open court reading program 1 - pbworksreflectivepractitioner.pbworks.com/f/field-capstone.pdf ·...

Open Court Reading Program 1 Running head: OPEN COURT READING PROGRAM AND THE IMAPCT ON TEACHERS

Open Court Reading Program

And The Impact on Teachers

Jenel Field

St. John Fisher College

Open Court Reading Program 2

Abstract

The Open Court Reading Program is a “research based” program that is funded by the No

Child Left Behind Act. The program is time consuming and is done in a whole group

setting. This study looks at why a rural elementary school chose to implement the

program and how it is impacting the teachers. The case study includes questionnaires

and individual interviews by kindergarten through fourth grade teachers, a reading

teacher, and the principal. Findings indicate that time management, the writing

component and the literature are an area of need for the program. Also, the educators felt

that the program was helping improve students reading abilities. The final finding

indicates how the teachers use the assessment data collected. The data suggests that

Open Court has both areas of strengths and areas of need that need to be addressed in

future discussions between staff members.


Table of Contents

Section: Page Number(s): Introduction 4 - 5 Theoretical Framework 5 - 14 Review of Literature 14 - 22 Methodology 22 - 24 Findings 24 - 34 Implications 34 – 36 Conclusion 36 - 37 References 38 - 40 Appendices: Sample Questionnaire 41 - 42 Interview Questions 43 - 44

Open Court Reading Program 4 Introduction The researcher works at a school where they adopted the Open Court Reading

Program. The researcher wondered why the school chose that program and how it was

impacting the teachers. The study will look at how the Wayland-Cohocton School

District went about selecting a new reading program, Open Court, and how the program

has affected the teachers. The study will rely on data collected from interviews and

questionnaires of teachers, along with research done by other researchers in the field of

phonics-based instruction. The desired learning outcome is to develop an understanding

of the process of selecting a new reading program and how it affects the staff.

This is a significant issue for study because as a literacy professional it is

important to understand the thinking processes behind decision making and how it affects

the teaching staff. It is important to know what research was looked at, what other

programs were considered, what the strengths and areas of need are for the programs, and

more. The choice of the program selected is going to strongly affect the teachers and

their participation in delivering the lessons in the program. The program is also going to

affect the teachers’ attitudes about teaching reading and it is going to have a significant

impact on the students. The students can be interested and enjoy learning to read due to

the materials chosen or they could not like what they are reading and feel disconnected

from it. The whole language approach to reading gives students more opportunity to get


involved with the text and make connections and it allows the teachers more room for

creativity and reaching the needs of all students. Open Court is more of a scripted

program and does not allow the teacher much room for creativity, and it is teaching skills

and then assessing the students on those skills. It is important to understand the thought

process that went into selecting an expensive and scripted program, like Open Court.

Theoretical Framework

In order to define literacy Gee (2000) discussed the definition of the big D and the

little d. The letter d stands for the word discourses. Discourse refers to “a socially

accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can

be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‘social

network’” (Gee, 2000, p. 537). Primary discourse, or little d, refers to the family and

secondary discourse, or big D, refers to people/places outside of the family (Gee, 2000).

An example of a secondary discourse would be teachers and schools. Gee defines

literacy as a “control of secondary uses of language (i.e., uses of language in secondary

discourses)” (Gee, 2000, p. 542). In other words, discourses represent different social

groups and their ways of life, which include ways of thinking, believing, talking, acting,

reading and writing.

The secondary discourse or school environment “builds on, and extends, the uses

of language we acquired as part of our primary discourse” (Gee, 2000, p. 541). Children

acquire knowledge by learning from those around them. Educators need to teach children

certain skills, but the students also need to experience things on their own and learn from


the ideas they create. The individual belongs to a community and because language

reflects the experiences of individuals and the social groups to which they belong, it is

only natural that these differences in experiences will find differences in expression of

language (Wolfram, Adger, & Christian, 1999). Meier (2003) points out that “despite

their diverse backgrounds, all children bring to school rich linguistic abilities acquired

through social interaction in their homes and communities” (Meier, 2003, p. 242). Each

community views literacy differently, and every community has its own set of rules for

interacting, just like every classroom is different. Teachers do not all teach the same way

and have the same style of teaching. Each teacher is unique, just as each school is

unique.

One study looked at two different communities and how the communities

impacted the child’s readiness for school. In the Heath study, Roadville parents promoted

reading at an early age and Trackton parents didn’t. The study concluded that Roadville

students could answer the “what” questions, but struggled with the “why” questions

(Heath, 1982). The questions were difficult for the students because they were not

concrete questions and they required creativity. The Trackton students were not exposed

to reading materials and instead the children used their imagination and told stories

(Heath, 1982). Heath states that “children learn not only how to take meaning from

books, but also how to talk about it” (Heath, 1982, p. 79). Belonging to certain groups

does affect how you acquire knowledge and how successful you will be later on in life.

Bruner (1974) stated that language development involves a transaction between

the child and the environment. The way that a child writes and the way that a child


speaks are a result of his/her environment (Wolfram, Adger, & Christian, 1999). They

learn from the people around them and the experiences that they have had (Wolfram,

Adger, & Christian, 1999). The “interactions all influence children’s developing attitudes

and values about literacy, including belief in their ability to learn to read and write”

(Goodman, 1984, p. 318). The reading and writing programs that a school decides to

implement will have an affect on the way a child perceives reading and their ability to

read. The Open Court Reading Program (Open Court Publications, 1998) requires a lot

of oral language on the part of the teacher and as a result it requires the listeners or

students to pay close attention. The students have to be paying close attention and

process the information quickly because they will not have a way to go back and check

for understanding.

Literacy instruction should make a connection in and out of school. This can be

done in many different ways. Allowing the parents and community to get involved can

be very beneficial. According to Moll and Gonzalez (1994) teachers should know their

students “funds of knowledge.” The student’s background knowledge is considered their

funds of knowledge. The funds of knowledge are social networks of families helping

each other out and if you know where a student comes from and if you see how they live

then you can integrate that into lessons and expand and extend their current knowledge

(Moll & Gonzalez, 1994). The teachers who use Open Court do not get much of an

opportunity to be creative and pull reading materials and create lessons that are about

their students. The teachers have to use the materials that are provided to them through

the program.


There are many theories and “classrooms that focus on one at the expense of the

other do not offer pupils sufficiently balanced curriculum opportunities and do not allow

children to develop the ability to apply the skills and knowledge developed in a

productive activity to an analytical one (and vice versa)” (Larson & Marsh, 2005, p. 140).

Allowing students to grow and develop is very important and so is building a community

of learners. If the teachers and students trust one another and work together then they can

be successful at peer tutoring and collaboration activities (Larson & Marsh, 2005). Also,

“the development of authentic learning communities relies on the degree of trust that can

be built up between participants, trust that will enable challenges to normalized power

relations and social practices within classrooms” (Larson & Marsh, 2005, p. 138).

Students are not given much of an opportunity to work together in the Open Court

program. The instruction is mostly done in a whole group setting.

“Literacy has become absolutely central to education policy, curriculum

development, and our everyday thinking about educational practice” (Lankshear &

Knobel, 2003, p. 1). We have to realize that students acquire literacy in many different

forms and that literacy instruction is different from classroom to classroom, so why have

scripted reading programs that don’t meet the individual needs of all students?

Literacy is defined through NCLB’s essential components of reading instruction.

The essential components include instruction in five areas, which are phonemic

awareness; phonics; vocabulary development; reading fluency, including oral reading

skills; and reading comprehension strategies (NCLB, 2001). These are the key areas that

NCLB feels should be included in a reading program and what makes successful readers


and writers. The National Reading Panel indicated that students benefit from a balanced

instruction in five major areas, which are the essential components mentioned above

(NICHD, 2000). The Panel also stated that a “one-size-fits-all” program adoption is

likely to “suit some children better than others” and that “Teachers should be able to

assess the needs of the individual students and tailor instruction to meet their needs”

(NICHD, 2000).

Critics have questioned the validity of the NRP report, but it still remains the

foundation for the federal legislation on the instruction of reading (Altwerger, et al, 2004,

Yatvin, J., Weaver, C., & Garan, E., 2003). Yatvin, Weaver, and Garan (2003) note

inadequacy with the NRP report. Some of these inadequacy include the fact that the NRP

did not examine an adequate range of scientific research, NRP did not address the

integrated nature of reading and the complexities of teaching, there are varied definitions

of reading throughout the report, and the research base was smaller than people were led

to believe (Yatvin, J., Weaver, C., & Garan, E., 2003). Yatvin, Weaver, and Garan

(2003) also caution the teaching of phonemic awareness and phonics because the NRP

did not find that phonemic awareness or phonics should be taught before children learn to

read and write (Yatvin, J., Weaver, C., & Garan, E., 2003). Also, the NRP did not find

that phonemic awareness and phonics should be taught in isolation and that the benefits

for teaching them are lasting (Yatvin, J., Weaver, C., & Garan, E., 2003). Programs like

Open Court are favored and approved by NCLB for federal funding, and “Poorer urban

school systems that must rely on federal support for their programs are particularly


vulnerable to the pressure to adopt these one-size-fits-all programs in order to ensure

continued funding” (Altwerger, et al, p. 120, 2004).

No Child Left Behind has had a huge impact on the educational community,

especially in the area of literacy instruction and assessment (Altwerger, et. al, 2004). The

act describes many goals and ways to accomplish those goals, such as how a school

should be held accountable and the programs that a school should use. According to the

No Child Left Behind Act or NCLB (NCLB, 2001) “The purpose of this title is to ensure

that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality

education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic

achievement standards and state academic assessments” (NCLB, 2001). The act listed

twelve ways to accomplish this task.

The ninth way to accomplish the task has significant importance to this piece and

it states: “Ensuring the access of children to effective, scientifically based instructional

strategies and challenging academic content” (NCLB, 2001). NCLB defined

scientifically based reading research as research that “applies rigorous, systematic, and

objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading

instruction, and reading difficulties” and the research includes four qualities (NCLB,

2001). It “includes research that employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on

observation or experiment; involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the

stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; relies on measurements or

observational methods that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across

multiple measurements and observations; and has been accepted by a peer-reviewed


journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous,

objective, and scientific review” (NCLB, 2001).

The Open Court Reading Program is one of the programs that is funded by

NCLB. The program fulfills all of the requirements under NCLB. The students are

given an anthology book and along with that are a variety of supplementary resources

like practice work-books, videos, CD-ROMs, and more to help teachers (Ajayi, L., 2005).

However, the most important resource for the teacher is the teachers manual. The manual

is scripted and it requires the teacher to read from it while delivering the lesson. The

teachers manual is laid out and tells the teacher precisely what to teach, how to teach it,

practice activities, participatory structure and expected learning outcomes (Ajayi, L.,

2005) The program is also very time consuming and it can take up to three hours a day,

which leaves little time for other subjects (Milosovic, S., 2007). Due to the amount of

time spent on Open Court specials like art and music, and sometimes even recess get cut

(Cummins, J., 2007).

Open Court may be a reading program that is funded by NCLB, but there is little

time to meet the individual needs of all the students, especially the students who are

struggling (Milosovic, S., 2007). Over the last ten years, legislation in 26 states has

encouraged or required the direct, explicit, and systematic use of phonics and related

word skills for beginning reading instruction (Coles, 2000). School districts due to

legislation and mandates have sought programs like Open Court to improve their

students’ reading achievement because the program is heavy in beginning instruction


skills (Coles, 2000). Cummins believes that “funding criteria should require schools to

implement a balanced approach to reading instruction that would combine an explicit

focus on developing awareness of how language works with strong promotion of literacy

engagement” (Cummins, J., p.570, 2007).

Open Court Reading Program is a language arts program published by

SRA/McGraw Hill and the publishing company says that the program is research-based.

Open Court also claims to use all five essential components in NCLB. Open Court has

scripted lessons and guided practice for phonemic awareness; phonics; vocabulary

development; reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and reading comprehension

strategies, which NCLB requires (NCLB, 2001). These skills are usually done in

isolation. The program is rigid and scripted. Also, it does not allow much room for

teacher creativity or for the teacher to individualize or differentiate the lessons and

activities.

Incorporating a variety of assessments in a reading curriculum is important

because it gives teachers the ability to look at a student’s strength and areas of need. If a

reading program does not have a variety of assessments then teachers do not get as much

information to make instructional goals (Winograd & Arrington, 1999). Open Court does

not have a variety of assessments. Students are tested every week on spelling,

vocabulary, and questions from the story. There is some informal assessments done

throughout the week, and this is usually done by worksheets/workbooks and answering

teacher directed questions.


As mentioned earlier Open Court is very time consuming and can take up to three

hours a day (Ede, A., 2006). There is no time set aside in the program for independent

reading. The individual teacher needs to determine when independent or DEAR reading

will be done and for how long. Readers need time to explore the strategies that they learn

and apply them to the books that they are reading. Marie Clay (1991) states that:

“Reading for understanding and reading independently are possible at any state of

learning to read, and opportunities should be provided every day for this to occur” (p.

199). If students are not given this opportunity then they could believe that independent

reading is not valued and is not an important part of the school day. Teachers need to

make sure that they incorporate independent reading into their daily routine.

There are educators who feel that the Open Court Reading Program benefits

students and that students improve, while other educators and researchers feel that Open

Court does not help students. Open Court claims to meet NCLB’s essential components

of literacy, but does so by isolating the skills. Students are not given much independent

time to practice the skills that they learned.

“There is no one ‘perfect method’ for teaching reading to all children. Teachers,

policy makers, researchers, and teacher educators need to recognize that the answer is not

in the method but in the teacher” (Duffy, G., & Hoffman, J., p.10, 1999). According to

Duffy and Hoffman (1999) the reason for trying to find the “perfect method” seems to be

that teachers and teacher educators cannot be trusted to make good instructional decisions

on their own and as a result it is affecting the children because teachers cannot use

different methods, the teaching profession is hurt because the programs take away


creativity and thoughtful innovation, and the professional community because their

voices do not seem to matter and they cannot explore other alternatives (Duffy, G., &

Hoffman, J., p.10, 1999).

Review of Research

Open Court Studies

There are many studies in regards to the phonics-based reading programs

compared to other reading programs (McGraw-Hill Education, 2002; Arya, et al., 2005;

Skindrud, K. & Gersten, R., 2006; Maddahian, 2002; Barrett, T., 1995; Altwerger, B, et

al., 2004; Dahl and Freppon, 1995; Lee, Ajayi, & Richards, 2007; Ede, 2006; Perkins-

Gough, 2004; Duffy and Hoffman, 1999; Cummins, 2007; Altwerger, et al., 2004;

Rightmyer, E.C., McIntyre, E., & Petrosko, J.M., 2006; Ajayi, L., 2005; Achinstein, B. &

Ogawa, R.T., 2006). Many of the studies found (Maddahian, 2002; Barrett, T., 1995;

Altwerger, B, et al., 2004; Dahl and Freppon, 1995; Lee, Ajayi, & Richards, 2007; Ede,

2006; Perkins-Gough, 2004; Duffy and Hoffman, 1999; Cummins, 2007; Altwerger, et

al., 2004; Rightmyer, E.C., McIntyre, E., & Petrosko, J.M., 2006; Ajayi, L., 2005;

Achinstein, B. & Ogawa, R.T., 2006) indicated that Open Court was not as successful

compared to other reading programs, such as guided reading. Open Court does not allow

for teacher creativity and the ability to work with students based on their individual needs

(Barrett, T., 1995; Dahl, K. L., & Freppon, P. A., 1995; Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T.,

2006; Altwerger, B., et al., 2004).


Studies that favor Open Court

Open Court states that it is “a research-based curriculum grounded in systematic,

explicit instruction of phonemic awareness, phonics and word knowledge,

comprehension skills and strategies, inquiry skills and strategies, and writing and

language arts skills and strategies” (Open Court website, 2005). One of the studies

(McGraw-Hill Education, 2002) found was actually published by McGraw-Hill and

coauthored with the American Federation of Teachers and the National Association of

Elementary School Principles (Ayra, et al., 2005). McGraw-Hill is the company that

publishes Open Court. The study briefly describes eight schools from California, Florida,

Texas, and New York that have used the Open Court Reading Program with success

(McGraw-Hill Education, 2002). All of the schools show a significant improvement in

literacy achievement. The schools are broken down and a small description is given

about what the school was like before Open Court, which was usually below average, and

then how the use of Open Court turned things around and their numbers went up.

According to Ayra et al (2005) not all of the studies in the booklet looked at the program

as a whole, but they all support at least some component of the program (Ayra, et al.,

2005). However, this study has not been reviewed. The study was conducted by the

same company that publishes Open Court. The company is going to make the results

look successful because they want to sell their product.

A study found that has been reviewed compared Success for All (SFA) and Open

Court in twelve Title I schools in northern California (Skindrud, K. & Gersten, R., 2006).


The data indicated that Open Court students had better achievement outcomes than the

Success for All students in both reading and language SAT9 scores when the programs

are started in the second grade (Skindrud, K. & Gersten, R., 2006). Another comparison

of the two reading programs also indicated that Open Court students did better than the

students who were using Success for All, “especially for low initial performing students

in grade 2 across schools of similar poverty levels” (Maddahian, 2002). The study shows

that Open Court does have its strengths and that it may be more beneficial than another

program, but this study focused mainly on second grade. It makes one question if it is

still as beneficial in the other grades. According to McGraw-Hill, in second grade the

program gradually shifts emphasis from decoding skills to developing reading fluency

and comprehension (SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2000, p. 18). Coles (2000) states that Open

Court does not have a single research stud validating its benefits (Coles, G., 2000).

Studies that do not favor Open Court

There were numerous studies that did not favor the Open Court Reading Program.

The results of the studies indicated no significant difference between programs

(Maddahian, 2002; Barrett, T., 1995; Altwerger, B, et al., 2004; Dahl and Freppon, 1995;

Lee, Ajayi, & Richards, 2007; Ede, 2006; Perkins-Gough, 2004; Duffy and Hoffman,

1999; Cummins, 2007; Altwerger, et al., 2004; Rightmyer, E.C., McIntyre, E., &

Petrosko, J.M., 2006; Ajayi, L., 2005; Achinstein, B. & Ogawa, R.T., 2006). However,

the program that seemed most successful was guided reading or programs that focused on

whole language. Many of the findings showed that readers and writers learn differently


due to their literacy experiences. “Whole language learners generated significantly more

syntactic and lexical features of story language, and they experienced extended exposure

to and interaction with storybooks. In contrast, skills-based classrooms offered less

emphasis on literature experiences (Dahl and Freppon, 1995). The results indicated that

in a skills-based classroom the students “participated in reading and writing events,

completed their work and learned literacy skills, but did not get involved personally nor

see reading and writing as going beyond something for school. The children in whole

language classrooms also learned skills and engaged in literate behaviors” (Dahl and

Freppon, 1995). An example of a literate behavior is actively participating and

interacting with the text and making connections with their own experiences to the text

and other texts that they have read.

In literature-based classrooms, reader response theory comes alive because the

students are making connections, talking, and asking questions while they read (Arya, P.,

et al, 2005). These classrooms provide time for the students to practice what they just

learned (Arya, P., et al, 2005). Open Court does not allow enough time for the students

to practice and the majority of the time is spent in whole group with the teacher doing all

of the facilitating. Partner and group activities are done during the last 10-15 minutes of

instruction (Ajayi, L., 2005).

The results of the majority of the studies indicated that “systematic explicit

phonics instruction does not significantly improve children’s reading in terms of their use

of graphophonic knowledge, meaning construction, and comprehension,” and that

“teachers have lost flexibility in choosing appropriate assessments or developing


instructional approaches that fit the strengths and needs of an individual child”

(Altwerger, B. et al, 2004, p. 124, 127; Barret, T., 1995; Arya, P., et al., 2005; Dahl, K. L.

& Freppon, P., 1995). Altwerger, et al (2004) research also indicated that the instruction

does not improve meaning construction and it “takes children’s focus away from

constructing meaning” (Altwerger, B. et al, 2004).

Impact on Teachers

Teachers are impacted by the use of the Open Court Reading Program in their

classrooms. A study done by Achinstein and Ogawa focused on the experiences of two

new teachers in California that resisted the use of Open Court. Sue and Rob were the two

teachers from different schools that were focused on for this study. They both felt that

the Open Court program did not meet all the individual needs of their students, so they

both chose to implement literature circles. The principals were hesitant about them doing

this, but received praised when observed, but because they did not stick to the Open

Court program, one was let go and decided to leave the profession and the other one left

his job (Altwerger, B. et al, 2004). Both teachers felt that they did not have the ability to

use their professional principles, which included diversified instruction, high

expectations, and creativity (Altwerger, B. et al, 2004).

Teachers’ perceptions and ideas should be considered. Lee, Ajayi, and Richards

did a study that focused on teachers’ perceptions of Open Court and their perspectives

and opinions on the effectives of the program in teaching to English proficient and ELL

students in kindergarten through third grade in California (Lee, S., Ajayi, L., & Richards,


R., 2007). The results indicated that phonics was the most effective component followed

by content, and that writing was considered to be the least effective component followed

by the scripted nature of the program (Lee, S., Ajayi, L., & Richards, R., 2007). The two

frequently made suggestions for improving the program were in the areas of writing and

the teachers need for flexibility and creativity (Lee, S., Ajayi, L., & Richards, R., 2007).

The teachers with less experience tended to favor Open Court more than the more

experienced teachers. Educators have a responsibility to provide the best possible

education for their students, so why is their thoughts and opinions not considered?

According to Skindrud and Gersten (2006) some of the common complaints about

Open Court were that it takes up to much time and does not allow enough time for social

studies and science. Those that are for Open Court argue that there is social studies

content in the program and that “Improving reading in the lower grades will improve

access to content in the upper grades” (Skindrud, K. & Gersten, R., 2006). Teachers

often complained about the lack of suitable materials that address their own teaching

needs and the language needs of their students (Ajayi, L., 2005). The Open Court

teaching manuals already have a list of instructional activities for the teacher to follow

and it does not give the teacher the opportunity to use other effective strategies (Ajayi, L.,

2005). Ajayi (2005) stated that the Open Court books should be used as a resource and

that the books “should empower teachers to be creative and flexible in the way such

materials are implemented in classrooms.”

In California, the two most widely used reading programs are Success for All and

Open Court (Ede, A., 2006). Ede (2006) stated that depending on the teacher’s familiarity


with the program “up to three hours of class time every day may be needed to cover the

lesson script, thus leading to a significant narrowing of the curriculum.” In a survey done

in 2003 by the Council for Basic Education, the principals reported that their schools

spent 37 percent less time on civics and 35 percent less time on geography (Perkins-

Gough, 2004). Other principals reported spending less time teaching language (29

percent) and less time teaching the arts (36 percent) (Perkins-Gough, 2004). Open Court

requires a lot of time and effort on both the teacher and the students and that extra time

takes away from the other subjects that the students need to know about.

Duffy and Hoffman (1999) feel that teachers may develop a loyalty to the

program and not use any other methods even when their students need it (Duffy, G., &

Hoffman, J., 1999). “The perfect method concept is not a solution. The solution is

development of teachers who know a variety of methods and approaches, and who

orchestrate those thoughtfully and adaptively according to their students’ needs” (Duffy,

G., & Hoffman, J., p. 13, 1999).

What should teachers do?

Teacher educators should give examples of instructional situations that require

differentiating instruction, teach other teachers how to solve problems, provide

instruction on a variety of approaches and methods, and illustrate case studies of teachers

who have been successful with combining programs and methods (Duffy, G., &

Hoffman, J., 1999). Educators should also develop comprehensive literacy programs

that include more than the essential components of literacy, teach comprehension


strategies throughout all of the grades including kindergarten, include independent

reading as part of the classroom routine, and use texts that capture the students’ interests

(Yatvin, J., Weaver, C., & Garan, E., 2003).“There must be teaching beyond a scripted

lesson. A teacher must model interaction with text, provide opportunities for children to

talk about what they read, and facilitate peer interaction centered on reading” (Arya, P., et

al, p. 71, 2005).

What is Open Court?

With the Open Court program students are taught to ask questions, predict and

confirm, use background knowledge and make inferences, and accuracy and fluency are

the core of the program (Jordan, N., Green, J., & Tuyay, S., 2005). The Open Court

stories have themes to them and the main message is being good/goodness (Jordan, N.,

Green, J., & Tuyay, S., 2005). The books are broken down into units about bravery,

virtues of being rich or poor, kindness, and dinosaurs, and the characters are mostly about

white males and their experiences (Jordan, N., Green, J., & Tuyay, S., 2005). The

authors report that “Open Court looks as if it tells the stories of the ‘others’ through

pictures and stories that list events in the lives of the ‘others’; the lifeless stories do not

touch the real experiences of their subjects, and the questions appear to be written

through the lens of the white male ideology” (Jordan, N., Green, J., & Tuyay, S., 2005).

Bukowiecki (2007) believes that “teachers must be willing to extend their present

knowledge regarding literacy education by constantly researching and learning about

innovative and commendable literacy practices, theories, and policies (Bukowiecki, E.,


2007). Altwerger, Arya, Jin, Jordan, Laster, Martens, Wilson, and Wiltz (2004) state that

“we find ourselves in the precarious situation of preparing future and current teachers

who will have limited opportunities to exert their professionalism in the area of reading

instruction. While the pressure to ‘train’ our students for the system-mandated programs

is quite strong, our own research findings suggest that a much more critical perspective is

appropriate, and that alternative models of instruction may be more beneficial”

(Altwerger, et al, p. 125, 2004).

Methodology

The critical paradigm requires that you look at things carefully and with the

consideration of all view points (Sipes & Constable, 1996). The researcher will be

looking at the qualitative data gathered and noting any similarities and differences in the

findings. The critical theory is shaped by many values such as social, political, cultural,

and economic (Lincoln & Guba, 1994). The researcher will conduct interviews with the

educational staff to better understand the process that goes into selecting a reading

program and how it affects the teaching staff. Critical theory is structural and looks at the

historical insights, which the researcher will be doing by going back and looking at the

selection process (Lincoln & Guba, 1994). The critical theory not only involves the

researcher, but the participants as well (Lincoln & Guba, 1994). The qualitative data

gathered will be from the participants and will have an important impact on the research.

The research was conducted in a rural school, Wayland-Cohocton. The research

began the end of May and went towards the end of June. The research focused on the


teachers who taught kindergarten through fourth grade. The school has a population of

184 elementary students in the Cohocton building and 409 elementary students in the

Wayland building. Wayland-Cohocton Central School has two elementary buildings.

One of the buildings is located in Wayland and the other building is located in Cohocton.

The Cohocton building houses pre-kindergarten through fourth grade and once the

students enter into fifth grade they are brought over to Wayland where they will remain

together until they graduate. Wayland houses pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade.

Cohocton has been using the Open Court Reading Program for three years and Wayland

has been using it for two years. This is the first year that grades 2-4 have used the

program at Wayland.

The Wayland building consists of four kindergarten teachers, five first grade

teachers, four second grade teachers, four third grade teachers, and four fourth grade

teachers. There are also four special education teachers and three reading specialists in

the Wayland building. The Cohocton building has one reading specialist and two special

education teachers. There are three kindergarten teachers, two first grade teachers, two

second grade teachers, two third grade teachers, and three fourth grade teachers in the

Cohocton building.

The researcher handed out 45 questionnaires, which were placed in the teachers

mailboxes. The researcher received only 18 questionnaires back. There were three

questionnaires returned from kindergarten, two from second grade, three from third

grade, and three from fourth grade. There were four special education teachers who

returned the questionnaire, along with two reading specialists. One of the questionnaires


did not have a grade level on it. The questionnaires revolved around the topic of Open

Court and how the teachers felt about the program. The teachers noted the strengths and

areas of need for the program. The teachers were then asked on a separate sheet of paper,

again placed in their mailboxes, if they would be willing to participate in an individual

interview. Those that agreed to the interview were then contacted through email to set up

a time that was convenient for them. The researcher interviewed thirteen educators about

the Open Court Reading Program. Notes were taken by the researcher during the

interviews. The researcher interviewed the following: the principal of the Wayland

building, two kindergarten teachers, one first grade teacher, two second grade teachers,

two third grade teachers, one fourth grade teacher, one reading specialist, and three

special education teachers. After the questionnaires and interviews were completed, the

researcher began to look for patterns.

Findings and Discussion

The researcher asked the elementary staff at Wayland and Cohocton buildings to

complete a questionnaire and if they would be willing an interview that asks questions

about the Open Court Reading Program. Based on my findings I determined three

consistent areas where the teachers agreed on. The first area was an area of need for the

reading program that the teachers felt needed to be addressed and they were time

management, the writing component, and the literature that the program uses. There

were also areas of strength that the educators found in the program. The educators felt

the program had strong phonics and phonemic awareness and that the reading and


comprehension strategies were helping their students. The second area I found was that

the majority of the teachers answered between a 3 and a 5 for the question on the

questionnaire that states, “Do you feel that the Open Court Reading Program is helping to

improve your students reading abilities?” This indicates that they feel neutral to strongly

agree with the question. The third area that demonstrated an area of consistency was how

the teachers used the assessment data.

Three Areas of Need for the Open Court Reading Program

According to my findings the data shows that there were three main areas of need

for the Open Court Reading Program. The areas of need are time management, the

writing component, and the literature that the program uses. Many of the educators

indicated one or all three areas of need from the questionnaire. The two areas where the

teachers felt the strongest were in the phonics and phonemic awareness sections and with

reading and comprehension strategies.

For the areas of need, time management was mentioned nine times from the

questionnaires that were returned and it was also mentioned in one of the initial

interviews. The teacher from the interview, Anne, stated that an area to work more in for

her would be the pacing of the selections. There were times where Anne felt that she

wasn’t moving as fast as her colleagues and was concerned about getting all of the areas

of the program covered before the test at the end of week. One of the reading specialists

who has been teaching for thirty years stated that “It is difficult for us to find enough time


in the day for children to practice reading at their instructional reading levels. We know

it is supposed to be during workshop but that time is not long enough some days.” She

also mentioned that the “pace of Open Court can be difficult for AIS students.” Many of

the teachers indicated that they would like to have more individual time with the students

and that managing all of the components could be difficult. One teacher indicated that

the pace needs to be slower, especially for ‘needier’ students where as another teacher

indicated that the pace was to slow for the stronger students. There seems to be no

middle ground and a way to slow the pace for the students who need it and a way to

speed up the pace for the students who are excelling. It was also mentioned that there

needs to be more time to address needs and re-teach weak areas. Teachers are feeling

that there is not enough time in the day to accomplish this and to teach the other subject

areas.

The second most mentioned area of need for the program was the writing

component. There were eight teachers who indicated that as an area of need. One

teacher indicated that she was confused by their approach to writing. Another teacher

indicated that “collectively, we should decide whether or not to implement Open Court

Writing to make the entire literacy program more cohesive.” One of the reading teachers

stated that no grade level has implemented Open Court’s writing program. A special

education teacher indicated that “the writing components are very weak with Open Court

and that most grade levels have designed their own writing assessments and

assignments.” Many of the teachers felt that their writing program was fairly strong


before the implementation of Open Court. A kindergarten teacher noted that “I fell the

writing piece could be stronger. Our writing piece was relatively strong prior to Open

Court, so we continue to use Open Court but add what we had.”

The third most mentioned area of need for the program was the literature that

Open Court uses. There were four teachers that mentioned it as an area of need. “I’m not

thrilled with the literature. Since this is our second year, we have been able to do lots of

supplemental literature” indicated a kindergarten teacher. Another kindergarten teacher

indicated that the story crafting is difficult for students who struggle with reading and that

the fine arts pieces are too abstract for kindergarten. The students tend to lose focus

quickly when looking at these pieces.

Other areas of need mentioned were that there is lots of direct instruction and the

guided reading component is missing. Also one teacher worries that students will get

bored and that there is too much testing! One teacher mentioned that the workshop

section is very weak and that she does not use it. She creates her own centers focusing on

reading, writing, and sight words.

For the areas of strength with the program, the educators felt the strongest in the

phonics and phonemic awareness sections. There were three teachers who indicated this

as an area of strength from the initial interviews and six educators indicated it on the

questionnaire. One of the kindergarten teachers from the initial interviews said that “The

green section, Sounds and Letters, is the strongest area for kindergarten. It deals with


letters, sounds, phonemic awareness activities, and phonics. I believe this is the area

where I am strongest.” A first grade teacher during the interview said that “The program

helps students understand sounds of letters.” According to the questionnaires a Special

Education teacher wrote that the program has strong phonics and phonemic awareness

which are practice daily in kindergarten and first grade and weekly in second through

fourth grade. She also mentioned that there is direct teaching of comprehension

strategies and skills. Many of the educators noted that the program allows for

consistency across the classes and grade levels and that it was user friendly for teachers

and for the substitutes. One teacher wrote that “The phonemic awareness and phonic

portions are what we were lacking for consistency as a grade level and as a school. This

has given us a wonderful building block for all students.” Another teacher mentioned

that the kids have shown “HUGE” (emphasis hers) improvements due to the phonics and

phonemic awareness sections and those sections are strong.

Reading and comprehension strategies were another area where many of the

educators felt were the strengths of the program or were their strengths using the

program. Some of the teachers noted that the skills are “recycled” and “cyclical,” which

means that the skills and strategies are used over and over again. The skills and strategies

are reinforced for the students because they are used over and over. The reading

strategies and comprehension strategies are used to “engage and improve students”

reading. Some of the other strengths mentioned were that it exposes students to a variety

of genres and it is very easy to follow.


Based on these findings there are both strengths and weaknesses to the Open

Court Reading Program. The writing component seems to be a big issue that needs to be

addressed for the teachers. Some of the teachers have been using the 6+1 Traits of

Writing program, but it is not used consistently throughout the grade levels. The reading

and comprehension strategies allow the students to explore the text in a way that they

might not have done it before. There is a lot of repetition and the students do get a lot of

practice using the seven strategies and it almost is second nature to some of the students.

The more that they practice the strategy the more helpful it becomes to them and the

more that they can understand what is happening in the text. The students know what

strategies work the best for them and will hopefully continue to use them throughout their

schooling. There are strengths and weaknesses to anything in life and Open Court seems

to have both.

Teachers Opinions on the Open Court Reading Program

The second area of consistency was that the majority of the teachers felt that the

Open Court Reading Program was helping to improve the students reading abilities.

Based on the questionnaires received, six teachers indicated that they felt neutral about

the question, which was “Do you fell that the Open Court Reading Program is helping to

improve your students reading abilities?” Also, there were five educators who indicated

that they agreed with the question, and seven indicated that they strongly agreed. When

asked what the goals were that the Open Court Reading Program was to accomplish

many teachers stated that it was to bring unity to the district and grade levels, give


students a stronger knowledge of phonics and to ensure that students in the primary

grades are learning to read. The principal indicated that the goals for the program were

for grades 3 and 4 to get a score of a level 4 on the New York State exam, to improve

phonics and phonemic awareness, and to be district aligned.

I interviewed thirteen educators and the majority of the educators indicated that

the program was helping to improve the reading skills of their students. The principal

stated that the Diebels scores were “on the rise” and that the early stages are “positive.”

Lisa, a reading teacher, said that “It’s not a cure-all. You still need good teachers who

are able to determine their students’ strengths and weaknesses. I would assume that it

does help a new or inexperienced teacher with how to teach reading and it has lots of

suggestions to improve skills.” Mary, a third grade teacher, said, “I have seen

improvements with their test scores. However, I miss the small group/one-on-one time

we had with the students when using the Brenda Weaver program. I have noticed that

there is a great deal of teacher fed information in this program and the students really

struggle with independent reading and comprehension.” Rose, another third grade

teacher feels a little differently. She said that she has seen improvements in some areas,

such as word study and phonics, but she also said that “I think it stifles independent

reading and the love of reading.”

This is the first year that grades 2-4 have implemented the program in the

Wayland building and Lucy, a fourth grade teacher, said that “Having only done it for

one year, and it being the kids’ first year, it is hard to answer this question. However, I


do see advantages of it that have been difficult to get out of kids in the past. We always

tell kids to get a picture in their heads and with one of the strategies being to visualize,

that is helpful. I’ve found that very helpful to carry over into other curricular areas. I use

it in math for problem solving. It is helpful for kids to see the connection and that

reading is not just to understand a particular story, it’s to provide skills and strategies to

accomplish anything.” Carol, a kindergarten teacher, stated, “Yes, I am amazed at what

all kindergarten students are doing, not just the ‘bright’ students. Even the weakest

students are beginning to truly read.” Another kindergarten teacher said yes that she was

very impressed and that it has helped both with reading and applying it to what they have

learned to their writing also. Alyssa, a second grade teacher, said, “Yes. Repetition,

repetition, repetition. Tons of skill work, lots of thinking and reading. Most importantly

we are giving them training in how to read and be strategic. It’s not just let’s read and

comprehend, we are doing more like- predicting, summarizing, clarifying, etc. It makes

it very clear that reading is a complicated series of steps that we go through and everyone

can learn.”

Based on the findings from the questionnaires and the interviews, the majority of

the educators have seen improvements in their students reading abilities. There may be

some areas where they feel that they still need to work in, but overall they feel that there

is growth and that the students are using the skills and strategies that are being taught to

them.


Assessment Data

The third and finally area that demonstrated a pattern was in the area of how the

teachers use the assessment data. All but one of the teachers from the questionnaires and

the interviews stated that they use the Open Court assessment data. There was one

second grade teacher from the questionnaire that stated “not really” when asked “Do you

use the Open Court assessment data?” The students are given a new story each week and

tested on it. The students also have to take a unit assessment when all the stories from

that unit are completed. Out of the seventeen questionnaires received the two main uses

for how the assessment data is used is to help determine students who need Academic

Intervention Services and to help the teachers determine areas to re-teach. One reading

teacher wrote that “We look at their weekly and unit assessments along with other

information to change Tiers (ie Tier II to Tier III). A fourth grade teacher wrote that she

looks at the weekly assessments to find the students strengths and weaknesses and tries to

improve on the weak areas the next week. One kindergarten teacher wrote, “Personally,

it helps drive my instruction to know what I need to work on. As a grade level, we use

some of it to compare students across the grade level to be sure everyone gets what they

need.” A third grade teacher wrote, “I look at each ‘subtest’ and adjust my instruction

accordingly. I let the AIS teachers know about the students who are struggling.” Based

on the findings from the questionnaires the teachers use the assessment data to help

determine which students need the extra support and how to better drive their instruction.

The teachers become familiar with their students strengths and weaknesses.


For one of the interview questions, I asked “What do you do with the assessment

data collected?” Many of the educators stated that they place them in share folders and

use them during grade level meetings. The principal stated that they place them in a

share folder and then use the information at data meeting to help with AIS and this is

done quarterly. It is also used to help drive curriculum goals and to re-teach weak areas.

He stated that the goal is for teachers after looking at the data to adjust their lessons to re-

teach the skills that need it. Lisa, a reading teacher, said that “We use some of it in

conjuction with teacher input and Dibels to change the Tiers for certain students.” Izabel,

a special education teacher, stated that “We use the data as one component for placing

students in AIS reading. Classroom teachers use the data for remediating students in

their classrooms.” Laurie, another special education teacher, was very honest and said

that they do not use it as much as they should. “Now that we have gone through a year,

we can be better at using the assessments to spend more time on the skills they need.”

Dakota, a special education teacher, said that the “Assessment data is used to target

specific areas of weakness for individual students that can be remediated. Also, the

overall efficacy of the program can be analyzed by looking at pre, mid, and post test

data.” Carol, a kindergarten teacher, mentioned four things that she does with the

assessment data collected. Carol mentioned that it is put into the computer for

administration and first grade to see, and that it is used to drive instruction fro the current

class as well as how she will teach it next year. She also mentioned that it is used for AIS

services and it is used to discuss as a grade level and to make changes where necessary.

“I record all data and keep for myself. All critical skills are input for others viewing


(AIS, administration). The data is used, to some extent, in determining if a student may

be a candidate for Tier II or Tier III services,” said another kindergarten teacher. Alyssa,

a second grade teacher, stated that “Mostly it is entered into a shared spread sheet. I can

use it during parent conferences to report progress. I also use it when forming groups or

looking at students who need more instruction in different areas- how to answer multiple

choice questions, how to write a short response versus a longer response. In the future I

would like to really make the assessment more seamless with instruction. I would love to

get to the stage where the kids do not think of it as an assessment, but rather a learning

opportunity.” The responses indicate a similarity between the responses given on the

questionnaires, but only in more depth. The teachers are looking at the data to find ways

to better help their students and themselves. They can take what they learned from one

year and note the positives and use that again the following year. They can also note

where a pattern with where the students struggled and plan for that the following year.

Implications

The researcher’s findings give some insight as to what the teachers at the

Wayland-Cohocton school need to help them feel comfortable and confident with the

program. Also, the researcher’s findings also told how the teachers feel about the

program and what they are doing with the assessment data that is being collected.

Open Court is time consuming and due to taking up a good chunk of the school

day the teachers feel that they could use assistance in time management, the writing

component, and the literature that the program uses. Based on the findings it is important


for the administrative staff to find ways to assist the teachers. Professional developments

are one way that this can be accomplished, along with taking the time to sit down with

each grade level and have a discussion on what the teachers think is going well and what

they could use help in. The educators at Wayland-Cohocton do not use the writing

component of Open Court, but many of the teachers indicated that they do not use the

6+1 Writing Traits either. The researcher feels that it is important for the grade levels to

sit down and come up with a writing curriculum. The school wants to be district and

grade level aligned based on the questionnaires and interviews, so the writing component

should be similar as well. Teachers also need to find ways to incorporate literature that is

of interest to the students. The students are given a new story each week to focus on, but

it isn’t necessarily a story or selection of interest to them. The teachers can incorporate

the “love of literature” (as one teacher mentioned) during read aloud or during

independent reading.

The educators at Wayland-Cohocton felt that the program was helping the

students reading abilities. Many of the teachers noted that the students were using the

strategies and skills that they were being taught in their reading. It is important for

students to know how to use strategies to help them figure out a word or to comprehend a

story and with Open Court’s repetition of these strategies it gives them practice. The

teachers can continue to note student’s progress through the assessment data. Through

the use of shared folders, teachers are able to look at each student individually and be

able to determine if progress is made. The teachers are also able to look at patterns with

each student and work on their areas of need. It is important for the teachers to continue


to look at the assessment data to help better drive their instruction. According to the

questionnaires and interviews, the assessment data is also used to help determine if a

student needs Academic Intervention Services. As long as other data is presented with it

then having that visual data can be helpful.

It is important for the staff at Wayland-Cohocton to sit down together and discuss

what they feel is working and their concerns. Having a staff that is all on the same page

and feels comfortable in bringing up concerns can be very powerful. Both teachers and

students should feel comfortable and confident in using the program so that it can be a

success. Based on the information gathered the Open Court Reading Program seems to

be helping the students and there are a few areas that need to be addressed.

Conclusion The researcher had originally set out to find out why Wayland-Cohocton decided

to go with the Open Court Reading Program. The current principal of the Cohocton

building was not the administrator who chose the reading program. It was the principal

before her that decided that Cohocton needed to make some changes because of New

York States changing requirements. She could not be reached so the researcher did not

get the opportunity to fully understand the thought process that went into selecting the

program. One teacher at the Cohocton building that was part of the process stated that

“Our principal at the time, Alicia B., knew that New York State was changing

requirements for the Response to Intervention model and wanted to be proactive in our

approach to instruction. We read a book – I’m sorry I can’t remember the name of it


right now and had a couple book talks about it. It was based on a school in Washington

State that adopted the Open Court program as well as other things and their journey to

improve student performance. The Cohocton Faculty investigated several series, visited

Livonia school and did other internet based research to determine that this program was

research based – thus meeting the needs for RTI and was something we would be willing

to commit to trying.” The Wayland principal and the Wayland staff implemented the

program to make it district aligned. The principal of the Wayland school said that “they

trusted Cohocton and did not do any piloting or research.” He also stated that “it is not

what you do when you select a reading program” but they wanted to be district aligned

and felt that it was working for Cohocton so they would use it as well.

The limitations of the study are that there were not very many questionnaires

returned and the researcher would have liked to have conducted more interviews. Based

on the information that was gathered and the researcher’s question, “Why did a rural

school select the Open Court Reading Program and the impact that it has on the

teacher?,” the researcher determined that Wayland-Cohocton Central School wanted to

make a change to fit the changes that New York State was making. With the changes that

New York State is making and the No Child Left Behind Act, the school wanted a

program that was research based and that they would be willing to commit to. Also, the

school wanted to be district aligned. The educators at Wayland-Cohocton feel that the

program is showing improvements in students reading abilities and the teachers are

keeping track of the assessment data gathered in an organized way.


References

Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers

reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76, (1), 30-63. Ajayi, L. (2005) Teachers’ Needs and Predesigned Instructional Practices: An Analysis of A Reading/Language Arts Coursebook For A Second Grade Class. Reading Improvement, 42, (4), 200-211.

Altwerger, B., et. al. (2004). When Research and Madates Collide: The Challenges and Dilemmas of Teacher Education in the Era of NCLB. English Education, 36, (2),

119-133.

Arya, P. et. al. (2005). Reclaiming Literacy Instruction: Evidence in Support of Literature-Based Programs. Language Arts, 83, (1), 63-72.

Barrett, T. J. (1995, November). A Comparison of Two Approaches to First Grade

Phonics Instruction in the Riverside Unified School District. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the California Educational Research Association, Lake Tahoe, CA.

Bruner, J. (1974). The ontogenesis of speech acts. Journal of Child Language, 2, 1-19. Bukowiecki, E. M. (2007). Teaching Children How to READ. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 43, (2), 58-65.

Clay, M. M. (1995). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Education.

Coles, G. (2000). Direct, Explicit, and Systematic-Bad Reading Science. Language Arts, 77, (6), 543-545.

Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the Poor? Realigning Reading Instruction for Low-

Income Students with Scientifically Based Reading Research. Educational Researcher, 36, (9), 564-572.

Dahl, K. L., and Freppon, P. A. (1995). A Comparison of Innercity Children’s Interpretations of Reading and Writing Instruction in the Early Grades in Skills-Based and Whole Language Classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, (1), 50-74.

Open Court Reading Program 39 Duffy, G., & Hoffman, J. (1999). In Pursuit of an illusion: The flawed search for a perfect method. The Reading Teacher, 53, (1), 10-16.

Ede, A. (2006). Scripted Curriculum: Is It a Prescription for Success? Childhood Education, 83, (1), 29-32.

Gee, J. Literacy, Discourse, & Linguistics: Introduction and What is Literacy? In

Cushman, E., Kintgen, E., Kroll, B., Rose, M. (2001). Literacy: A Critical Source Book. (pg. 537-544). Boston, Bedford 1st . Martin.

Goodman, Y. (1984). Literacy: A Critical Source Book. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin.

Heath, S. B. (1982). What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School. Language in Society, 11, 49-76.

Jordan, N. L., Green, J., and Tuyay, S. (2005). Basal Readers and Reading as

Socialization: What Are Children Learning? Language Arts, 82, (3) p. 204-214.

Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2003). New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and Classroom Learning. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Larson, J. & Marsh, J. (2005). Making Literacy Real: theories and practices for learning and teaching. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Lee, S. K., Ajayi, L., and Richards, R. (2007). Teachers’ Perceptions of the Efficacy of The Open Court Program for English Proficient and English Language Learners.

Teacher Education Quarterly, 34, (3), 19-34. Maddahian, E. (2002). A comparative study of second-grade students’ reading, language and spelling gain scores for the LAUSD reading programs. Program Evaluation and Research Branch (Publication no. 113). Los Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District [On-line]. Available: http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/page?_page Id=33,103101&_dad=ptl&_schema=PTL_EP_

McGraw-Hill Education. (2002). Results with reading mastery. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Meier, T. (2003). Why can’t she remember that? The importance of storybook reading in

multilingual, multicultural classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 57 (3), 242-252.

Milosovic, S. (2007). Building a Case Against Scripted Reading Program. The Education Digest, 73, (1), 27-31.

Open Court Reading Program 40 Moll, L. & Gonzalez, N. Lessons from Research with Language-Minority Children. In Cushman, E., Kintgen, E., Kroll, B., Rose, M. (2001). Literacy: A Critical Source

Book. (pg. 156-171). Boston, Bedford 1st . Martin.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110 (2001). [On-line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 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 (Wahington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000).

Open Court Publications. (1998). Open Court Reading. Columbus, Ohio: SRA/McGraw

Hill.

Perkins-Gough, D. (2004). The eroding curriculum. Educational Leadership, 62, (1), 84-85.

Sipe, L. & Constable, S. (1996). A chart of contemporary research paradigms: Metaphors for the modes of inquiry. The Journal of Culture and Education, 1, 153-163. Skindrud, K. & Gersten R. (2005). An independent evaluation of two prominent

reading programs in the Sacramento City Schools: Academic and special education outcomes (Technical Report 2005A). Carson, CA: Research and

Funded Projects.

Wolfram, W., Adger, C., & Christian D. (1999). Dialects in schools and communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Yatvin, J., Weaver, C., & Garan E. (2003). Reading First: Cautions and Recommendations. Language Arts, 81, (1), 28-32.


Appendices

Questionnaire

By handing in this survey I am consenting to participate in the research study. I understand that

all information will be kept confidential and will only be used for the purpose of a Capstone

research project. I will not include my name, or the names of other individuals.

Using a scale from 1-5 please complete the following questions. 1 means that you strongly disagree with the question/statement, 2 means that you disagree with the question/statement, 3 means that you are neutral, 4 means that you agree with the question/statement, and 5 means that you strongly agree with the question/statement. Question/Statement Scale 1. Do you feel that the Open Court Reading Program

is helping to improve your students reading abilities? 1 2 3 4 5 2. Did you have sufficient training and feel confident in 1 2 3 4 5 using the Open Court program? 3. Do you feel that Open Court lends itself to work well 1 2 3 4 5 with other subject areas? 4. Do you use the Open Court assessment data? _____________________ If so, how is it used:_____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 5. What do you feel your strengths or the strengths are with the program?

6. What do you feel your areas or the areas of need are with the program?


Thank you for completing the questionnaire! Please check next to the following that applies to you: ___ I am a reading teacher. ___ I am a reading specialist. ___ I am a math teacher. ___ I am a general education teacher. ___ I am a special education teacher. ___ I am a teacher aide or teaching assistant. How many years have you been teaching? ____________ What certifications do you hold?__________________________________________________________ What grade level do you teach?__________________


Interview Questions

1. Who was involved in the process of selecting the Open Court Reading Program?

2. How did you go about selecting the Open Court Reading Program? (Administration,

Reading Specialist)

3. What other programs did you consider besides Open Court? (Administration, Reading

Specialist)

4. Do you feel that the program is accomplishing the goals that the school set out for it to

accomplish?

5. Did you have sufficient training and feel confident in using the Open Court program?

What areas do you feel are your strengths and which areas do you feel you still need to

work in?


6. Do you use the writing portion of Open Court? If not, what program do you use?

7. Do you feel that the program is helping the students improve their reading skills?

8. What do you do with the assessment data collected?

open court reading program 1 - pbworksreflectivepractitioner.pbworks.com/f/field-capstone.pdf ·...

Documents