Data: Qualitative

Type of Validity:Content

Coded for themes:

RecurringDominant Emerging

Looking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors

FQ2

How do student assessment scores compare when literature and language arts are taught together as opposed to when they are taught separately?

Student Outcome

Thames, Reeves, Kazelskis, York, Charlotte, Newell, and Wang (2008)

Argo (1995)

Stevens (2006)

Type of Method:

Standardized: Mock CRCT

Type of Data:Interval

Type of Validity: Content

Dependent t

Independent t

Effect Size

To determine if there are significant differences between means from two groups

To measure the magnitude of a treatment effect

FQ3

What are the teacher and student attitudes when language arts and literature are taught together?

Self reflection and student affect

Keating-Toro (1998)

Smith (2003)

Wixon (1986)

Type of Method:

reflective journal surveys

Type of Data: Qualitative

Type of Validity: Construct

Coded for themes:

RecurringDominantEmerging

Looking for categorical and repeating data that form patterns of behaviors


Research Design

This study was in accordance with the action research design. McKay (1992)

described action research as a cyclical process, which included six different steps. The

first step involved identifying the particular issue in which to study. In the second step,

the researcher gathered and reviewed information that relates to the topic. In steps three

through five, the researcher developed the plan of action, implemented the plan, and then

evaluated the results. In step six, the cycle can be repeated as many times as necessary

through the implementation of revisions in the problem-solving strategies or evaluation

methods until the answers to the problem are found. Through the usage of action

research, reflections can be made on the impact of student learning.

Throughout the research process, quantitative data and qualitative data were used

to determine the impact that the integration of language arts had on student learning.

According to Salkind (2007), the t-test should be used when examining the differences

between two different groups that have one or more different variables. Data were

collected by comparing pre and post Mock CRCT results. In the first half of the year,

students received separate literature and language arts instruction. In the latter half of the

year, students received integrated language arts instruction for the first time. A dependent

t test was used to compare the two groups.


Setting

The research study took place in a Distinguished School, which is located in a

suburban location in the state of Georgia. At the time of the study, the school had 1058

students enrolled in grades six, seven, and eight. Of the 1058 enrolled students, 76% of

the students in the school were White, 16% of the students were Black, 6% are Hispanic,

1% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 1% were American Indian / Alaskan Native. This

particular school was chosen because the integration of language arts was taking place in

this school for the first time this year. As a teacher in this school, the study focuses on

students in my sixth grade classroom for the 2010 – 2011 school year. Permissions were

secured from students, parents, teachers, and the administration. Student, parent, and

teacher participation was strictly voluntary. Permissions secured from the administration

allowed for the study to take place within the school.

Subjects and Participants

The study consisted of a study of 71 students in the 2010-2011. The students were

selected from regular education and collaborative learning environments. There were 51

regular education students and 20 students with cognitive, emotional, and / or physical

special needs. There were 30 females and 41 males in the study. Focus group surveys

were given to 6th grade students and 7th grade students. All of the students received

integrated language arts instruction for the first time in the 2010 – 2011 school year. This

particular group of students was chosen for several reasons. I had experience teaching

each child, and I wanted to explore any significant gains in learning among the

subgroups. I focused on collecting data from students in both regular and collaborative


learning environments. Language arts teachers were also given surveys to determine their

beliefs regarding teaching integrated language arts. A respected colleague reviewed and

provided feedback for my instructional plan.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

My instructional plan (see Appendix A) lasted for a nine week time period of

school. The first mini-unit focused on finding the main idea in both reading and writing.

Students learned that all reading and writing has a particular purpose, and they practiced

finding the main idea and creating writing with main ideas. Students learned how to

remember the definition of main idea through a rhythmic tune in class. Fiction and

nonfiction were also connected because of the close relationship between a main idea and

a theme in a story. Main ideas and themes both focus on the central message in a story,

yet themes only take place in fictional writing while main ideas occur in expository,

factual writing.

The second mini-unit focused on the research in expository texts. In a project,

students became the experts on one type of reference source such as an encyclopedia,

dictionary, almanac, atlas, telephone book or nonfiction book. Students created displays

for their reference source and became teachers to the class. Students learned to identify

the necessary reference source to use in real-life situations, also. Once students learned

how to navigate each reference source, they learned the steps of the research process

through visual, auditory, and hands-on learning.

The third mini-unit involved students learning about a location I created entitled

“Verb World.” Students learn how to locate action, linking, and helping verbs using Verb


World strategies. Students also expound on their verb knowledge by learning how to

locate direct objects and indirect objects.

Students involved in the research study received integrated language arts

instruction for the first time this year. Last year, all students in the middle school received

reading instruction in one class entitled literature while the grammar and writing

instruction took place together in a class entitled language arts. My sixth grade language

arts classes receive a variety of integrated language arts instruction through the

connection of many components of grammar, writing, and reading. The unit of focus

from my instructional plan encouraged the understanding of the interwoven nature of

reading, grammar, and writing. In my nine week instructional plan, students learned

about the reading comprehension skills, research skills, main idea, direct objects, and

indirect objects. Students learned the interconnected relationships between each skill. In

addition, an experienced colleague read, reviewed, and provided feedback for the

instructional plan.

Mock CRCT scores in literature and language arts were compared using a pre and

post test. A dependent t test was used to determine significance. All teachers in the

building receive Mock CRCT data. In addition, surveys were conducted in focus groups.

One survey took place with sixth grade students I taught at the time of the study (see

Appendix B). The same survey was conducted with seventh grade students that I taught

last year (see Appendix B). In a second survey, teacher thoughts and attitudes regarding

the integration of language arts were examined (see Appendix C.) I also kept a reflective

journal as an organizational and insightful tool throughout the process using prompt

questions designed to provide consistency (see Appendix D).


Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias

For focus question one, data were gathered using an instructional plan rubric and

surveys. Interval data were evaluated, and content validity was assessed. Content validity

was used in the research for focus question one. Qualitative data were used, and the data

collection and treatments were kept consistent. There was established control of the data

collection setting. The selection of an adequate number of participants selected was

implemented. The data were accurately recorded with the use of surveys. Complete and

accurate supporting data were provided. Instruments were checked for the following:

unfair penalization, offensiveness, and disparate impact bias. Popham (2011) explains

that unfair penalization occurs when “a test item unfairly penalizes test takers when there

are elements in the item that would disadvantage a group because of its members’

personal characteristics, such as gender or ethnicity” (p. 504). Furthermore, Popham

refers to offensiveness in tests when they contain “elements that would insult any group

of test takers on the basis of their personal characteristics, such as religion or race” (p.

503). Data were also checked for disparate impact, which occur “if test scores of different

groups (for example, different ethnic or religious groups) are decidedly different” (p.

501) because of background according to Popham.

For focus question two, interval data were gathered using the CRCT, which is a

standardized test. These data ensured content validity. A parallel correlation for reliability

was done to ensure consistency. Focus question two was also assessed to avoid unfair

penalization, offensiveness, and disparate impact bias to ensure equal opportunities for

success for every student during the implementation of the instructional plan.


For focus question three, qualitative data were gathered using a reflective journal

and surveys. These data were used in the attempt to achieve construct validity. Data

collection and treatments were kept consistent. There was established control of the data

collection setting. The selection of an adequate number of participants selected was

implemented. The data were accurately recorded with the use of audio taping. Complete

and accurate supporting data were provided. Focus question three is additionally assessed

to avoid unfair penalization, offensiveness, and disparate impact bias because every child

deserves an equal opportunity to learn.

Analysis of Data

The data collected from the instructional plan rubric were used to answer focus

question one, which were analyzed qualitatively and coded for recurring, dominant, and

emerging themes. Essentially, I looked for categorical and repeating data that formed

patterns of behaviors. The pre- and post- test data score data used to answer focus

question two were analyzed quantitatively using a dependent t - test. The data collected

from a reflective journal and surveys were used to assess focus question three and were

also analyzed qualitatively and coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes.

Holistically, the study received consensual validation from faculty review.

Epistemological validation was achieved because the results were compared with

previous studies found in the literature. The study demonstrated structural corroboration,

fairness, and rightness of fit through an evaluation of the research process. In addition,

the study has referential adequacy because of the thoroughly documented procedures and


methodology sections within the thesis. The study sought to achieve catalytic validity by

changing me as a teacher and my students with improved literacy skills.


CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

Focus Question One

Focus question one is “What strategies are the most effective for integrating

literature and language arts?” Data were gathered using the creation of an instructional

plan, which was evaluated by an esteemed, veteran colleague. In addition, a rubric and

interview were used to evaluate the instructional plan. The data were qualitative and

coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. As Argo (1995) explained, the

findings were that students performed the best when prior knowledge was woven into the

lesson. Prior knowledge allows for the learning to be engaging. Bush (1994) believed in

the team teaching approach, and the use of teaching in a collaborative setting was

also beneficial for two of my classes. Students were able to learn from two

separate teaching styles and ideas. The outcomes included higher test scores on a mock

CRCT test, which will be examined in focus question two.

Focus Question Two

Focus question two is “How do student assessment scores compare when

literature and language arts are taught together as opposed to when they are taught

separately? Data were gathered through the usage of a mock CRCT. Interval data were

evaluated with a dependent t test to determine significant differences between means

from different groups. In addition, an independent t test was used when comparing the

girls and boys. The Pearson correlation is a measure of reliability and consistency in pre-

post tests.

Table 4.1 outlines a mock CRCT pre-test and post-test given in language arts,

which consists of the grammatical and writing portions of the class. The test was given to

regular education and special needs learners.


Table 4.1 Pre and Post Test in Language Arts

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means Pre Test - LA Post Test - LA

Mean 30 31.3943662Variance 63.2 66.07082495Observations 71 71Pearson Correlation 0.864843254Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 70t Stat -2.808629713P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003221554t Critical one-tail 1.66691448P(T<=t) two-tail 0.006443108t Critical two-tail 1.994437086

T(70) = 2.81, P < .05.

In Table 4.1, the obtained value was greater than the critical value, which means

that we reject the null and have significance. This means that the students performed better on the post test than the pre-test. The effect size is -0.0806, which is a small effect size.

In Table 4.2, the literature pre-test and post-test are compared for all students.



T(70) = 3.71, P < .05.


Again, we see that the obtained value is greater than the critical value. We must reject the

null and see that we have significance. Again, students performed better on the post-test

than on the pre-test. The effect size is -0.120 for literature, which is small.

In Tables 4.3 – 4.10, the findings focus on a gender comparison for the pre-tests

and post-tests for the mock CRCT’s in both literature and language arts. In Table 4.3, the

pre and post tests for language arts are examined for the girls only.



LAMean 32.93333333 34Variance 39.02988506 42.82758621Observations 30 30Pearson Correlation 0.787750057Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 29t Stat -1.39884733P(T<=t) one-tail 0.086231654t Critical one-tail 1.699126996P(T<=t) two-tail 0.172463309t Critical two-tail 2.045229611

T(29) = 1.40, P > .05.

In Table 4.3, we must accept the null and understand that there is no significant

difference because the obtained value is less than the critical value. The effect size is -

0.083, which is small.


In Table 4.4, the pre-test and post-tests are examined in literature for the girls.



T(29) = 3.81, P < .05.

In this table, we see that the obtained value is greater than the critical value. This

means that there was significance in the literature portion of the mock CRCT for the girls,

and we reject the null. The effect size is -0.223, which is small. Next, we begin

comparing the pre and post test results for the boys. In Table 4.5, the pre-test and post-

test for the boys’ language arts scores are examined.


Pre Test - LA Post Test - LA

Mean27.8536585

4 29.48780488

Variance71.1280487

8 75.75609756Observations 41 41


4df 40t Stat -2.47749148

P(T<=t) one-tail0.00877665

8


4P(T<=t) two-tail 0.01755331



T(40) = 2.48, P < .05.

In Table 4.5, the obtained value is greater than the critical value, which means

that there is significance for the boys’ pre and post language arts mock CRCT. We reject

the null in Table 4.5. The effect size is -0.095, which is small.

In Table 4.6, we examine the pre-test and post-test in literature for the boys.



T(40) = 1.86, P < .05.

In Table 4.6, the obtained value is greater than the critical value, which means

that we reject the null. There was significance in the literature portion of the mock CRCT

for the boys. The effect size is -0.077, which is small. In Table 4.7, we begin using an

independent t-test to compare the girls and the boys in the pre-test and post-test for

language arts.



Pre Test - LA Pre Test - LAMean 32.93333333 27.85365854Variance 39.02988506 71.12804878Observations 30 41Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 69t Stat 2.915395147P(T<=t) one-tail 0.002393631t Critical one-tail 1.667238549P(T<=t) two-tail 0.004787262t Critical two-tail 1.99494539

T(69) = 2.92, P < .05.

In Table 4.7, we see that the mean is higher for the girls than for the boys on the

language arts mock CRCT pre-test. The obtained value is higher than the critical value,

and this test has significance, so we reject the null. In Table 4.8, an independent t-test is

performed for the girls and boys for the post-test in language arts.


Post Test - LA Post Test - LAMean 34 29.48780488Variance 42.82758621 75.75609756Observations 30 41Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 69t Stat 2.493231474P(T<=t) one-tail 0.007530624t Critical one-tail 1.667238549P(T<=t) two-tail 0.015061249t Critical two-tail 1.99494539

T(69) = 2.49, P <.05.


In Table 4.8, we see that the girls have a higher mean again. The obtained value is

higher than the critical value, so this test does have significance. We must reject the null.

The effect size is 0.59, which is large.

In Table 4.9, an independent t-test is used to compare the pre-test for literature

between the girls and the boys.


Pre Test - Lit Pre Test - LitMean 27.03333333 23.95121951Variance 28.24022989 60.34756098Observations 30 41Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 69t Stat 1.984033815P(T<=t) one-tail 0.025615718t Critical one-tail 1.667238549P(T<=t) two-tail 0.051231435t Critical two-tail 1.99494539

T(69) = 1.98, P < .05.

In Table 4.9, we see that the mean is higher for the girls than for the boys. The

obtained value is greater than the critical value in this test, so we reject the null. This

independent t-test has significance.


In Table 4.10, an independent t-test is performed to examine the post-test differences

between the girls and the boys in literature.


Post Test - Lit Post Test - LitMean 29.43333333 25.14634146Variance 27.01264368 60.32804878Observations 30 41Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 69t Stat 2.783621707P(T<=t) one-tail 0.003465077t Critical one-tail 1.667238549P(T<=t) two-tail 0.006930154t Critical two-tail 1.99494539

T(69) = 2.78, P < .05.

In Table 4.10, the mean is higher for the girls than for the boys. The obtained

value is higher than the critical value, and this independent t-test has significance. We

must reject the null. The effect size is 0.65, which is large. In Tables 4.11 through 4.14,

we examine the scores from the regular education students and the special education

students. Table 4.11 displays a dependent t-test for the pre-test and post-test in language

arts for regular education students.

Table 4.11t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means ES = 0.125

REGULAR EDUCATION Pre Test - LAPost Test -

LA

Mean33.2549019

634.7843137

3

Variance39.3537254

933.9325490

2Observations 51 51




t Stat

-2.53428479

9

P(T<=t) one-tail0.00722290

8


6

P(T<=t) two-tail0.01444581

5


2 T(50) = 2.53, P < .05.

In Table 4.11, the obtained value is greater than the critical value. There is

significance for the regular education students’ outcome in language arts, and we must

reject the null. The effect size is -0.125, which is small. Table 4.12 examines the pre-test

and post-test in literature for regular education students.


REGULAR EDUCATION Pre Test - Lit Post Test - Lit

Mean26.60784314 28.52941176

Variance30.00313725 30.65411765

Observations 51 51


Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 50

t Stat

-3.962451279

P(T<=t) one-tail0.000117903


P(T<=t) two-tail 0.00023580


6


T(50) = 3.96, P < .05.

In Table 4.12, the obtained value is higher than the critical value, which means

that there is significance in this test, and we reject the null. The effect size is -0.17,

which is small. In Table 4.13, we begin examining the pre-test and post test in language

arts for special education learners.


SPECIAL EDUCATION Pre Test - LA Post Test - LAMean 21.7 22.75

Variance28.32631579 44.61842105

Observations 20 20


Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 19

t Stat

-1.195871033

P(T<=t) one-tail0.123229371


P(T<=t) two-tail0.246458742

T(19) = 1.20, P > .05.

In Table 4.13, the obtained value is less than the critical value. We must accept

the null, and there is no significant difference in the results for the special education

students. The effect size is -0.087, which is small.

Table 4.14 examines the pre-test and post-test in literature for special education

students.



SPECIAL EDUCATION Pre Test - Lit Post Test - LitMean 21.8 22.95Variance 82.37894737 80.78684211Observations 20 20Pearson Correlation 0.858579977Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 19

t Stat-1.070483755

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.148906248t Critical one-tail 1.729132792P(T<=t) two-tail 0.297812497t Critical two-tail 2.09302405

T(19) = 1.07, P > .05.

In Table 4.14, the obtained value is less than the critical value, which means that

we must accept the null. There is no significance in the pre-test and post-test results for

special education students. The effect size is -0.064, which is small.

Focus Question Three

Focus question three is “What are the teacher and student attitudes when language

arts and literature are taught together?” Self reflection, surveys, and student affect were

the data gathering methods used in focus question three. Data were analyzed using a

reflective journal and surveys. The data were qualitative for this focus question, and the

type of validity used was construct. Focus question three was coded for recurring,

dominant, and emerging themes. Categorical and repeating data that formed patterns of

behaviors were analyzed.

In general, sixth grade students surveyed preferred for the components of


literature and language arts to be taught together in one class while the seventh grade

students surveyed missed the two subjects being taught separately. One seventh grade

student wrote, “We were able to read more novels last year.” Another seventh grade

student explained, “We had more time for the different subjects.” Some seventh graders,

however, did state that they preferred the classes being combined to have less classes

throughout the day. For the most part, sixth grade students enjoyed the classes being

combined into one. One student summed it up by stating, “It is fun to do the reading,

writing, and grammar in one class together. We get to see how everything goes together.”

Teacher surveys revealed that teachers generally believed in the components of

literature and language arts being taught together, but there was a strong sense of concern

for time constraints and training. One teacher stated that she felt there was “not enough

time to cover all of the standards in language arts and very little time to cover the

standards in literature.” In reference to a need for training, a different teacher responds

that she would like to learn about “a model for how to integrate both subjects

effectively.”

One teacher writes that her opinion of reading, writing, and grammar being taught

in one class is a “great idea because the concepts can be implemented together.” Another

teacher further reiterates the positive sentiment by stating, “I think teaching reading,

writing, and grammar together gives context for the skills, and the three should be taught

together for that reason.” The same teacher continues by explaining, “For example, a

story could be read, and an applicable reading strategy could be taught and practiced

using the reading… Sentence structures from the text could be analyzed for

the grammar used (and misused, depending on the text involved.) Students could then

attempt to replicate the writing genre themselves or evaluate the text.”


CHAPTER FIVE: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Analysis

The first focus question of “What strategies are the most effective for integrating

reading and writing in the classroom?” This qualitative data was analyzed by coding for

recurring, emerging, and dominant themes. The data gathering methods were through an

instructional plan rubric and an interview. The data had content validity. Through my

study, my findings seemed to prove what the literature stated. Integrated language arts

assists with student learning. Stevens (2006) emphasized the usage of cooperative

learning, which was utilized in my instructional plan. Bush (1994) focused on team-

teaching, which was used in two of the classes studied. The concepts of main idea,

research, direct objects, and indirect objects always corresponded with prior knowledge

and interrelated concepts, which is what Argo (1995) suggests in his study. The main idea

mini-unit especially focused on the reading and writing relationship illustrated by Bode

(1988).

The second focus question asks “How do student assessment scores compare

when literature and language arts are taught together as opposed to when they are taught

separately?” During the pre-test portion of the mock CRCT, literature and language arts

were taught separately. As the year progressed and my nine week instructional plan

began being taught, the integration of reading, writing, and grammar began taking place.

Generally, the post-test results show a significant growth in knowledge for each

subgroup. Stevens (2006) conducted a study that proved that an integrated linguistic

approach led to increasing student scores. My study corroborates this study by


demonstrating a majority of statistically significant improved scores. The overall post-

tests for language arts and for literature demonstrated statistical significance. Not only

did students learn more as the year continued, but the connection of linguistic concepts

boosted confidence and content knowledge.

The third focus question “What are the teacher and student attitudes when

language arts and literature are taught together?” was analyzed by coding for recurring,

emerging, and dominant themes. For the third focus question, I found similarities and

differences in the literature that I read. Wixon and Stock (1986) illustrated the theme of

teachers

feeling concerned about a lack of training and preparation for the integration for the two

subjects. Although teachers do generally understand and agree that the two subjects

should be integrated, there is a reluctancy to make the change according to Wixon and

Stock (1986).

The teachers surveyed in my school were excited for the change, but hopeful for more

efficient training. Keating-Toro’s study explained that changing to an integrated

curriculum was particularly difficult for teachers to embrace, and I discovered some

nervousness about integration through my surveys. Many teachers asked for additional

training and support from the administration, which is what Smith (2003) states will help

with teacher attitudes. When Hansen (1993) studied the student attitudes, it was found

that students felt that reading was focused on more in the home setting while writing was

focused on in the school setting. Hansen (1993) used student input to create more of a

balance between reading and writing in school. Student surveys in my school suggested

two beliefs. Some students were in favor of the subject being integrated while others


were not. The students that were not in favor of the integration of literature and language

arts noted a desire to be able to read more novels in school. Similarly, the teacher surveys

noted a concern about time constraints in teaching all of the standards for both subjects.

Discussion

Holistically, the study produced positive results because of the qualitative and

quantitative findings. Qualitatively, my practices were modeled after the literature, which

yielded positive findings. Through using prior knowledge and truly connecting the

components of reading, writing, and grammar collectively, the students gained rigorous,

fundamental understandings of the linguistic concepts. With the input and guidance of a

respected colleague, the lessons and mini-units used throughout the study prompted

valuable learning experiences for my students. My journal entries supported an

excitement for learning language arts and literature as integrated units. Students were

eager to see the connections in reading and writing, and this was especially demonstrated

in the main idea mini-unit. It was fascinating to observe students making the connection

between reading for the main idea and then writing a paragraph with a main idea.

Quantitatively, the girls in my study had higher mean values in each of the

gender-based comparisons. Unlike so many of the other tables where statistical

significance is noted, Table 4.3 yields the results that there is no significant difference

and that we had to accept the null for the pre and post test in language arts. I believe this

to be true because the mean for the girls was already so high. Fascinatingly, I was able to

reject the null for the pre and post test for literature for the girls because the obtained

value was so much greater than the critical value. There was significance for both the

literature and language arts pre-tests and post-tests for the boys. I believe that this


statistical difference took place because the boys had more room for growth in their

means.

When completing and independent t test for the pre-tests and post-tests in both

language arts and literature for a gender comparison of boys and girls, the tests revealed

statistical significance with the girls outperforming the boys each time. The pre-tests and

post-tests for regular education in both language arts and literature produced significance

and the ability to reject the null. The regular education groups demonstrated a significant

growth in understanding the integrated concepts. While the special education students did

improve in their results in many instances, they did not improve enough for there to be

statistical significance. For the pre and post tests in literature and language arts, there are

no significant differences, and I have to accept the null. I attribute this to potential

exhaustion from test-taking throughout the week.

Structural corroboration was achieved in my study because of the use of multiple

resources to gain knowledge and understanding for better results. Opposing perspectives

were presented within the thesis, also. The argument for the integration of language arts

was tight, and I made a coherent case. The evidence found is sufficiently strong enough

to assert the judgment that the integration of reading and writing is the more effective

method for teaching linguistic knowledge.

Implications

Quantitatively, my results can be generalized to the larger population. Because

special needs students have individualized educational plans, it may take longer to

demonstrate significance on the integration of language arts for these students. Also, I

have observed in my journal that sixth grade girls often demonstrate an excitement for


language more often than sixth grade boys. Since the boys had more room for growth,

their tests showed more of a statistical significance, but it is important to relay that the

means for the girls were higher for each test.

Qualitatively, I see similarities in attitudes for the integration of language arts

from what I have read from authors like Keating-Toro (1998), conversations that I have

had with teachers, and the teacher surveys completed in my school. It seems that almost

everyone understands that literature and language arts should be integrated, but there is a

strong need for training and administrative support for the students to be engaged

effectively.

I plan to share my findings with teachers and the administration in my school

during a department meeting this summer. Since literature and language arts were taught

together for the first time last year, we had two separate scope and sequences to follow

for the school year. Because of my study and the needs expressed from teachers, my

administration is working to integrate the scope and sequences for the two subjects, so

teachers can utilize their time for teaching in a productive manner. Literature and

language arts are taught together at the high school level in my county, and I believe that

the integration at the middle school level will help students to become increasingly

successful high school students.

Impact on Student Learning

Based on the pre and post test results in my study, there was a positive impact on

student learning throughout this study. Students were able to see the distinct relationship

between reading, writing, and grammar, which will help them to become more and more

successful in the middle school and high school level. With colleges examining the


written word of students so closely, it is my goal to see students utilize their linguistic

knowledge to become better prepared for the entrance into colleges and for college

classes themselves. I believe that linguistic intelligence leads to better jobs for our

students in the future because of written resumes and cover letters. The ability to express

oneself through language opens the figurative doors of opportunity, and this foundation

can truly begin in our schools. In my study, I was able to see a positive impact on

teaching students to utilize the skills from reading, writing, and grammar together for a

more holistic understanding of communication in every aspect.

Recommendations for Future Research

In the future, I would like to do a study specifically on students with special

needs. I would like to learn more about methods for teaching integrated language arts to

students with special needs. In my study, there were no statistical significant differences

in the pre tests and post tests for literature and language arts for my students with special

needs. I believe this would be a positive portion of this study that could be completed in

future research. Additionally, I would also like to see a comparison of CRCT scores for

students receiving integrated language arts instruction compared with CRCT scores of

students who did not receive integrated language arts instruction. It would be interesting

to see how this works within the same group of students in the same year with varying

content. If I was to do this study again, I would have compared the CRCT results between

students in different grade levels receiving integrated language arts instruction for the

first time.


References

Argo, D. (1995). Integrated language arts: A study of the achievement of sixth grade

students in an integrated language arts program. Masters Thesis, Fort Hays State

University, Hays, KS.

Bode, B. (1988). Dialogue journal writing as an approach to beginning literacy

instruction. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Florida Reading

Conference, Orlando, FL.

Bush, B. (1994). Integrated Language Arts: Curriculum Redesign in Teacher Training.

Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED377186)

Cheney, M. , & Gaillet, L. (2000). Feeding the emaciated muse: Lessons from a first year

teacher. English Journal, 89 (4), 26-31. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

Hansen, J. (1993). Students’ evaluations bring reading and writing together. The Reading

Teacher, 46(2), 100-105. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

Hendricks, A. (2009). Improving schools through action research. New Jersey: Pearson

Education, Inc.

Keating-Toro, A. (1998). Integrated language arts curriculum. Decatur, GA: US

Department of Education. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

LaGrange College Education Department. (2008). The Conceptual Framework.

LaGrange, GA: LaGrange College.

Lewis, J. (1985). Support for reading and writing as shared developmental processes.

Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western College Reading and

Learning Association.

Malinowski, P. (1988). The reading-writing connection: An overview and annotated

bibliography. US Department of Education. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

McKay, J. A. (1992) Professional development through action research. Journal of


Staff Development, 13(1), 18-21.

Montelongo, J., Herter,R., Ansaldo, R., & Hatter, N. (2010) A lesson cycle for teaching

Expository Reading and Writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(8),

656-666. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.53.8.4

Phillips, D. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: the many faces of constructivism.

Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5-12.

Popham, W. (2011). Classroom assessment: what teachers need to know. Pearson.

Powell, K. & Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools

for an effective classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250.

Salkind, N. (2011). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage

Publications.

Smith, C. (2003). Integrated language arts. Washington, DC: Institute of Education

Sciences. Retrieved from ERIC at Ebscohost.

Stevens, R. (2006) Integrated reading and language arts instruction. RMLE Online,

30(3), 1-12.

Thames, D., Reeves, C., Kazelskis, R., York, K., Newell,K., & Wang, Y. (2008)

Reading comprehension: Effects of individualized, integrated language arts

approach with struggling readers. Reading Psychology, 29(1), 86-115. doi:

10.1080/02702710701853625

Wixon, K. & Stock, P. (1986) Using basal materials to integrate reading and writing

instruction. Reading Psychology, 6(3-4), 169-179.


Appendix A

Instructional Plan

Time Frame: 9 week unit

Essential Questions

How can I recognize and locate the main idea in an expository text? What is the relationship between topics, main ideas, and supporting

details? Why is research important? What is plagiarism? What is a statement of purpose? How do I organize my research on note cards? How do I cite my sources? What strategies do I use to complete my outline, rough draft, and final

draft in research? How do I locate a direct object in a sentence? How do I locate an indirect object in a sentence?

a) Instructional Technology Computer Overhead projector Laptop computers for research

b) Materials Daily grammar practice warm up’s Main idea practice sheets with examples Outline template Verb World helpful hints worksheets with practice activities

c) Accommodations for special needs Extended time Providing copies of notes / outlines Preferential seating Individual remediation Study guides before summative assessments Answers to study guides before summative assessments Small group instruction with resource teacher (as needed)

d) Standards Covered ELA6R1, ELA6C1, ELA6W2


e) Assessment Daily tickets-out-the-door (formative) Homework (formative) Verbal comprehension checks (one-on-one) (formative) Class activities in Kagan groups (formative) Original paper (summative) Main idea, topic, and supporting details quiz (summative)

f) Relevancy to children When students do not receive effective linguistic instruction throughout

the elementary, middle, and high school years, they will likely become

adults who lack the ability to communicate effectively. A deficit in

reading ability often leads to an inability to write in an educated manner.

In many instances, the written word of a person is the first impression

received. Not only do colleges reject students who lack the ability to write

their entrance essays, companies do not hire employees that are unable to

write appropriate cover letters and resumes. Because of the economical

issues in the United States during this time, the positions in the workforce

have become increasingly competitive. In a time of competition for jobs,

literacy skills are a strong tool for obtaining a higher standard of living.


Appendix B

Student Survey Questions

What is your opinion about reading, writing, and grammar being taught together in one class?

What did you like the most about literature and language arts being combined into one class?

What did you like the least? What suggestions do you have for your teachers if they continue to teach

literature and language arts together in one class? If it was up to you, would you have literature and language arts taught together in

one class or separately in two classes?


Appendix C

Teacher Survey Questions

What is your opinion about reading, writing, and grammar being taught together in one class?

What did you like the most about literature and language arts being combined into one class?

What are your concerns regarding the integration of language arts? Of the concerns you have mentioned, which do you feel are most pressing? What do you think our school system can do to help us address these concerns? When you make changes in your teaching, who gives you ideas and support?


Appendix D

Reflective Journal

My reflective journal was coded for recurring, dominant, and emerging themes. Students were excited and enthusiastic to receive integrated language arts

instruction. It was rewarding and fulfilling to see student engagement and understanding

when reading, writing, and grammar skills were interconnected.

home.lagrange.eduhome.lagrange.edu/educate/advanced programs/m.ed... · web viewthis study...

Documents