University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Early literacy intervention

(USC Thesis Other)

Early literacy intervention

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 1

Early Literacy Intervention
by
Caryn Beck-Southers

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2018

Copyright 2018 Caryn Beck-Southers

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Writing a dissertation and completing a study is an intensely solitary endeavor, but it
cannot be accomplished without the help and support of family, friends, professors, advisors,
participants, and in my case, a caring and supportive advisor, Dr. Corrine Hyde and my
committee members, Dr. Datta and Dr. Picus. Attaining this degree becomes a way of life so
much so I think I am going to have to learn how to normal again. I will do that as soon as I get
some sleep. This journey is like nothing else; it truly takes over your life. This is not just a
personal sacrifice, it’s a family sacrifice.
I want to thank my husband, Erroll, for encouraging me to undertake this incredible
journey, supporting and understanding late dinners, constant take-out, endless editing, not
attending events, no weekend movies, and when I did go out, taking my computer, working on
the way to and sometimes at events, and always at lunch. He encouraged me when I thought I
could not go on, and maintained three years of unwavering belief in me. And to my beautiful
daughter, Maia, who got all 30 of her driving education hours while I worked in the car. She
endured my working and attending online classes at her dance competitions, squeezing in her
edits between mine, and settled for short outings so we could spend time together. She tolerated
my absence, always encouraged and supported me, and insisted I get away from my computer.
I also want to thank my sister, Robin and brother-in-law, Alex who were always there for
me and believed in me more than I believed in myself, as well as my brother and sister-in-law,
Jeff and Donna, who I have not seen enough of since I began this experience. Finally, I want to
mention my dad who will finally have a doctor in the family.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgment.…………………………………………………….………………...…2
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 3
List of Tables and figures ................................................................................................... 7
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................................ 10
Background ................................................................................................................... 11
Importance of Addressing the Problem ........................................................................ 14
Organizational Context and Mission ............................................................................ 14
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 16
Stakeholder Groups....................................................................................................... 17
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ................................................................ 18
Definitions of Terms ..................................................................................................... 19
Study Organization ....................................................................................................... 19
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ............................................................................ 19
General Research on Factors Influencing Early Literacy Intervention ....................... 19
Reading Instruction and Assessments for Early Reading Intervention ........................ 20
Tailoring Approaches to Individual Student Needs ...................................................... 21
Measuring Effectiveness .............................................................................................. 22
Importance of Leadership ............................................................................................. 24
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 4
Effects of Early Reading Failure .................................................................................. 23
Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework ................................................ 24
Knowledge Types ......................................................................................................... 25
Declarative Knowledge ................................................................................................. 25
Procedural Knowledge .................................................................................................. 27
Metacognitive Knowledge ............................................................................................ 28
Motivational Influences ................................................................................................ 30
Attribution Theory ........................................................................................................ 30
Attribution and Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................ 31
Organizational Influences ............................................................................................. 33
Cultural Models ........................................................................................................... 34
Cultural Settings ........................................................................................................... 35
Chapter Three: Methodology ............................................................................................ 36
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................. 37
Knowledge and Motivation Assessments ..................................................................... 38
Organizational/Culture/Context Assessment ................................................................ 39
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ......................................................... 41
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .......................................... 41
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale .............................................. 42
Data Collection and Instrumentation ............................................................................ 43
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 5
Data Analysis Plan ........................................................................................................ 44
Credibility and Trustworthiness of Data ....................................................................... 44
Role of Investigator ...................................................................................................... 45
Ethics ............................................................................................................................ 45
Limitations ................................................................................................................... 46
Delimitations ................................................................................................................. 47
Chapter Four: Results ...................................................................................................... 48
Knowledge Influences – Declarative ............................................................................ 49
Knowledge Influences – Procedural ............................................................................. 58
Motivational Influences – Attribution ......................................................................... 65
Motivational Influences – Self-Efficacy ....................................................................... 68
Organizational Influences – Planning ........................................................................... 70
Organizational Influences – Recognition .................................................................... 72
Synthesis of Results ...................................................................................................... 74
Chapter Five: Recommendations, Implementation and Evaluation Plan ......................... 77
Knowledge Recommendations ..................................................................................... 77
Declarative Knowledge Solutions ............................................................................... 79
Procedural Knowledge Solutions.................................................................................. 82
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions ............................................................................ 84
Motivation Recommendations ...................................................................................... 85
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 6
Attribution Theory Solutions ........................................................................................ 87
Self-Efficacy ................................................................................................................ 87
Organization Recommendations ................................................................................... 89
Cultural Models Solutions ............................................................................................ 91
Cultural Settings Solutions ........................................................................................... 92
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ........................................................... 93
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ....................................................................... 94
Level 3: Behavior.......................................................................................................... 95
Level 2: Learning .......................................................................................................... 98
Level 1: Reaction ........................................................................................................ 101
Data Analysis and Reporting ...................................................................................... 103
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 104
Limitations and Delimitations .................................................................................... 106
Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................... 107
Appendix A Qualitative Interview Questions ................................................................. 108
Appendix B Classroom Observation Protocol ................................................................ 110
Appendix C Early Intervention Training ........................................................................ 111
References ....................................................................................................................... 113

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 7
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLES

1 Student Enrollment 2015-2016 15
2 2015-2016 English Language Arts Proficiency by Ethnicity 16
3 Sources of Assumed Knowledge, Influences 29
4 Summary of assumed motivational influences on teacher’s
delivery of effective literacy intervention
33
5 Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessments 39
6 Assumed Influences and Assessments 40
7 Validated Influences 74
8 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 78
9 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 86
10 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 89
11 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal
Outcomes
95
12 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New
Reviewers
96
13 Required Drivers to Support Primary Teacher’s Critical Behaviors 97
14 Components of Learning for the Program 100
15 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 102
FIGURES
A Gap Analysis Process 36
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 8
B Early Literacy Intervention 38
C Intervention Student Bi-Weekly Progress 104

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 9

ABSTRACT
In the 2015-2016 school year, Mesa Elementary School’s student test scores reflected that 58%
of students in the third-through-fifth grades were below English Language Arts State Standards,
as measured by the California Assessment of Student Performance. In the primary grades, more
than 24% of Transitional Kindergarten, kindergarten, first-grade and second-grade students were
at risk of reading failure, as measured by the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Skills
assessments. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational
(KMO) conceptual framework, which examines the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences that facilitate or hinder meeting performance goals, this study examines factors that
impact Mesa Elementary primary grade teachers in delivering research-based foundational
literacy instruction.
Six primary teachers at Mesa Elementary who are responsible for delivering foundational
early reading skills instruction volunteered to inform this study by taking part in interviews and
allowing classroom observations. This small, non-probability sample was used to determine how
teachers interpret their teaching experience and what meaning they attribute to those experiences
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study partially validates both declarative and procedural
knowledge of early research-based foundational reading skills instruction among primary grade
teachers at Mesa Elementary. In addition, motivational influences of attribution and self-efficacy,
were also partially validated. Research also validated organizational barriers, including
insufficient dedicated time for planning and collaboration, and a lack of organizational rewards
and acknowledgement.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 10
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION
Proficient reading is a foundational academic skill that affects student learning, school
performance, and brain development (Child Trends Databank, 2015). Acquiring academic
content depends on grade-level reading skills, and students who lack reading readiness,
phonemic awareness, and phonics skills required in primary grades often struggle in other
subjects. This challenge endures and compounds throughout a student’s career. A 2014 study
(Sparks, Patton, & Murdoch) found that a tenth-grade student’s reading proficiency can be
predicted by first-grade reading scores.
The consequences of deficient literacy stretch beyond the classroom. Students who
experience low literacy rates are at greater risk for poverty, crime, and unemployment (Fiester,
2013). Thus, recognizing that literacy has a direct, long-term impact, and acknowledging the
correlation between high school and primary grade reading proficiency, it is clear that effective
early literacy intervention and instruction can have a dramatically outsized influence on the
trajectory of a student’s life. Currently, however, early literacy rates are suffering in the United
States.
Kena et al. (2015) reported that, nationwide, 60% of fourth-grade students’ reading levels
were below reading proficiency, with minority students and students living in poverty more
challenged to achieve grade-level literacy (Kids Count Data Book, 2015). The achievement gap
for low-income African American children begins early, and is well established by three years of
age (Burchinal et al., 2011). These trends have implications that endure for decades. The
National Center for Reading Statistics reports that 93 million adults in the United States (about
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 11
33%) suffer literacy rates below or at basic reading proficiency, with the ability to perform only
simple literacy tasks. (Balu, Zhu, Doolittle, Schiller, Jenkins, & Gersten, 2015).
These profound implications for students individually, and society more broadly, compel
close study of the influences that support or challenge effective early literacy intervention and
instruction in primary grades across the country. This study addresses that scholarly need for
Mesa Elementary.
Background
This study explores the problems teachers experience intervening when students struggle
with reading. Students who struggle to read experience academic difficulties that increase over
time (Stanovich, 1986), and as reading problems persist, they become progressively more
difficult to remediate. These difficulties include negative effects on the developing brain that
lead to long-term consequences, such as failing to graduate on time, higher unemployment rates,
and increased likelihood for poverty (Cartwright, 2012; Fiester, 2013; Hernandez, 2011; Little et
al., 2012; National Reading Panel, 2000; O’Connor, Bocian, Sanchez, & Beach, 2014).
Failing to address reading problems in early grades increases the chance that students will
fall behind academically (Amendum, 2014). Early literacy challenges frustrate grade-level
reading proficiency, which is increasingly problematic as students advance through elementary
school and beyond (O’Connor et al., 2014; Sparks, Patton, & Murdoch, 2014; Vaughn, Wanzek,
& Sharon, 2007). Reading problems compound with sequential grades (Little et al., 2012). For
example, the reading difficulties students encounter in the second and third grades are more
complex and more difficult to remediate than those experienced in kindergarten and first grade.
Unsurprisingly, early reading difficulties strongly predict later reading failure. In
agreement with the above-mentioned Sparks et al. study (2014), Cunningham and Stanovich’s
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 12
1997 longitudinal study determined that first-grade reading comprehension was related to
eleventh-grade reading failure (Cunningham, & Stanovich, 1997). What is more, Cunningham
and Stanovich (1997) found that because skills build upon one another, a delay in reading
development skills affects reading and cognitive development. According to Cain and Oakhill
(2011), struggling readers often do not develop sufficient cognitive growth to become a
successful reader.
Stanovich (1986, p. 380) described the “Matthew effect” as “the rich getting richer and
the poor getting poorer,” explaining the downward spiral of academic underperformance that
causes students to perpetually fall behind grade levels. Essential to reading is the cognitive
development of critical reading proficiency skills, such as phonemic awareness, the alphabetic
principle, and phonics (Cavanaugh, Kim, Wanzek, & Vaughn, 2004; Justice & Ezell, 2004;
Stanovich, 1986). Research shows that brain development is affected when a reading deficit is
not remediated (Ferrer et al., 2007). According to Simos et al. (2002), without intensive reading
intervention, the brain does not develop in the areas needed to support successful reading.
Conversely, however, as Ferrer et al. indicated in their 2007 study, there is a positive relationship
between reading and cognition in early reading instruction. As such, because the relationship
between cognition and reading is dynamic, synergetic, and intertwined, early intervention can
benefit skills in both areas.
Slowed cognitive development impacts learning and academic progress. A 2010 study
(Dion, Brodeur, Gosselin, Campeau, & Fuchs) found that students who lacked appropriate
developmental and early reading skills, and who began first grade with a limited knowledge of
the alphabet, struggled to master decoding (i.e., the process of identifying the relationship
between discrete sounds or phonemes to written letters and the ability to use that knowledge to
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 13
pronounce words) (Foulin, 2005). In those instances, even when research-based instruction was
delivered, without including intervention in the first grade, struggling readers failed to achieve
grade-level proficiency (Dion et al., 2010).
O'Connor et al., (2014) state that at-risk students who do not receive early reading
intervention experience problems that become more difficult to address. In their 2014 study of
at-risk kindergarten students, O'Conner et al. found that at-risk kindergarten student reading
deficiencies became more pronounced as grade-level reading content became more demanding.
This explains why struggling readers who do not receive early reading intervention rarely
achieve grade-level reading skills by the end of elementary school (Kemp, Gustafson, &
Samuelsson, 2011).
When identification and support for students in kindergarten and first grade is delayed,
the gap between struggling and proficient readers increases (McNamara, Scissons, & Gutknecth,
2011). A longitudinal study of the reading achievement of 382 kindergarten students used
phonological awareness measures to identify students with poor, average, or strong foundational
early reading skills (McNamara et al., 2011). The study revealed that, overall, as children
progressed from kindergarten through third grade, those at the lower end of reading achievement
were likely to remain there.
Over time, below-grade-level literacy often leads to substantial academic failure. The
dropout rate for non-proficient readers is 25% higher than average readers (Daniel et al., 2006).
A longitudinal study of 4,000 students who were below grade-level reading at the end of third
grade found that those students were four times more likely not to graduate from high school
than their peers reading at grade level (Hernandez, 2011).
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 14
Primary grade student achievement gaps are often apparent in demographics. There are
persistent disparities between the reading proficiency of white, Latino, and African American
students (Kena et al., 2015). The 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
report found a 31-point reading proficiency gap between white and African American students;
for Hispanic students, the gap was 25 points. According to the National Center for Education
Statistics, 56% of Latino students and 60% of African American fourth-grade students read
below basic levels (Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, 2007).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Troubling trends in reading proficiency across U.S. schools demand immediate solutions
for early literacy intervention and instruction. The National Center for Education Statistics 2015
National Assessment of Educational Progress reported that nationwide, 64% of fourth-grade
students and 66% of eighth-grade students read below proficiency levels. These data illustrate
the pervasiveness of student reading deficits, which has implications for government and public
school policy.
Failing to attain early reading proficiency negatively affects school performance over
time; reading is a gateway skill to all academic subjects (Fiester, 2013). Thus, instituting primary
grade reading intervention has the potential to correct reading deficiencies before students begin
a downward spiral of reading failure (Simmons et al., 2008). This study explores the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational influences that may impact teachers’ practice when delivering
research-based early literacy instruction and intervention.
Organizational Context and Mission
Mesa Elementary School is a Title I Transitional-Kindergarten-through-fifth-grade
elementary school in the west Los Angeles area of California. The first-through-fifth grades are
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 15
designated as a performing and fine arts magnet with a combined population of 374 students.
According to the Federal and State Program Title I Ranking report, the majority of Mesa
Elementary’s students are socioeconomically disadvantaged, as measured by the eligibility for
free or reduced lunch, which is based on federal guidelines for family income (Los Angeles
Unified School District, 2018).
Mesa Elementary’s students are 4 years old to 11 years old. Most students (87%) are
African American and Latino. More specifically, the demographic breakdown is as follows:
58%, African American; 29%, Hispanic or Latino; 6%, white; 2%, Asian; and .5%, Native
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (Oak View, 2016). What is more, 66% of these students are
socioeconomically disadvantaged based on family income levels, 11% are students with
disabilities, and 8% are English learners (i.e., English as a second language) (Ed Data, 2016).
Table 1
Student Enrollment 2015-2016
Transitional
Kindergarten

19
Kindergarten

22
First
Grade

54
Second
Grade

63
Third
Grade

64
Fourth
Grade

78
Fifth
Grade

74
Total
Enrollment

374

In the 2015-2016 school year, student test scores reflected that 59% of students in the
third-through-fifth grades were below English Language Arts State Standards, and 71% of
students were below Math State Standards, as measured by the California Assessment of Student
Performance California Department of Education, 2016. Additionally, reading scores, as
measured by the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Skills, indicate that more than 24% of
primary grade students are at risk of reading failure (Oak View, School District, 2018).

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 16
Table 2
2015-2016 English Language Arts Proficiency by Ethnicity

Ethnicity Percent
did not
meet
standard
Percent
nearly
met
standard
Percent
met
standard
Percent
exceeded
standard
Number
tested
Asian - - - - 3
African
American
36 27 20 17 131
Hispanic 34 22 22 22 60

White 13 31 25 31 17
Pacific
Islander
- - - - 3

Purpose of the Study
Mesa Elementary’s organizational mission is to provide high-quality instruction to
facilitate student learning and achievement, aligning with the school’s three performance goals:
high-quality instruction and grade-level proficiency for all students across all subjects; regular
attendance; and a high level of parental and community involvement. As a component of that,
and as an orienting objective for this study, the teacher stakeholder group goal is that by May
2018, all Mesa Elementary School Transitional Kindergarten, kindergarten, first-grade and
second-grade teachers will deliver foundational reading intervention.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which Mesa Elementary teachers

are finding success in pursuing this goal. The study was guided by three primary questions:

1. To what extent are Mesa Elementary’s Transitional Kindergarten, kindergarten, first-
grade and second-grade teachers meeting their performance goal of delivering research-
based early reading skills instruction and intervention?
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 17
2. What are the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences related to achieving
this organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivational, and organizational resources?
Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholders are individuals or groups that are concerned with an organization’s success
in achieving its mission and preserving and sustaining that success over time (Paine & McCann,
2009). Mesa Elementary’s stakeholders include students, teachers, parents, and administrators. It
is a magnet school of choice attended by students who travel 45 minutes to one hour by bus.
Most students live in South Central Los Angeles, and as noted above, qualify for free or reduced-
price school lunches. Mesa Elementary is largely a commuter school with many families living
far from campus, and participants in this study reported that most parents seldom visit the school.
There are 18 primary grade teachers at Mesa Elementary, 10 of whom have been
employed at the school for 10 years or more. Their teaching experience ranges from 4 years to 30
years. Of Mesa Elementary’s 18 teachers, 12 are white, 5 are African American, and one is
Asian. Seventeen teachers are female, and one is male. Teachers' educational backgrounds vary
from Bachelor of Arts with a teaching credential to master’s degrees in education. Two Mesa
Elementary teachers have a master’s degree as well as administrative credentials.
The efforts of all stakeholder groups (e.g., parents, school administrators, etc.) impact
student academic success. This study, however, looks specifically at teachers providing literacy
instruction in Transitional Kindergarten, kindergarten, first grade and second grade. The
teachers’ experience level ranges from 19 to 29 years, with most of that time spent teaching
primary grades. Primary teachers were selected as the focus of this study because they are
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 18
responsible for delivering early literacy instruction and intervention, which has a profound effect
on academic growth and achievement (Cain & Oakhill, 2011).
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework is a systematic analytic approach that seeks to
identify sources of performance gaps and the performance improvement required to meet
organizational goals. This model clarifies goals and identifies the gaps between actual
performance level and preferred performance objectives. The process examines stakeholder
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers to determine performance gap
causes and identify solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008).
According to Krathwohl (2002), there are four knowledge domains that affect learning
and performance: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge (basic
facts and elements) and conceptual knowledge (i.e., knowledge of interrelationships between
basic elements) are collectively called declarative knowledge. Declarative knowledge refers to
“what” someone knows, but the third knowledge domain, procedural, refers to understanding
“how” to do something. The fourth domain is metacognitive knowledge, which refers to an
awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition.
For this study, the Clark and Estes (2008), gap analysis framework, was used to examine
Mesa Elementary teachers’ knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational needs to
determine whether and which barriers prevent them from meeting their performance goal. The
analysis looks at stakeholder performance and goal achievement to assess whether there are
efforts that could contribute to greater knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
support, thereby potentially advancing early literacy intervention and instruction at Mesa
Elementary.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 19
Definitions of Terms
While t his study draws on a range of ideas and terms from throughout the academic
arena, four terms in particular are critical to understanding the method and results of this study.
These are:
• At risk – Students considered to have a high degree of possible academic failure
(Lonigan & Shanahan, 2009).
• Reading readiness – Letter identification, discerning initial, medial, and ending sounds,
segmenting sounds, letter sound knowledge, and the ability to rhyme (Lonigan &
Shanahan, 2009).
• Multi-tiered instruction – Instruction that provides differentiated support to respond to
students’ needs (Balu et al., 2015).
• Phonemic awareness – The ability to discern and manipulate the smallest units of
sounds, called phonemes (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2009).
Study Organization
This study is divided into five chapters. Following this first chapter providing essential
concepts and terminology and describing Mesa Elementary’s mission, goals, and stakeholders,
chapter two reviews available literature relevant to this study’s scope, including subject matter
on student screening, data-driven instruction, and teacher instructional reading content
knowledge. Chapter three describes the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that affect performance, as well as provides the methodology used to collect this
study’s data. Chapter four presents the data analysis and results, and chapter five explores
potential solutions for closing perceived and/or actual gaps, offering recommendations for an
implementation and evaluation plan.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 20

CHAPTER TWO:
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
There is a wealth of literature pertinent to this study’s investigation into sources of
performance gaps in implementing research-based early reading instruction and intervention at
Mesa Elementary. This literature review covers available scholarship and research on: early
reading instruction and intervention; the ways in which poor early reading skills affect academic
progression; and critical early literacy skills and instructional practices that allow students to
acquire those skills. This review also explores Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis process,
examining the organizational barriers, knowledge and skills, and motivational causes for gaps in
performance.
General Research on Factors Influencing Early Literacy Intervention
Successful schools employ people who possess the knowledge and skills critical to
student achievement. Knowledgeable workers have the ability to problem solve and acclimate to
fluctuating environments (Clark & Estes, 2008). When a performance gap exists, it is essential to
identify the barriers to closing the gap. Optimal student performance outcomes depend on the
knowledge and expertise of early instructional and intervening practices that teachers bring to the
classroom (Gibson, 2010). To reach stated goals and identify performance gaps, teachers must
know which strategies and techniques will allow them to achieve desired results. According to
Clark and Estes (2008), the knowledge and skills workers bring to their work are crucial to
achieving organizational goals.
To this end, teachers must possess in-depth knowledge of foundational reading skills,
reading instruction strategies, and best practices (Prasse et al., 2012). To support all students, and
specifically those at risk for reading failure, instruction must be focused and comprehensive.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 21
This requires classroom teachers to bring the necessary knowledge to deliver high-quality
differentiated instruction (Prasse et al., 2012). As such, teachers need professional development
that builds their capacity, as well as their ability to employ a data-driven instructional approach
(Denton, 2012). Professional development support helps ensure teachers possess not just the
necessary knowledge and skills in the areas of language, literacy development, assessments, and
data analysis, but also the ability to use their knowledge, skills, and observations to inform their
literacy intervention and instruction (Hamilton et al., 2009).
Reading Instruction and Assessments for Early Reading Intervention
Reading instruction should include reading readiness skills, such as phonemic awareness
and print concepts (i.e., knowledge of left-to-right directionality), the alphabetic principle, and
the understanding that letters make sounds and putting letter combinations together is the way
words are made (Cavanaugh, et al., 2004; Justice & Ezell, 2004). As Cavanaugh et al. (2004)
write, instruction should include phonological awareness taught with phonics and word
recognition strategies so students have the necessary knowledge and skills when encountering
unknown words.
Reading instruction is more successful when it is direct and systematic (Rupley, Blair, &
Nichols, 2009). Effective, research-based reading instruction includes explicit direction on the
key components of the reading process: phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, reading
comprehension, fluency, and oral language (Cavanaugh et al., 2004; Rupley et al., 2009).
Research-based reading instruction depends on identifying students at risk for reading
failure, and the first stage in a reading intervention and prevention program is universal
screening. Screens consist of assessments focused on specific skills that help predict which
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 22
students are at risk for reading failure. They are targeted to the reading skills relevant to the
grade and time the screen is administered (Jenkins, Hudson & Johnson, 2007).
Teachers must use accurate screening assessments to plan and deliver comprehensive,
focused instruction tailored (and adjusted as needed) to the students’ needs. Assessments can
provide information that produces actionable knowledge, narrowly defining student needs and
progress, evaluating the teacher’s effectiveness, and guiding instructional decisions (Marsh,
Pane, & Hamilton, 2006). To accomplish this, teachers must provide frequent, formative
assessments, known as progress monitoring. This can reveal teacher practice efficacy and inform
necessary adjustments (Stecker, Lembke, & Foegen, 2008).
To use assessment information effectively, educators need to have the data literacy skills
that allow them to use data to inform their practice and approach. Teachers need to know how to
synthesize data, examine multiple measures, draw inferences, and possess in-depth knowledge of
teaching and learning (Marsh, 2012). To implement data-driven instruction, teachers must
receive training focused on data analysis, technical knowledge, planning, and the use of
technology to transfer data into usable knowledge (Marsh et al., 2006).
Tailoring Approaches to Individual Student Needs
In addition to knowledge of data-driven foundational reading skills instruction, teachers
need to know how to provide targeted instruction that meets the needs of each student (Balu et
al., 2015). One example is multi-tiered instruction and intervention, an approach that uses early
identification to determine which students need additional literacy support. The multi-tiered
strategy uses a three-tiered instructional model to deliver instruction that targets the needed
skills. Multi-tiered systems, also called Response to Intervention (RTI), can be used to address
struggling emergent readers (Gersten & Dimino, 2006; Prasse et al., 2012). According to Balu et
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 23
al. (2015), Tier I is the universal instruction that all students receive, Tier II is instruction that
targets specific student needs, and Tier III is intensive instruction for students who require more
support (Balu et al., 2015; Denton, 2012).
Measuring Effectiveness
Individualized instruction using discrete components of the reading skills continuum
requires teachers to accurately screen and assess their students and use the data to plan and
deliver instruction (Menzies, Mahdavi, & Lewis, 2008). Essential to this process is measuring
the success of the instruction, which hinges on developing data systems to monitor and respond
to student progress. Importantly, teachers must be aware of which measures to use when
measuring instructional response. Early literacy proficiency indicators promote and assist
instructional decision making and growth measurement (Lonigan & Shanahan, 2009).
Assessment data can be used to monitor instructional program effectiveness and
decisions and inform the next instructional steps (Stecker et al., 2008). This is particularly the
case for implementing a multi-tiered approach to differentiated instruction, which requires
ongoing monitoring measuring student progress toward grade-level reading skills.
Assessment measurements are used to evaluate responsiveness to intervention,
student progress over time, the adequacy of the instruction, and help determine which
domains should be measured (Denton, 2012). An organizational culture that values the use
of data is vital to ensuring regular, consistent, and fruitful data-based decision making. In
practice, such data-driven early intervention programs require time to collaborate, analyze
student information, and monitor and respond to student progress (Hamilton et al., 2009).

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 24
Importance of Leadership
The success of early literacy intervention depends on reading instruction and how
intervention strategies are implemented (Darling-Hammond et al., 2016). Fidelity, intensity, and
quality are essential elements in a successful reading intervention program (Bianco, 2010), and
instructional leadership plays a vital part. School leadership must create an environment that
fosters practices supporting intervention and ensuring there is adequate time allocated to address
student needs.
A successful intervention model needs a professional learning community to develop
and focus on achievement data. The program should provide a structure that allows teachers to
systematically acquire information, reflect on it, use the data to inform the program design, and
learn from instructional efforts. As such, school leaders should facilitate an environment that
permits this. Additionally, leaders must have the ability to demonstrate that the value of the new
practices are worthwhile, such that teachers’ attitudes regarding current practices are worth
altering (Halverson, Grigg, Prichett, & Thomas, 2007).
Effects of Early Reading Failure
A 2012 longitudinal study by D.J. Hernandez found that the implications for students
who do not read proficiently can be profound and have enduring effects. According to Ferrer et
al. (2007), brain development is affected when a reading deficit is not corrected. Students who
are not reading at grade-level proficiency by third grade are four times more likely not to
graduate on time than proficient readers. Of students who read at a below-basic level, 23% either
fail to finish high school on time or drop out altogether. For students who have experienced
poverty at some point, 22% do not graduate from high school. This percentage grows to 32% for
children who have spent more than half their lives living in poverty. Poor African American and
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 25
Hispanic struggling readers are approximately eight times more likely not to finish high school
than proficient readers (Hernandez, 2012).
Reading below proficiency levels is a predictor of future academic failure. Most students
who are at high risk for reading failure and who do not participate in early reading intervention
in kindergarten continue to struggle to read by the end of first grade (Dion et al., 2010). What is
more, students who are non-proficient readers by the end of elementary school have a greater
risk of living in poverty in adulthood (Hernandez, 2012). Thus, low reading achievement can
result in long-term social consequences for public health, public safety, and chronic poverty
(Fiester, 2013).
Clark and Estes Gap Analytic Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is used to analyze and explain a phenomenon being studied
(Maxwell, 2013) by organizing, guiding, and identifying relevant questions, concepts, and
theories (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). The framework indicates links, relationships, and
concepts (Maxwell, 2013).
The conceptual framework used in this study is the Clark and Estes model. The
Clark and Estes framework (known as KMO) is a systematic analytic approach that
identifies sources of performance gaps and the performance improvement required to meet
organizational goals. This model clarifies goals and identifies the gaps between actual
performance level and preferred performance objectives. The process examines
stakeholder knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational barriers to determine the
cause of performance gaps, with the goal of identifying solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008).

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 26
Knowledge Types
According to Krathwohl (2002), there are four knowledge domains that affect learning
and performance. These are: declarative, which consists of factual knowledge (basic facts and
elements) and conceptual knowledge (i.e., knowledge of interrelationships between basic
elements); procedural, the understanding of how to do something; and metacognitive, which is
one’s awareness and knowledge of their own cognition. Each of these knowledge domains are
treated in depth below.
Declarative Knowledge
To achieve literacy intervention and instruction performance goals, an individual requires
knowledge of domains relevant to the subject area (Rueda, 2011). Effective early reading
intervention requires a teacher’s understanding and knowledge of the underlying foundational
early reading skills and appropriate instructional approaches. These key reading skills include
phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, text comprehension, and vocabulary (Lonigan &
Shanahan, 2009).
There is a range of declarative knowledge teachers should maintain to provide the
greatest capacity for crafting and implementing early literacy instruction and intervention
programs. Primary grade teachers require basic declarative knowledge elements, including
the terminology and pedagogy of foundational reading skills, instruction of phonemic awareness,
phonics, alphabetic principle, and intervention terminology and strategies (Amendum, 2014;
Bursuck, Munk, Nelson, & Curran, 2003; Rueda, 2011). Teachers must also possess knowledge
of educational theories, models, relationships, and connections between concepts. A teacher
evidences this knowledge through an understanding of specific skill needs, as well as their
selection of the intervention approach best suited to a student’s specific deficits (Gibson, 2010;
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 27
Rueda, 2011).
Primary teachers must have the knowledge and the ability to make instructional decisions
based on each student’s needs and diagnostic assessments (Denton et al., 2010). Providing
differentiated instructional approaches is essential to addressing the needs of students performing
at below-grade-level reading proficiency. Instruction differentiation involves:
1. Content – The skill the student needs to learn and how the student accesses the
information
2. Process – The activities students use to make meaning of or master the content
3. Product – Giving students opportunities to apply and extend his or her learning
4. Learning Environment – The classroom atmosphere and setting (Tomlinson, 2000).
Procedural Knowledge
Procedural knowledge refers simply to knowledge of how to accomplish a task (Clark &
Estes, 2008). In the context of primary grade literacy, effective foundational reading skills
instruction depends on teachers’ knowledge of how to deliver early reading instruction and
intervention (Amendum, 2014). This knowledge base includes activities that must be
implemented during early literacy instruction and intervention, such as the explicit phonics
instruction methodology, data-driven instructional decisions, and grouping students around skill
needs (Krathwohl, 2002). This kind of instruction is effective in imparting foundational reading
components to students struggling with reading (Bursuck et al., 2003).
Phonemic awareness (i.e., the ability to recognize letter-sound-word relationships) and
phonics are important reading skills that give students the tools they need to decode words.
Fluent reading depends on students’ decoding ability and word attack skills, which are predictive
of reading proficiency (Bowey, Cain, & Ryan, 1992; Denton et al., 2010). Thus, teachers require
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 28
specific procedural knowledge to provide phonemic awareness instruction, monitor student
progress, and reteach skills when necessary (Vaughn, Wanzek, Woodruff, & Linan-Thompson,
2007). As a part of this, students require multiple opportunities to apply newly learned abilities
by weaving skills into academic subjects (Denton & Hocker, 2006).
Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge is the awareness of one’s own cognitive process and a
conscious understanding and regulation of one’s learning (Marzano et al., 1988; Zimmerman,
2000). This is essential for monitoring and reflecting on one’s practice and adjusting learning
based on the knowledge of how one’s teaching skills are acquired (Mayer, 2011). Metacognitive
learners have knowledge of their own cognition and self-regulation (Baker, 2006), and to ensure
effective instruction takes place, primary grade teachers must have the ability to monitor and
control their own learning and reflect on their practices. Indeed, there is a reciprocal relationship
between self-regulated learning, one’s self-generated feelings, and actions used to achieve
learning and performance via metacognitive strategies (Ning, & Downing, 2010).
Metacognition is an essential element in strategic and problem-solving behavior. It helps
one understand what they know and what they need to learn. Metacognitive knowledge also
involves knowing which strategies are needed to carry out specific tasks, as well as maintaining
an awareness of the environment (Baker, 2006). For teachers, this type of knowledge requires
recognition of instructional strategy effectiveness, how to reflect on their practice, and which
strategies assist their own learning; this, while also being aware of motivational and self-
regulatory behavior.
Metacognitive thinking enhances both comprehension and retention (Curwen, Miller,
White-Smith, & Calfee, 2010). A teacher who is oriented toward metacognition checks for
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 29
understanding and regulates comprehension using a problem-solving approach (Lin, Schwartz, &
Hatano, 2005; Wilson & Bai, 2010). These strategies facilitate knowledge of one’s own
cognition and control over it, as well as support abilities to activate relevant knowledge and
implement appropriate measures (Baker, 2006). Table 3 presents the sources of assumed
knowledge influences and assessments.
Table 3
Sources of Assumed Knowledge, Influences

Assumed Knowledge and Skills Influences and Assessments
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment

Teachers need to
know the pedagogy underlying
foundational reading skills
instruction, alphabetic principle,
phonemic awareness, phonics,
and intervention terminology
and strategies.

Declarative

Teachers are observed during
instruction.
Teachers need to know
appropriate instructional
approaches.
Declarative Teachers are observed during
intervention instruction.
Teachers need to know how to
deliver early reading instruction
and intervention.
Procedural Teachers are observed during
intervention instruction.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 30
Motivational Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) identify three motivational influences affecting performance:
active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Active choice involves an individual choosing to
pursue a goal; persistence is necessary to invest mental effort, accomplish goals, and continue
when obstacles present themselves (Clark & Estes, 2008); and mental effort is choosing and
continuing to pursue a goal or accomplish a task (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kirschner & Kirschner,
2012).
Mayer (2011) describes motivation as an internal state that sustains behavior toward
attaining a goal. It is responsible for up to 50% of achievement in learning and training (Rueda,
2011). As such, motivation is central to teacher learning, acquiring the necessary strategies and
skills to provide effective literacy intervention and instruction. Motivation influences affect the
delivery of quality intervention through teachers’ feeling of self-efficacy, that is, their confidence
in their instructional knowledge and capability. The motivation to persist or disengage from a
task is affected by this belief in one’s abilities. Why one attains success or failure and the degree
to which they can control the outcomes are significant tools in understanding motivation in
educational settings (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
Attribution Theory
Attribution is the process people use to explain events or behaviors. It is a person’s
perception of why an event takes place (Weiner, 1972). Attribution theory posits that people
want to understand the environment and the reasons events take place and suggests that in an
achievement-related experience, people search for reasons to explain an event.
How one perceives an event affects their motivation in the future. According to this
theory, behavior is driven by a locus of control, a belief that events or learning are either within
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 31
one’s control (internal) or are a result of factors beyond their control (external) (Pashler,
McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2008). This impacts motivation (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). An
essential motivational determinant occurs when individuals believe that failing to meet a goal
may not be permanent and can be affected by things that can be controlled, such as an increase in
effort or knowledge. When this condition exists, individuals are likely to persevere and work
harder (Rueda, 2011).
A teacher’s belief that their efforts can improve their students’ progress by increasing
their knowledge and skills creates confidence in their ability to positively influence student
outcomes. Therefore, with the perception of an internal locus of control, teachers may feel self-
efficacious, allowing them to in turn seek out learning and the capacity to deliver early
intervention and instruction (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Attribution and Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is the belief and expectation that one possesses the ability to succeed in a
task. It is a central element of social cognitive theory, which views learning as a part of a
reciprocal relationship between environmental, personal, and behavioral factors (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon, 2006). Instructional and social influences on self-efficacy are active
engagement, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, physiological states, personal context, and
outcomes (Pajares, 2006).
Self-efficacy explains why people choose challenging activities, expend more effort, are
persistent, use complex learning strategies, and experience fewer feelings of fear and anxiety
(Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011). It is described as a conviction to
accomplish tasks required to produce an outcome. According to social cognitive theory, self-
efficacy influences goals, behavior, and actions and is affected by conditions within the
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 32
environment (Aldridge, Fraser 2016). Self-efficacy beliefs are dynamic learned systems that are
task specific (Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier, & Ellett, 2008). The literature states that feelings of
self-efficacy are not fixed character traits but are affected by how people identify the prospects
and barriers within their environment (Moè, Pazzaglia, & Ronconi, 2010).
A teacher’s self-efficacy is an important basis of motivation and commitment in all areas
of teaching, including the transfer of training (Grossman & Salas, 2011). Because self-efficacy is
the foundation for motivation, well-being and personal achievement (Eccles, 2006), teachers
must believe that their students’ reading skills and achievements are directly affected by their
efforts. If a teacher’s ability or effort to perform successful instruction is attributed to internal or
controllable sources, their self-efficacy is enhanced (Schunk, 1990); however, if instructional
success is attributed to chance or the work of others, self-efficacy may suffer.
Essential to teachers’ success as learners and educators then is their belief in their
competence, and this self-confidence can be enhanced by acquiring the skills and knowledge
required to support students facing below-grade-level reading skills. The increased self-efficacy
a teacher enjoys due to confidence in their own knowledge and skills affects their belief in their
instructional ability (Aldridge & Fraser, 2016). When teachers believe in their own abilities, they
will be more likely to organize, plan more efficiently, and attempt new approaches (Moè et al.,
2010). Thus, primary grade teachers who maintain positive perceptions of their instructional
practices, decisions, and effectiveness enjoy the confidence to engage new instructional practices
and support their students’ academic achievement (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Table 4
illustrates the summary of assumed motivational influences and assessments on teachers’
delivery of researched based foundational literacy instruction and intervention.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 33
Table 4
Summary of assumed motivational influences on teachers’ delivery of researched-based
literacy intervention

Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Attributions: Teachers should feel that
students’ reading skills are a direct result of
their instructional practices and efforts.

Interview question: How do you think your
reading instruction affects students’ reading
levels?
Self-efficacy: Teachers need to believe they
have the skills and knowledge to support
below-grade-level students.
Interview question: How confident do you feel
in your ability to provide effective early reading
instruction and intervention?

Organizational Influences
Knowledge, skills, motivation, and organizational barriers are important areas to examine
when evaluating performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). When knowledge and motivation are not
the cause of performance gaps, organizational obstacles should be examined. Barriers include the
lack of essential equipment or resources, and misaligned or inefficient work processes. In
addition to organizational processes, organizational culture and setting can affect teacher
performance, in part because culture is not observable (Clark & Estes, 2008). It is automatic and
involves beliefs that illustrate organizational and worker priorities. An organization’s culture is
the group of norms that exists within the workplace and determines what is valued and important
(Rueda, 2011).
Clark and Estes (2008) advise that along with knowledge and motivation, organizational
work processes should be examined for their contribution to early literacy instruction and
intervention. Even when knowledge and motivation exist, inefficient organizational systems,
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 34
resources, policies, and procedures can hinder performance (Rueda, 2011). If organizational
goals are to be attained, knowledge, skills, motivation, and work processes must be aligned.
Effective organizational performance is accomplished in part through procedures identifying
how individuals and resources interact to produce the desired outcome.
Cultural Models
Schein (2004) describes culture as a group whose members have a shared history.
Accordingly, groups with a common history develop culture, the strength of which depends on
the length of time the group has existed, its stability, and the magnitude of the shared
experiences.
An organization’s culture encompasses the values and beliefs of its participants. It is an
intangible guiding force within the workplace (Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996). More
specifically, cultural models are a pattern of collective fundamental assumptions learned by
groups in the process of problem solving (Schein, 2004). They determine organizational
structure, values, policies and procedures, rewards, and incentives (Rueda, 2011). These cultural
models shape the way an organization is structured and influences individuals’ workplace
patterns, routines, and reactions to change (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Attitudes, beliefs, and values operate within the organizational culture and guide
members in different situations (Schein, 2010). Attitudes are described as lasting beliefs around
an object or situation that causes one to react in a certain fashion (Hofstede, 1998). Once
attitudes take hold, they can be difficult to change (Abdul Rashid & Sambasivan, 2004). Much of
an organization’s culture resides beneath the surface and is implied in the worker patterns and
responses to challenges they face. The capacity to accept change has been associated with
worker acceptance of new policies and procedures (Zimmerman, 2000).
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 35
Cultural Settings
While cultural models are an organization’s beliefs and shared values, cultural settings
are the visible practices, actions, and routines that comprise an organization’s everyday operation
(Rueda, 2011). Cultural settings are where the cultural model’s values and beliefs are practiced.
Reward and punishment systems, along with norms for authority and relationships, govern how
people relate to each other, manage concerns, and gain meaning from their daily exchanges
(Schein, 2010).
Cultural models and settings interact with and affect each other; they are dynamic and
change over time (Rueda, 2011). Critical elements of change involve planning, assessment,
incentives, and rewards (Kezar, 2001). Effective organizations align incentives and constructive
feedback (Belsky, 2012), using non-financial rewards, such as recognition, to spark intrinsic
motivational influence (Reilly, 2004). Incentives should be used to attain challenging but
reachable goals, while also aligning with organizational performance goals (Clark & Estes,
2008).
To maintain a stable culture, it is essential that work practices are balanced and
sufficiently flexible to respond to changing conditions (Clark & Estes, 2008). In the primary
grade setting, the organizational structures that facilitate improvements in knowledge, skills, and
teaching practices are the allocation of time for planning, collaboration (including teacher
training), and observations (Graham, 2007).
With the available literature reviewed and assessed for its relevance to this study, the
following chapter presents the methodology for this study’s gap analysis investigating whether
Mesa Elementary teachers possess the essential instructional skills and resources to attain
organizational goals.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 36
CHAPTER THREE:
METHODOLOGY
This study conducted a gap analysis to examine the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences affecting Mesa Elementary’s goal to have all primary teachers capable
of implementing research-based foundational literacy instruction and intervention (See figure A).
According to Ahram, Fergus, and Noguera (2011), as well as Simmons et al. (2008), students at
risk of reading failure who do not receive early reading intervention are unlikely to become
proficient readers. A gap analysis is a systematic process to determine the root causes of the gap
between organizational goals and performance. Conducting a gap analysis provides strategies for
implementing performance solutions (Malloy, 2011). The analysis begins with goals and current
achievement to determine performance gaps. The next step in the process is to identify the
knowledge, motivational and organizational influences that may be impacting performance. The
final stage of the analysis is the development of implementation and evaluation solutions. Figure
A illustrates the gap analysis process.
Figure A

Gap Analysis Process

The “Matthew effect,” first identified by Keith Stanovich in 1986, posits that the
performance differences between proficient and non-proficient readers increase over time and
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 37
hinder academic progress by affecting the ability to gain new information. Indeed, the effects of
early reading failure can impact students' academic performance for their entire lives (Cain &
Oakhill, 2011). The research questions that guided this study are:
1. To what extent are Mesa Elementary’s Transitional Kindergarten, kindergarten, first-

grade and second-grade teachers meeting their performance goal of delivering research-

based early reading skills instruction and intervention?

2. What are the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences related to achieving
this organizational goal?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivational, and organizational resources?
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework used in this study is the Clark and Estes model. Known as
KMO, this conceptual model examines the knowledge, motivational, and organizational factors
and barriers that influence performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). The study employs a systematic
problem-solving approach to identify causes of performance gaps and derive data-driven
performance solutions. This gap analysis procedure relies on interviews and observations, the
data from which were analyzed using thematic coding.
The knowledge required to deliver research-based early literacy intervention requires
Mesa Elementary's primary grade teachers to possess declarative (factual and conceptual),
procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. Figure B presents the conceptual framework
components, depicting the relationships between the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational influences affecting the delivery of literacy intervention and instruction. The
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 38
school is at the top, indicating the interaction of cultural models, settings, and structure on
teacher knowledge and motivation.
Figure B

Early Literacy Intervention

Knowledge and Motivation Assessments
Understanding how the knowledge domains influence learning and performance can help
reveal barriers and challenges Mesa Elementary primary grade teachers experience in delivering
early literacy intervention and instruction. Table 2, “Sources of Assumed Knowledge
Influences,” explains knowledge influences and assessments for determining how assumed
influences affect teacher instruction. Table 3, “Summary of Assumed Motivational Influences,”
illuminates the assumed motivational influences of self-efficacy and attribution that may be
affecting the delivery of early reading instruction and intervention. These knowledge and
motivational influences are assessed using qualitative interviews and observations.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 39
Organizational/Culture/Context Assessment
Table 5, “Assumed Organizational Influences,” details organizational influences affecting
teachers’ delivery of foundational reading skills. For Mesa Elementary teachers, this study’s
assessment of organizational influences includes qualitative interviews and observations.
Table 5
Assumed Organizational Influences and Assessments

Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment

Cultural Model Influence 1: Is planning and
collaboration time valued?

Interviews and observations to ascertain
teachers’ attitudes and beliefs

Cultural Setting Influence 2: Is teacher
collaboration time furnished?

Interviews to ascertain if collaboration
and planning time are available

Cultural Setting Influence 3: Are rewards and
incentives established to support teachers’ delivery
of early reading instruction and intervention?

Interviews and observations to ascertain
if awards and incentives exist

Cultural Setting Influence 4: Are there policies,
procedures and resources available to increase
professional growth?

Interviews to ascertain what kind of
incentives and training exist

Table 6 presents the assumed knowledge, motivational and organizational influences that
may impact teachers’ instructional practice as it relates to research-based foundational literacy
delivery. Assessments and the related questions are also included.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 40
Table 6
Assumed Influences and Assessments
ASSUMED INFLUENCES ASSESSMENTS

Knowledge Influences

Interviews and Observations

Declarative: Teachers know the
pedagogy and theory of foundational reading
skills instruction, alphabetic principle,
phonemic awareness, phonics, and
intervention terminology and strategies.

How do you decide what reading skills to
target when delivering reading intervention
and instruction?
Declarative: Teachers know appropriate
instructional approaches.
Do you evaluate students to determine where
they are in terms of foundational reading
skills, and if so, how?

How do you differentiate instruction when you
find that a student needs foundational literacy
skills support?

Do you use any specific strategies in your
reading instruction to increase reading
proficiency?

Procedural: Teachers know how to deliver
early reading intervention.

When you find that a student is reading below
grade level benchmark, how do you plan your
instruction and what do you do?
Motivational Influences Interviews

Attributions: Teachers are confident that
student’s reading skills are directly affected by
their instructional practices and efforts.

How do you think your reading instruction
affects students’ reading levels?
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 41

Self-Efficacy: Teachers believe they have the
skills and knowledge to support below-grade
level students.

How confident do you feel in your ability to
provide effective early reading instruction
and intervention?
How or why do you feel this way?
Organizational Influences Interviews

Cultural models and cultural settings

Do you value and if so is there enough time
for collaboration, planning and analyzing
data?

What resources and time are available for you
to plan and think about how you go about your
instruction? (organizational influence)
How are your efforts recognized?

Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholders selected for this study’s sample were all teachers at Mesa Elementary
working with Transitional Kindergarten, kindergarten, first-grade, and second-grade students.
The sample included those directly responsible for delivering early reading intervention to
primary grade students. The sample consisted of: one teacher working with Transitional
Kindergarten and kindergarten students; one first-grade teacher; one teacher providing
intervention for all primary grades; and three second-grade teachers. These individuals were
selected for their varying responsibilities for delivering early literacy instruction, and when
needed, foundational literacy intervention.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The first phase of the study focused on interviews. In this phase, the six primary
participants were asked to participate in an interview, which included questions regarding
knowledge, motivational, and organizational elements that might be influencing performance
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 42
goals. A non-probability purposeful sample (wherein respondents are chosen based on the
researcher’s judgement) was used to determine how teachers interpret their experience, how they
make sense of their world at work, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A random sampling technique was not appropriate due to the small
size of the participant group.
Accessing sample participants was done according to Institutional Review Board (IRB)
procedures and guidelines, and by required informed consent documents (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). After this, participants were invited to participate in the study, and those who volunteered
were scheduled for interviews.
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
After interviews, observations were made to provide the contextual understanding of the
classroom teachers’ practices. This was done using an observational protocol for recording
information that was developed using information from interview questions. The observations
provided an additional data source that could be organized into categories and themes, revealing
patterns that provide greater clarity and insight into influences on delivering early literacy
intervention and instruction (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Observations also
yielded details about teacher, classroom, and school-wide routines and practices, which helped to
validate and illuminate interview findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Observations recorded with the observation protocol were used to determine if screening,
progress monitoring, phonemic awareness, and phonics intervention instruction are being used at
Mesa Elementary (Creswell, 2014). The protocol delineated who is providing the intervention
(i.e., teacher, teacher's aide, or parent volunteer). As with the interview process, informed
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 43
consent documents were signed as needed and observations were made and recorded according
to IRB procedures and guidelines (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data for this study was collected primarily through interviews and observations. Both of
these methods raised a series of considerations for data collection.
Interviews: Interviews were conducted in person by this author. All interviews took
place after the school day in the teachers’ classrooms, so as to facilitate a comfortable, non-
threatening environment. Audio recordings were used to capture a complete record of the
interview data, and no notes were used, so as to encourage a conversational atmosphere.
Six Mesa Elementary primary teachers were invited to participate. Participants were
presented with 15 open-ended questions exploring the influences of knowledge, motivational,
and organizational barriers as they relate to teacher delivery of early literacy instruction and
intervention. A $10 Starbucks gift card was offered to participants as a recruitment incentive.
(Appendix A contains the interview instrument.)
Observations: This study employed a semi-structured observation process using
information derived from teacher interviews (Creswell, 2014). Observations were made in
primary grade classroom settings at Mesa Elementary. Each study participant was observed for
30 minutes to one hour during early literacy whole and small group instruction and intervention.
The handwritten field notes recorded the physical setting to provide context to the strategies and
activities teachers employed during the English Language Arts instructional block, which is the
time when formal reading instruction took place. The observation tool was created using the
knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences as guides. (Appendix B contains the
observation instrument.)
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 44
Data Analysis Plan
Interviews were evaluated following a four-phase analysis: open coding; analytic coding;
identifying themes; and findings, assertions, and propositions. In phase one, the study employed
open coding to identify emergent or in vivo codes, leading to the development of a priori codes
using the knowledge, motivational, and organizational elements contained in the conceptual
framework. A codebook was created to assist in the development of themes and typicality. Phase
two involved coding focused on typicality and themes to generate analytical codes representing
concepts and thoughts on meanings that emerge from the open coding (Merriam & Tidsdale,
2016). During the data collection period, analytic memos helped document and synthesize data
to identify early assumptions (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). Phase three consisted of
identifying patterns that led to themes or insights, and phase four yielded findings, assertions,
and propositions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness of Data
This study employed a variety of methodologies to ensure the recorded data’s
trustworthiness. The study secured respondent validation through follow-up questions and
observations to establish the accuracy of the findings. In addition, the study used a triangulation
of interview and observational data to identify insights, emerging themes, and findings
(Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
After identifying relevant themes, interview data was compared with observations using
analytical strategies and tools, such as questioning or brainstorming, comparing, and drawing on
personal instructional experience to validate and confirm data congruency across the two
collection procedures (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 45
Role of Investigator
This author is the magnet coordinator for Mesa Elementary. Although not technically
administrative, the author functions as part of management, and is considered part of the
administrative team. As a member of the organization, the author has a vested interest in the
success of Mesa Elementary teachers. In the context of this study, the author’s role was to
conduct a problem-solving investigation aimed at improving Mesa Elementary’s organizational
performance.
Several steps were taken to avoid confusion regarding the author’s dual role as
investigator and administration team member. The author assured participants that their
anonymity and confidentiality was guaranteed. Informed consent materials contained assurances
that the information the study collected would be kept confidential and interview responses
would be recorded anonymously (Whelan, 2007). Participants were also presented with the
author’s background and how it may influence conclusions. Guarantees were made that negative
and/or discrepant information would be included to portray a comprehensive reflection of the
Mesa Elementary environment. (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013).
Before interviews began, the author informed participants that participation was
voluntary, and in agreement with IRB process, teachers were informed about how collected
information would be used and published.
Ethics
While conducting this study, the author maintained ethical standards that align with IRB
requirements and Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) assertion that ethical behavior primarily relies on
the researcher's beliefs and values. Therefore, transparency was a priority while conducting
interviews and observations.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 46
A wide body of industry guidelines and best practices emphasize that research
participants must have the necessary information to make an informed decision on whether to
participate in a study. They must also have the knowledge that they can withdraw from the study
at any time and with no consequence (Glesne, 2011). In line with this and per IRB protocols, all
participants were furnished informed consent forms before the study began and were informed
that the study was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time.
Additionally, as with any academic study involving human subjects, the right to privacy
is a crucial concern. All participants enjoyed the expectation of confidentiality, and this study
rigidly adhered to IRB protocols governing interactions and identities to ensure confidentiality.
All participants received consent forms requesting permission to observe classroom activities
and use the information gathered from observations and interviews as a part of this research
endeavor.
Per ethical research code requirements, this study was submitted to the University of
Southern California and the Oak View Unified School District Institutional Review Boards and
followed their respective requirements.
Limitations
Limitations are constraints outside of a researcher’s control that can affect the study
(Simon, 2013). This study’s limitations included a small sample size, which narrowed the
breadth of data available for collection. What is more, a limited timeframe to gather data
precluded the researcher from opportunities to revisit interviewees and conduct longer
observations in greater volume. In addition, the nature of self-reporting is inherently limiting as it
cannot be independently substantiated and may include biases. To gather the most reliable data,
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 47
the researcher contacted the interviewees numerous times during data analysis to clarify and
request additional information.
Delimitations
Delimitations are elements of the study that the researcher can control and chooses to
include (Simon, 2013). This study’s delimitations are represented by the group of teachers
selected for interview and observation. Because early foundational reading skills are not part of
the curriculum beyond third grade, teachers working with students beyond primary grades were
excluded as possible study participants. Including all teachers with experience in the primary
grades would have increased the sample size, providing more data, but it also would have made
classroom observations impossible, since some teachers were not engaged in teaching primary
grades at the time of this study.
With these methodological concepts explained, it is possible to perform the gap analysis
and identify whether Mesa Elementary teachers possess the essential instructional skills and
resources necessary to attain organizational goals.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 48
CHAPTER FOUR:
RESULTS
This research project performed a gap analysis to examine the knowledge, motivational,
and organizational influences affecting the delivery of early literacy intervention and instruction
at Mesa Elementary. Interviews and observations were designed to validate, assess, confirm, or
dismiss the assumed influences and barriers affecting primary teachers’ delivery of research-
based foundational early reading skills instruction and intervention. The qualitative interviews
conducted for this study focused on two primary questions:
1. To what extent are Mesa Elementary’s primary grade teachers meeting the performance
goal of delivering research-based early literacy reading instruction and intervention?
2. What are the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences related to achieving
this organizational goal?
In addition to interviews, on-site observations were used to understand teachers’ daily
practices in their professional settings. After comparing collected data, the interviews and
observations provided insight into teachers’ interpretation of their work world (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). To preserve source anonymity, the teachers’ names are withheld. Sources are
instead referenced as follows:
• Participant 1- P1
• Participant 2- P2
• Participant 3- P3
• Participant 4- P4
• Participant 5- P5
• Participant 6- P6
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 49
This chapter presents research results in the areas of knowledge influences (declarative
and procedural), motivational influences (attribution and self-efficacy), and organizational
influences (planning time and teacher recognition).
Knowledge Influences – Declarative
Declarative knowledge refers to theories, models, relationships, and connections between
concepts. In foundational reading intervention and instruction, the strategies and pedagogy
underlying reading skills instruction include the alphabetic principle, phonemic awareness,
phonics instruction, and intervention terminology and strategies (Amendum, 2014). Research-
based approaches to instruction include data analysis, targeted small group instruction, teachers’
understanding of specific skill requirements, and the modes of instruction and intervention
appropriate to addresses student needs. The latter includes specific instructional efforts teachers
use to respond to their students’ various needs (Gibson, 2010; Rueda, 2011; Tomlinson, 2000).
Interviews established that all six teachers use various instructional approaches to tailor
their instruction to student needs. Depending on student needs, teachers reported using: small
groups combined with one-on-one instruction; tactics, such as working with whiteboards,
flashcards, word play, and phonemic awareness activities; and differentiation. The observations
confirmed the use of varied strategies such as modeling, consonant letter blending, sentence
frames, dictating sentences, and graphic organizers. Observations did not confirm the use of
small group differentiated instruction in all classrooms.
Teaching a class that has both Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and kindergarten students
(4 to 5 years old), P1 remarked:
I always have my one-on-one aids, my different intervention groups. If they know their
letters, then [we focus on] high frequency words and then more blending the words. And
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 50
then I just go with, OK, what are the most important skills that they need right now?
Because he's not going to be able to build the words or the sounds if he doesn't get the
letters...I have two groups. Low-kinder [below grade-level], they are grouped with TKs.
The other group has at-grade-level-and-above kindergarten students. The intervention
teacher pulls TKs and two other groups of kinders for various skills.
In the first observation in this classroom, the teacher’s assistant worked with a small
group of kindergarten students on the lower end of foundational skills, identifying letter sounds
and practicing writing the letters. Meanwhile, the larger group worked with the teacher on
writing sentences. P1 stated that she begins with basic concepts and builds from there. She said:
I have a student [who] turned 6 years old today, and I've been very concerned because he
does not know his alphabet. He's getting individual tutoring each morning on just getting
the alphabet. Writing it, reading it, just various, different ways. Using the big whiteboard,
using the little whiteboard. Looking at it, looking at the little flash cards. Also, working
on his words. And then he goes into a small intervention group with three or four kids.
Letter-naming as a skill predicts future reading acquisition, and P1’s approach to ensure
the student attains this critical pre-reading skill shows an essential instructional response
(Franceschini, Gori, Ruffino, Pedrolli, & Facoetti, 2012). Indeed, it indicates a clear declarative
knowledge that allows P1 to identify student challenges and pair them with the appropriate
literacy intervention strategies. In a classroom that has both Transitional Kindergarten and
kindergarten students, observations confirmed the use of small group instruction, a model where
differentiated instruction often takes place. Students at different literacy skill levels are grouped
according to instructional needs. This approach is an effective research-based strategy for
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 51
students at risk of reading failure and those who have below-grade-level reading skills (Gersten
et al., 2008). It is an example of this teacher’s declarative knowledge.
First-grade teacher P2 expressed similar sentiments, noting that she focuses on students
struggling to master basic reader knowledge, such as short vowel sounds. She indicated she
begins with phonemic awareness skills (i.e., the ability to identify, hear, and manipulate sounds
in words) (Ehri et al., 2001).
P2 said she begins with a diagnostic assessment called the Basic Phonics Skills Test to
determine what skills students possess and their needs. She then uses the data to plan her
instruction, starting with phonemic awareness skills and short vowels for intervention. When
asked how she uses differentiated instruction, P2 said:
Usually, I just start with short vowels, basically, if I'm doing intervention. With the whole
class, I'm just starting, basically, with the beginnings of where I should be, based on my
series. Then, within the small groups, you can figure out who needs what skills.
The lesson observed in P2’s classroom was a whole group reading comprehension lesson
with students seated on a rug in the front of the classroom. The teacher used various techniques
to ensure student understanding, beginning with discussion of the genre, clarifying information,
exploring the pictures, and using a cooperative learning technique by asking students to discuss
answers to her questions with the student sitting next to them (called “turn and talk” or “think,
pair, share”) (Honig et al., 2013). After the students engaged in a conversation with their partner,
P2 asked students, “Who can tell me what their partner said?”
The observation did not confirm small group differentiated instruction; however, within
the whole class instruction, the teacher demonstrated both declarative and procedural research-
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 52
based comprehension strategies using cooperative learning, constructing meaning from text,
using visual text strategies, and identifying the genre (Honig et al., 2013).
P3 independently taught a first-grade class at the beginning of the year, but due to
declining enrollment, she volunteered to become a part-time intervention teacher. When asked
how she differentiates instruction, she said:
It's a lot of repetition because I think that kids who struggle just really need a lot of over-
teaching [i.e., re-teaching and reviewing]. When I would do groups, and I would have
writing, listening, phonemic awareness, working with me, and then some seat work.
The observation in this room confirmed small group instruction. The teacher worked with
a small group on reading comprehension while another student worked with a school
grandparent volunteer going over letter recognition and sounds. The volunteer guided the student
as he identified letters and sounds and wrote them on a whiteboard. Meanwhile, the group sat at
desks, each with their own book, reading a story about animal habitats. The teacher guided
students through a lesson in which she asked students to tell her a forest habitat’s features and
details.
The teacher drew a visual diagram called a graphic organizer to help students identify the
habitat. In this instance, students were shown a diagram with the habitat in the middle,
surrounded by descriptions. With this visual aid, P3 asked delving questions to spark student
thinking. She directed students to “think, pair, share,” a collaborative learning strategy that
encourages conversation and thinking skills (Gunter, Estes, & Schwab, 1999). Following that
assignment, P3 presented a short vocabulary lesson working on changing ending sounds to alter
the meaning of words.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 53
Similar to P1 and P2 classrooms, observation of P3 instruction confirmed the use of both
declarative and procedural research-based instructional models and strategies, such as use of
small groups to deliver targeted instruction. Teachers also used a variety of intervention
strategies (e.g., graphic organizer, think-pair-share). These activities help students build
comprehension, engagement, and critical thinking skills and are examples of declarative
knowledge strategies and techniques (Honig et al., 2013).
Second-grade teacher P4 emphasized the importance of using small group instruction but
noted she finds it difficult to accomplish it daily due to various school activities and functions.
She said:
I do it individually, and I do it in small groups. I do it kind of peer assistance, peer
tutoring. I try and get it in any way that I can. And my groups are the one thing that I'd
probably throw out the window if we run out of time, where I think I personally need to
work on. Those groups need to be done all the time.
P4 commented that her work with groups is the first thing she cuts out of her instructional
program when facing time constraints or when school activities interfere. This may prevent
differentiation, which is at the heart of an intervention program.
In addition to the differentiated instruction strategies, P4 uses the results of a weekly
reading program assessment to determine which skills to target, noting, “With this new program,
I really look to see what skills they're doing specifically within that week.”
Curriculum-based tests are formative and must be used along with screening and
diagnostic assessment to determine below-grade-level student literacy needs. As this is not a
research-based strategy, this is an area of declarative knowledge the teacher could strengthen
through professional development training.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 54
The observation in P4’s room confirmed the use of small group differentiated instruction,
as students were divided into groups according to their reading proficiency. An above-grade-
level student group worked in a workbook from their language arts series, the at-grade-level
group worked with the teacher on a comprehension lesson, and a below-grade-level group
worked on an online literacy program on iPads. The well-below-grade-level group worked with a
teaching assistant writing in their journals.
Differentiation was observed in this classroom, and although P4 stated that she does
deliver foundational reading skills instruction, due to time constraints, the researcher did not
observe a foundational literacy skill lesson.
For most of the time observed, the at-grade-level group working with the teacher was on
task. The students sat on a rug as the teacher guided them through an expository selection from
their reading series. Once they completed the passage, P4 began a reading comprehension lesson
with the question, “Why is it dangerous for prairie animals?”
A student responded, “Because there are not many places to hide.”
P4 then prompted students to read a paragraph and look at the photo, asking students,
“What is the picture showing?” After students offered an explanation, P4 asked the students to
read the next paragraph and indicate what the photo showed. Here the teacher asked students to
use text evidence to help them understand the information by connecting it to the picture.
Asking text-related questions and making inferences are examples of research-based
comprehension strategies. As such, the teacher demonstrated both declarative and procedural
knowledge by using these techniques in the lesson. In addition, interview and observational data
demonstrated that P4 uses differentiated instruction, a sound research-based literacy strategy
(Honig et al., 2013).
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 55
Second-grade teacher P5 noted that she uses more one-on-one approaches than small
group instruction. She differentiates instruction by using the same material presented differently,
according to student needs. She said, “I just give them an extra assignment similar to [what other
students are reading]. They would just have to keep on it a little bit longer until they get it, and
then the other ones can move to something else.”
In this classroom, the teacher uses the same materials for all reading levels. For students
who are below grade level, P5 adjusts the demands on students so they are required to complete
less complex assignments while receiving similar academic content. This is an example of a
declarative knowledge strategy and instructional differentiation.
In her remarks, P5 was not specific on explicit and systematic instruction. She said that
she uses weekly assessments to determine which literacy skills to target but noted that her
primary method of tracking student needs is “mainly through observation, because we do a lot of
out-loud reading.”
Although P5 stated that she uses one-on-one instruction, the researcher did not observe
that instructional strategy. Instead, the observation of a reading lesson in P5’s room confirmed
the use of whole classroom instruction. The class had seven first-grade students and 15 second-
grade students. Students read a picture book about the life of Martin Luther King, Jr. P5 asked
the students to look through the story and draw pictures about what they saw. P5 then reviewed
story vocabulary words, wrote them on the board, and used them in sentences.
P5 called the students to the rug and asked them to use their fingers to follow along in
their own books while she read to them. She instructed students to clap when they heard a
vocabulary word, and using a clicker, the students said the word aloud at the sound of the click.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 56
P5 regularly stopped to ask questions and allow students to make inferences. When the story
finished, the students went to their desks and looked up the vocabulary words in their glossaries.
In the next observation in P5’s class, students read the story about Martin Luther King, Jr
in a “round robin” reading fashion, where students took turns reading aloud. During the lesson,
the teacher prompted the students reading to ask for help from their classmates. P5 also helped
students by using visual cues, such as hand gestures to signify blending sounds together.
During the interview, P5 mentioned using research-based foundational reading strategies,
such as explicitly teaching sound spellings and spelling patterns (Honig et al., 2013). This
demonstrated the teacher’s declarative knowledge; however, during this observation, no phonics
research-based reading models or strategies were observed.
Second-grade teacher P6 noted that she tailors her instructional approach to students’
specific needs. She said:
Most of the differentiation happens during workshop time. We have our whole group
time. Then we have our small group time, and during that time is when most of the
differentiation happens. Student A would not really receive phonics in their small group,
if that's not what they need the most of…Here's only a small group that really needs those
blending phonemic awareness and phonics skills in small group.
The observation in this classroom confirmed the use of small group instruction. One
group of four students worked with the teacher on a reading comprehension lesson while other
students worked on a literacy application on iPads. Another group worked on writing activities in
a language arts program workbook. During the lesson with the teacher, the students each read a
page, after which the teacher asked questions to clarify the story. Interspersed within the
comprehension lesson, the teacher presented short mini-lessons on vocabulary and consonant
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 57
blending from material within the story. By this, P6 demonstrated declarative and procedural
knowledge of research-based instruction. She used differentiation, clarification, and explicit
teaching of consonant blends (Honig et al., 2013; Tomlinson, 2000).
As with the other second-grade teachers, P6 said she uses reading assessment results to
target and differentiate instruction. She said, “Depending on the skills that they’re struggling
with that I noticed on the assessments, I will plan accordingly from there based on the results.
So, either comprehension, phonics, or phonemic awareness skills based on that.”
The interviews and observations illustrate that Mesa Elementary primary teachers use a
variety of instructional methods and approaches. Importantly, however, some of the strategies
employed do not align with current research on early literacy instruction and intervention.
“Round robin” reading is commonly understood among researchers to be an ineffective strategy
that negatively impacts students’ comprehension and delays their fluency growth (Ash, Kuhn, &
Walpole, 2008). Therefore, there is a need for training and professional development of
declarative knowledge research-based reading techniques.
While some differentiation is used, not all teachers analyzed data to drive their
instruction, deliver systematic and explicit phonics instruction, or use small targeted groups on a
regular basis to differentiate instruction. All teachers screen their students but the majority do not
use the data to determine next steps. Monitoring student progress is an important element in
phonics instruction and intervention. Therefore, there is a need for professional development in
research-based declarative knowledge reading instruction. This partially validates a declarative
knowledge gap.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 58
Knowledge Influences – Procedural
Effective early literacy intervention and instruction depends on teachers’ knowledge of
how to plan and deliver it (Amendum, 2014). Research-based foundational reading skills
instruction begins with assessment, specific skill instruction, and monitoring to assess skill
acquisition (Menzies et al., 2008). Research-based components include: a procedure of ongoing
assessment employed to monitor students’ progress and skill attainment (Deno, Fuchs, Marston,
& Shin, 2001); knowledge of how to deliver targeted instruction using small groups (Foorman &
Torgesen, 2001; Vaughn et al., 2003), and an explicit instructional methodology (Coyne et al.,
2001; Torgesen, 2002).
Interviews confirmed that this study’s subjects administer universal screening
assessments. All teachers are required by the Oak View School District to use the Dynamic
Indicators of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) to determine whether students are at risk of reading
failure. All six teachers interviewed used additional assessments and/or observations to
determine the foundational skills students possessed, as well as their instructional needs.
Importantly, however, not all teachers fully used the information garnered from assessments to
inform instruction. Interviews also confirmed that some teachers know how to use small targeted
explicit group instruction.
P1 indicated she uses the DIBELS to determine baseline skills and to create student
grouping around skills, an example of procedural knowledge. This demonstrates teacher
knowledge of how to tailor instruction to a student’s specific needs. She said:
The window for DIBELS opens up the first day of school. I usually wait until the second
week of school...So the second week, I take my recess, pull them in, and give them their
two different tests with DIBELS. They have to tell me the letters out of order—capital,
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 59
lower case, they're all scrambled. And then they have to give me the first sound of words,
and that'll show me right away, have we come in with some skills? Have we not? Where
to start? Who to group in my tables, who's in my lower group, my medium-high group?
Who am I going to start working with my one-on-one aids right away?
To determine reading skills level, P1 uses various screening strategies such as high-
frequency word knowledge, decodable books, workbooks, unit assessments, and observations.
She uses the data collected to determine her two groups and the instruction they receive. P1
includes above- and at-grade-level students in one group and below-grade-level students in a
separate group. According to Gersten et al. (2008), the most effective small groups for struggling
students consist of two to five students. Therefore, this is an area where procedural knowledge
can be enhanced through training and professional development.
During a classroom visit, the kindergarten students participated in a whole class phonics
lesson. The students received worksheets with pictures and beneath the pictures were blank
boxes representing the letters. These are called Elkonin or sound boxes, an effective phoneme
segmentation phonemic awareness tool (Joseph, 2008). In a previous lesson, the students
counted the sounds and colored in a box for each sound they heard. In this lesson, the students
used the paper to revisit the sounds in the words. First, they counted the sounds with their fingers
on their arm. Then P1 sounded out each word, asking, “How many sounds are there in the word
‘plug?’”
P1 wrote the word on the board and the children wrote the word under the boxes. This
lesson demonstrates P1’s use of research-based procedural knowledge, evidenced by the
phonemic awareness lesson.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 60
P2 reported using the DIBELS, supplementing it with the CORE Phonics Survey (which
assesses phonics and phonics-related skills) and the Basic Phonics Skills Test (BPST). P2 uses
these assessments as a diagnostic tool to determine groups and make instructional decisions. She
said she conducts assessments at the beginning of the year to determine where students’ reading
deficiencies lay, looking specifically at deficiencies in letters, sound recognition, and identifying
short vowels. P2 said:
The BPST tells me all the letter sounds the child knows. And then it'll tell me if they
know digraphs, short vowels, long vowels. This test is interesting because they're reading
and decoding. But, for example, the BPST is more looking at phonemic awareness…So if
I say a word like “tower,” can you identify the first sound? It's looking at initial sounds,
middle sounds, ending sounds, and if they're really hearing it, which I think also
DIBELS, the phoneme segmentation test, does as well.
P2 commented that the BPST offers detailed phonemic awareness and phonics
information, such as whether the student is hearing individual sounds. She finds it helpful as a
diagnostic tool, stating:
At the end of kindergarten, they should know their letters and sounds…They should
know their consonants and then their short vowels. So, this is a good test of just seeing,
first of all, do they know all of the sounds, because in DIBELS, it's just letter naming.
These remarks illustrate P2’s procedural knowledge of how to screen, determine, and
target the foundational literacy skills her students need. She explained her use of the 95% Group
Program for students struggling with short vowels. Students who “don't have a big high-
frequency sight-word recognition” complete practice exercises, while those struggling with
hearing sounds that are alike, like rhyming words, use short stories focusing on a specific ending
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 61
sounds. P2 said she uses “whatever is available that is going to build their word recognition, their
fluency, and their ability to recognize that each letter has sounds and that when you put them
together, they make words.”
P2s procedural knowledge is evident. For each instructional need, she uses research-
based techniques and strategies to provide instruction for students who need foundational reading
intervention.
P3 uses the DIBELS, as well as writing samples and teacher observation to determine
instructional support. P3 said:
We use DIBELS. We use teacher observation. We use writing samples. We look into if
children have beginning sounds, middle sounds, ending sounds, if they have rhyming
skills, if they know any high-frequency words, if they can write words, if they can
distinguish between letters and words.
P3 also said that observations throughout lessons are important for identifying students in
need of, for example, additional focused instruction on short vowel sounds. While repetition is
important, P3 said:
You need to keep reviewing, but you also want to move forward, because I think that’s
the way the brain works. It's seeing everything going on all the time, and so you may be
working on short A, but then you start introducing other short vowels, O, U, E, and all of
a sudden, they get it, and then the A sound comes as well.
P3 offered an anecdote about a week of lessons focusing on a short A sound, at the end of
which half the class had learned the sound while half had not fully mastered it. The following
week, however, when lessons focused on the short O sound, all students grasped not just the new
short O sound but those who had struggled the week before grasped the short A sound also. P3
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 62
concluded, “So you don't want to just say, ‘Well, since you haven't gotten short A, I'm just going
to focus on this for the next month.’ ”
P3 expressed other procedural knowledge, including reviewing phonemic awareness
skills, focusing on beginning and ending sounds and rhymes. She also uses physical aids, such
as letter tiles, letter cards, whiteboards, blending sounds to form words, and students working in
their own dictation book.
P4 administers the DIBELS assessment at the beginning of the school year but said she
does not use it to make instructional decisions, as she does not think the assessment shows true
results. Rather, P4 uses activities to observe student literacy challenge areas and target them for
intervention and further instruction. During independent time, P4 works separately with one or
two students at a time.
P4 stated that she uses a research-based strategy called making words (i.e., students make
words by changing and rearranging letters, the teacher speaks a sound, changes beginning and
ending sounds, students find corresponding letter on tiles or cards) and sound-by-sound blending
(i.e., putting sounds together to form words). While P4 uses these procedural knowledge
research-based reading instructional strategies, screens and diagnostic tools are nevertheless an
essential component of a research-based reading program. Although not all screens and
diagnostic assessments can give teachers all the information they require, they are a crucial
element of effective foundational reading skills instruction and intervention. In this case,
research demonstrates a procedural knowledge deficit.
P5 uses DIBLES and supplements it with the BPST. In some agreement with P4, P5 said:
If DIBELS is going to make it look like everybody’s in the green [i.e., at grade-level],
because there’s such a variance, you don’t want to use it as much because it is not
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 63
showing an accurate record. When you have the actual points and you can see, like on the
BPST, where as soon as we come to blended letters, they can’t get that, the endings, then
you can really see that.
P5 believes that the DIBELS can show an inaccurate picture of a student’s reading skills.
It can be confusing due to a variety of assessments culminating with a composite score that is
averaged and can indicate no risk; when the individual instruments are examined closely, more
information can be gleaned. Thus, while both the BPST and the DIBELS may be imperfect
screens, they can be used for some diagnostic purposes.
P5 emphasized that as well as assessments, she relies on observations gleaned while the
class is reading aloud. Collectively, she uses the data collected to ascertain what skills her
students have and uses the information as a marker. P5 does not heavily focus on explicit
phonics until the second semester, saying, “Usually they all come around the same level of
needing long vowels and vowel combinations, so I’m going to work on that in the second part of
the year.”
At that point, she determines which students have not gained grade-level phonics skills.
P5 offered some additional practices she uses:
We go through all the short vowels. P-ET, pet; M-ET, met [an example of blending]. And
we do all the E-T endings, and a lot of kids can't rhyme. If they get here without rhyming,
there's going to be some things they don't hear.
Knowing how to rhyme is a fundamental foundational literacy skill and an important
point of focus in reading instruction. In addition, explicitly teaching ending sounds and blending
them is an important research-based skill and is an example of P5’s procedural knowledge. The
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 64
practice of delaying the explicit teaching of sound spelling, however, may result in below-grade-
level reading at the end of the year.
A phonics lesson in P5’s classroom began with a poster containing a row of vowels.
Beneath each vowel were vowel-sound spelling patterns. P5 began with the letter A, asking
students to identify and sound out the sound-spelling patterns. P5 pointed to the sound-spelling
“ea,” asking the students, “What does this say?” After establishing the “ea” sound with students,
P5 paired the vowel sound with consonants, blending letter combinations to form words.
P5’s phonics lesson exemplified her declarative knowledge through use of explicit
phonics strategies. This lesson also demonstrates P5’s procedural knowledge, as she used a
strategy to isolate and manipulate vowel patterns and combinations to make words. For students
who are still learning sound spellings, however, small group instruction could be a more
effective strategy (Gersten, 2008).
P6 uses the DIBELS to assess fluency and the CORE Phonics Survey to determine the
phonics skills on which students need support. P6 said that the assessments are valuable in
helping to identify the literacy intervention and instruction strategies that can best address varied
student capabilities. She said, “Based on the skill, I just pull from all the different resources that
we have, whatever is better. Different things are better for different skills. So it depends on what
I have that meets their needs.”
P6 uses the school’s reading intervention program, offering students the same reading
passage as their peers but shorter and at a simpler level, allowing students to still learn
comprehension skills and receive vocabulary support and direct instructions. Some of the
strategies P6 uses are small group instruction, working individually with students, students
working with aids, team teaching, and sending a student to another teacher’s class who is
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 65
focusing on a skill that a given student needs. The interview with P6 and the observation of her
classroom revealed that she uses both declarative and procedural knowledge to deliver research-
based reading instruction and intervention.
Interviews and observations revealed that all teachers in the sample possess some
procedural knowledge of foundational reading instruction. The teachers use assessments and
observations to determine student reading development. There are many areas, however, where
Mesa Elementary primary teachers could benefit from training and professional development
(e.g., phonemic awareness and phonics teaching strategies). In addition, all teachers confirmed
that they monitor student progress; however, not all teachers use systematic progress monitoring.
Teachers did not describe the research-based process of assessing, teaching, progress
monitoring, and adjusting instruction. The interviews confirmed that some of the teachers in the
sample use research-based practices, but they are not universally used to deliver foundational
reading skills instruction. This partially validates a procedural knowledge gap. Effective literacy
instruction requires a continuous cycle of assessment, instruction, and planning to satisfy
students’ diverse needs (Menzies et al., 2008). This was not found consistently during the course
of this study.
Motivational Influences – Attribution
Interviews and observations attempted to validate assumed motivational influences
affecting teachers’ delivery of early literacy instruction and intervention. When it comes to
motivational influence of attribution, Mesa Elementary’s primary grade teachers believe their
instruction positively affects their students’ reading skills.
Motivation is enhanced when teachers believe they can attribute their instructional efforts
to students’ reading progress (Schunk, 1990). When asked how their instruction affects students
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 66
reading ability, all participants interviewed for this study indicated they believe their
instructional efforts are yielding literacy growth for their students. P1 said:
I think [my instructional effort] does because I'm not one who teaches one letter a week.
From the second week of school, when we start journal writing, I'm dictating…I'm big on
making it right, and I've always had first-grade teachers say, “I can tell which kid's come
from your kindergarten program because they're prepared. They're ready.”
According to attribution theory, people search for ways to explain events and how they
perceive an experience affects their motivation in the future (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
When P1’s perception of her ability to deliver successful instruction was ascribed to internal or
controllable sources, her self-efficacy increased (Schunk, 1990).
P2 remarked of her instructional efforts:
I'm thinking of how we do intervention here, like six weeks. That's not a lot of time. But
throughout the year, if I'm doing intervention, I think it's [impactful], because only if you
can intervene, then you can target the skills that they're lacking. But if your reading
instruction isn't that strong, you probably wouldn't see as much growth.
Attribution theory suggests that if efforts are unstable and within an individual’s control,
they can have the motivational influence to affect student outcomes (Anderman & Anderman,
2006). In P2’s case, she believes her instruction has a positive effect on her students’ academic
growth and therefore credits her students’ success to her instructional efforts.
P3 also believes her instructional practice has a positive effect on her students’ success,
noting during the interview that parents often remark to her that reading seems easy for their
child (her student). P3 said, “That's really good. That means that your child has the right
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 67
foundation because every time I'm introducing something, they're ready for it. Their mind is
ready.”
P4 said of her efforts:
I think it makes a big difference for those students who take the skills that I've taught
them…I'm trying to give them the skills that will make them a successful reader and
hopefully improve their reading or push them to a higher grade level…I think I do a very
good job with making it enjoyable for the kids and wanting to learn to be a better reader.
Although P4 believes her instruction positively affects her students’ reading progress,
note that she qualifies the extent of her impact by saying “for those students who take the skills
that I've taught them.” This attributes, in P4’s view, some lack of academic progression to the
students—and not her effort. That may be an indication that she believes some student outcomes
are out of her control, which may cause her self-efficacy to suffer (Anderman & Anderman,
2006).
P5 believes her students’ success is positively attributed to her instructional efforts and is
therefore within her control (a motivating factor). She said:
I think what I can do is make them love reading where they all want to read. Because I
have parents tell me that too. Or the kids will say that “I love reading.” They get excited
to go to the library, and they're actually reading their books.
P6 was more equivocal in the assessment of her impact. She said:
Sometimes I do feel like I can't do it. Like I can only do so much, but that's in those
extreme cases when you're late every day, you have excessive tardies, you're not coming
prepared, there's home issues that are affecting, there is only so much I can do sometimes
with cases like that.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 68
P6 expressed some doubt, but like P4, she primarily ascribed the lack of student progress
to circumstances out of her control, such as absences, late arrival, incomplete homework, and
behavior issues. This is a possible attribution theory effect that may hamper her motivation.
Motivational Influences – Self-Efficacy
All teachers expressed confidence in their ability to deliver effective early literacy
intervention; however, one teacher felt she could use more training and others pointed to
conditions beyond their control, both of which impact self-efficacy. P1 offered a decisive
statement as to her ability to provide effective foundational literacy skills: “Well, this is my
twentieth year in kindergarten here, so I feel very comfortable. I do similar things each year. So,
I’m pretty confident.”
P2 showed an equal confidence in her abilities. She said:
I think I feel confident because after teaching so many years, I feel like I have a better
understanding of how kids learn to read, whereas I feel like I have more tricks up my
sleeve maybe, and more ideas, more resources. I have more of an abundance of ideas of
how to attack it.
Like P1, P2 also ascribed her ability to provide effective foundational reading skills
instruction to her long teaching career and the strategies she has learned. As such, P2 experiences
a positive motivational influence from self-efficacy.
P3 commented on a systematic and explicit reading program adopted by the school
district in the early 2000s. She said:
I taught first grade, one year, with no Open Court, and the next year, we adopted Open
Court. And it was like everybody started to read. I really believe that because we taught
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 69
them how letters and sounds work and correlate and gave them that practice right then
and there, I just saw it work. And I'm going to say it worked for 90% of children.
P3 attributes her sense of self-efficacy from learning to deliver reading instruction in a
systematic and explicit fashion. Once again, this teacher enjoys a positive motivational influence
from self-efficacy.
P4 remarked that while she assessed her own abilities positively, there is room for
improvement, which could impact her self-efficacy and motivation. She said:
Could I probably do better at it? Yes. I don't think I personally have been trained enough
to be considered an early intervention coach. I can use all the manuals, and all of that I
could do. But I would like to do some things better.
As with her colleagues, P5 also expressed confidence but noted that circumstances
largely out of her control may hinder her performance. She said:
I feel confident because I can see the growth when I measure. I do a lot of practice out
loud. This year I have not gotten to as much. I don't know what's going on this year. It's
really hard. You have to have a class of more independent workers. (But) I have a lot of
distractions.
Similarly, P6 indicated that some factors impacting performance are beyond her control,
noting specifically home issues, behavioral issues, and special education needs. She said:
There are so many other things that play a part, but I'd like to think that I give them the
foundation if they are lacking…For the student who is here making effort and has the
home support, has the school support, I think that, yes.
Overall, the results of motivational influences were partially validated. Teachers believe
their instructional efforts have a large and positive influence on their students reading ability;
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 70
however, some feel that circumstances out of their control prevent their students from being
successful. This partially validates attribution motivation as a barrier. Self-efficacy was also
partially validated. P4 commented that she had not been trained enough, P5 mentioned that there
are many distractions, and P6 felt unsure of her ability due to behavior, home, and special
education issues.
Teacher’s perception of events or circumstances are influenced by the stability and
controllability of internal ability or external factors. When individuals believe that failing to meet
a goal can be affected by things that can be controlled, such as increasing effort or knowledge,
they are more prone to persist and work harder (Rueda, 2011). Because some of Mesa
Elementary’s teachers believe that there are conditions out of their control, teachers’ motivation
may be a cause of a performance gap.
Organizational Influences – Planning
The interview questions were designed to validate the possible existence of
organizational barriers that hinder teachers’ delivery of research-based instruction and
intervention. Interviews revealed that while teachers value collaboration time, they do not
believe the organization provides enough time to plan, collaborate, and reflect on their practice.
Additionally, three of the teachers interviewed identified having to complete assignments and
other tasks during professional development that they did not value and that prevented them from
using meeting time to plan and collaborate.
Organizations’ cultural models determine cultural settings, which impact the
organizational structure and influence workers’ patterns, routines, and responses. In the case of
Mesa Elementary primary grades, as reported by every participant, the cultural model and setting
is not sufficiently valuing dedicated collaboration time (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). P1
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 71
remarked, “I've always collaborated. We've always planned together…I wish we could [go] back
to our once-a-week grade-level meetings, because now you're trying to find once a month a
grade-level meeting.”
P2 reported that there is not enough time to meet, plan, collaborate, learn, and reflect
(metacognitive thinking). She would like to institute a research-based reading intervention
program, collaborating with other teachers, but she feels there is not enough planning time
allotted. She also said grade-level meeting time is once per month, but the time is often
designated for another topic. P2 explained the implications for literacy intervention and
instruction:
Let's say I wanted to group with that room or this room, and we wanted to make a higher
group and an intervention group, we would need to be meeting at least once a week for
40 minutes. And then maybe we could make our groups, look at our data more closely,
and then we could also see, OK, after the first week or two weeks, how's this going? Do
we need to move kids up? Do we need to move some down? But if we don't even have a
time once a week, if I'm going to implement something, I need to think about it.
P2 said her collaborative preference is to consider new information, talk to her
colleagues, and make and test plans. Yet, the time required not just to meet but to structure the
logistics of a multi-group reading initiative is unavailable.
P3 concurred, noting (with some uncertainty) that grade-level meetings are infrequent.
She said:
I think it's just one hour a month and maybe one afternoon once a month. So I don't really
know what the planning is. Well, I think there's supposed to be one grade-level in the
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 72
afternoon, once a month, and then there's one in the morning. But a lot of times that
morning one sometimes gets taken up with something else.
P4 stated that not only was meeting time too limited, the meetings that did occur offered
minimal value to the teachers. She said:
You go to the meetings, or you're told to do this, but what's being done with it? Why are
we wasting my time? We say it's just busy work. I mean, some of it is. But some of it is
like, “Why are we doing this again?”
P5 said that the lack of planning time for literacy intervention was compounded by the
need to address other subject areas, such as math. One of the only options then, according to P6,
is to conduct planning and collaboration outside of work hours. P6 said:
You have to do a lot on your own time. There's not time given to you during the school
day, or planning time, or whatever, to get that stuff ready…You can't possibly get things
done in the time that we have here, even to get together and pull together resources or
look for new resources. That all takes time that we don't get.
The consistency in participant remarks regarding absence of dedicated time for planning
and collaboration clearly validates a gap in organizational influence. Every teacher indicated that
more planning time could allow them to deliver more effective literacy instruction. As such,
there is an evident organizational influence impeding progress in delivering literacy intervention
and instruction.
Organizational Influences – Recognition
Rewards, such as recognition, can spark positive motivational influences (Reilly, 2004).
According to Clark and Estes (2008), rewards and incentives must be sufficient, appropriate, and
align with organizational performance goals. Five of the six teachers remarked that the
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 73
organization does not recognize their instructional efforts. Only one participant observed that the
organization recognizes teachers on a “data wall” in the meeting room, which contains student
DIBELS assessments results.
P1 commented that recognition and feedback come from parents thanking her for their
child’s improvement (a sentiment echoed by P2, P3, and P6). P2 and P4 both said that the
students’ success was its own reward. P2 said, “Let's say you do progress monitoring or you
follow-up on something, and you see them improving, their fluency or their nonsense word
fluency, then that's more of a reward.”
Remarking on the school practice of posting student DIBELS assessments results on a
“data wall,” P5 said that while that’s public recognition, “it's not really telling because certain
classes are made up differently. So, then you have one teacher like, ‘Oh. Her kids didn't move
very well. They're still in red and yellow.’”
P6 said that recognition is uncommon but also irrelevant to her:
I don't necessarily need recognition, but I don't think there's much recognition.
Sometimes I'm recognized by the parents that see the improvement and the growth, and
you're recognized there. I think it's few and far between, and we don't really do this job at
all to be recognized.
Interview responses clearly indicate that while teachers receive recognition from parents
and colleagues, there is little-to-no organizational recognition for accomplishing performance
goals. This validates a gap impacting organizational influence. Table 7 illustrates the influences
that were validated.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 74
Table 7

Validated Influences

Assumed Influences

Validated

Declarative knowledge: The appropriate
instructional approaches

Partially validated
Declarative knowledge: Foundational early
reading skills
Partially validated
Procedural knowledge: Teachers knowledge
of how to deliver early literacy instruction and
intervention
Partially validated
Attribution: Teachers’ ability to attribute their
efforts to students’ reading success
Partially validated
Self-efficacy: Teachers’ belief in their ability
to deliver effective foundational literacy
instruction and intervention

Organizational: Planning and collaboration
time valued
Partially validated

Validated
Organizational: Recognition of effort Validated

Synthesis of Results
Reviewing data collected through interviews and observations, all assumed influences
were validated or partially validated.
Declarative Knowledge: The interview results indicate that teachers know foundational
reading skills and use some small group and differentiation of instruction; however, not all
teachers use research-based strategies, deliver systematic and explicit phonics instruction, or use
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 75
targeted small group instruction on a regular basis. Therefore, a partial declarative knowledge
gap was validated.
Procedural Knowledge: Interviews confirmed that all participants administer universal
screening assessments and know how to use many research-based techniques and strategies.
Mesa Elementary’s teachers plan their instruction using various strategies based on assessments,
observations, or a combination of both. Some teachers assess students, determine the skills
needed, teach those skills, and build on them. All teachers are required by the Oak View School
District to administer the DIBELS assessment to determine whether students are at risk of
reading failure; however, not all of the teachers interviewed in this study use it to drive their
instruction. Some use it only in a limited fashion. Additionally, while all teachers perform some
on-going monitoring, not all perform a systematic, data-driven progress monitoring cycle of
teaching, assessing, and planning instruction based on results (Menzies et al., 2008).
The interviews confirmed that research-based practices are not universally used to deliver
foundational reading skills instruction, partially validating a procedural knowledge gap.
Observations confirmed the use of small group instruction in all but one of the classrooms
observed, and these results confirmed the interview results. Observations, however, were unable
to confirm the use of research-based foundational reading skills in phonemic awareness and
phonics in all classrooms.
Motivational Influence – Attribution: Attribution theory posits that how people
perceive an event and what they attribute it to affects their motivation. Interviews with
participants partially validated an attributional motivation gap. Some teachers identified issues
beyond their control such as home life, special education, and whether students can attend to
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 76
their own learning. A teacher’s efforts can be negatively affected when an event or condition is
perceived as out of their control.
Motivational Influence – Self-efficacy: Self-efficacy is one’s belief in their own ability
to accomplish a task. This motivational influence was partially validated. When asked how
confident in her ability to provide reading instruction and intervention, a second-grade teacher
commented that her capability depends on a students’ efforts and home support. While another
teacher felt, she had not been trained enough.
Organizational Influence: Interviews revealed that there is not enough dedicated time
available for teachers to plan and use metacognitive strategies, such as reflecting on their
practice. This gap was validated. The teachers’ cultural model, which values collaboration and
planning time, clashes with the organization’s cultural setting. Teachers indicated there is a lack
of planning and reflection time. Additionally, all teachers interviewed expressed dissatisfaction
with the nature of the professional development they receive. They believe time spent in
meetings and required professional development prevents them from using meeting time to plan
and collaborate.
The study also validated the organizational influence gap owing to inconsistent
organizational recognition of teachers’ efforts. Participant responses indicated that there is
limited recognition for accomplishing performance goals.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 77
CHAPTER FIVE:
RECOMMENDATIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION PLAN
Instituting early literacy intervention and instruction has a profound, long-lasting impact
on primary grade students. Helping Transitional Kindergarten, kindergarten, first-grade, and
second-grade students at risk for reading challenges has the potential to correct reading
deficiencies that can lead to academic problems that compound over time. At Mesa Elementary,
the goal is to have all teachers possess the research-based strategies, techniques, knowledge, and
tools to deliver early literacy intervention and instruction.
This study identifies gaps impacting the organizational goal and the influences to which
those gaps might be ascribed. Having conducted the gap analysis using the Clark and Estes
framework (2008), it is possible to offer specific recommendations to Mesa Elementary in the
areas of knowledge, motivation and organizational resources, which, if implemented, could help
teachers deliver more effective early literacy intervention and instruction.
Knowledge Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) assert that to meet performance goals, workers need knowledge of
what the goals are (declarative) and how to reach them (procedural). Delivering effective early
literacy instruction and intervention requires both information and skills. Table 8 identifies
knowledge influences and validation based on interviews and the literature review. The
knowledge influences contained in the table were often mentioned by this study’s interviewees,
and are identified in the literature as influencing reading instruction and intervention.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 78
As indicated in the table, knowledge influences were either validated or partially
validated. Table 8 also shows the recommendations for these influences, based on theoretical
principles.
Table 8
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence

Validated
Yes,
No,
Partially
Priority
Yes, No
(Y,N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers knowledge
of the pedagogy
underlying
foundational reading
skills instruction,
alphabetic principle,
phonemic
awareness, phonics,
intervention
terminology and
strategies need to be
strengthened. (D)

Partially
Validated
Y Procedural
knowledge
increases when
declarative
knowledge is
accessible to be
used in a task
(Clark & Estes
2008; Rueda,
2011).

(Declarative)

Provide information to help
teachers identify the
foundational reading skills
continuum and the
declarative knowledge of
explicit instruction of
phonemic awareness,
phonics, word analysis
techniques (factual) and what
specific reading intervention
strategies and procedures
students need (conceptual)
(Amendum, 2014).
Organize and scaffold
information into less
complex parts. Provide a
visual representation of the
reading continuum.
Teachers often
do not apply
appropriate
instructional
approaches when
delivering early
reading instruction
and intervention. (D)
Partially
Validated
Y Procedural
knowledge
increases when
conceptual
knowledge is
available and
when a high
degree of skill is
required (Clark
& Estes 2008;
Rueda, 2011).
Provide teachers with
training opportunities to view
demonstration,
modeling and engage in
guided practice to increase
germane load.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 79
Teachers need to
strengthen their
knowledge of how to
deliver early reading
intervention. (P)

Partially
Validated
Y To effectively
perform a
necessary skill,
procedural
knowledge must
be gained and
available (Clark
& Estes, 2008;
Mayer, 2011).

(Procedural)
Provide training that offers
teachers with examples using
common phonemic
awareness and phonics
strategies to deliver
instruction to at-risk students.
Provide demonstrations,
guided practice, and model
lessons to assist in
construction and automation
of schemas.

Teachers often do
not monitor and
control their own
learning and are
unable to reflect on
their practice. (M)
N Y Self-regulation
skills enhance
learning.
Teachers’
performance is
influenced by
self-efficacy,
goals, emotions,
and self-
regulation
(Baker, 2006;
Denler et al.,
2006).

(Metacognitive)

Provide training that engages
teachers in metacognitive
strategies, i.e., identifying
prior knowledge, goal
setting, self-monitoring,
collaborative discussions,
and modeling thinking
processes.

Declarative Knowledge Solutions
Effective early reading intervention requires teachers to understand underlying
foundational early reading skills and appropriate instructional approaches. Primary teachers must
have knowledge of the pedagogy of reading skills instruction, which includes the reading
continuum (i.e., the alphabetic principle, phonemic awareness, and phonics). Additionally,
teachers need to have knowledge of intervention strategies, models, and foundational reading
skills theory and principles (Foorman et al., 2016).
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 80
The interview and observation results revealed teachers have knowledge of foundational
reading skills, small group, and differentiation of instruction; however, not all use research-based
strategies, deliver systematic and explicit phonics instruction, or use targeted small group
instruction on a regular basis. The recommendation for factual and conceptual knowledge gaps
are professional development training focused on the foundational reading skills continuum and
explicit instruction of phonemic awareness, phonics, word analysis techniques, and the specific
reading intervention strategies and procedures students require (Amendum, 2014).
For example, P4 commented that she uses the results of a weekly reading program
assessment to determine which skills to target, stating that she uses the assessment “to see what
skills they're doing specifically within that week.” As mentioned in chapter four, this is not a
research-based strategy for identifying reading problems. In another instance, P5 noted that
because students often face similar reading challenges at the start of the year (e.g., long vowels,
vowel combinations), “I’m going to work on that in the second part of the year.” Waiting until
the middle of the year to begin explicitly teaching, however, can hinder student progress. The
procedure P5 uses of delaying explicit phonics instruction is in conflict with early reading
research that advises early intervention (Denton et al., 2010).
Successful early reading instruction and intervention should begin with universal
screening to identify students at risk of reading difficulties. Instructional decisions based on
evidence, crucial early reading skills, the approach to instruction, and targeted intervention
should be based on students’ specific needs (Denton et al., 2010). Teachers need to have the
knowledge that enables them to develop an appropriate instructional approach based on the
results of early screening (Jenkins, Hudson & Johnson, 2007).
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 81
Teachers also need the declarative knowledge that allows them to understand what kind
of assessments and strategies to use and how they help determine foundational reading needs and
target instruction. Thus, one recommendation for addressing procedural knowledge gaps is
providing training that offers teachers demonstration lessons, model lessons, and guided practice.
Professional training should be offered to increase motivation. Giving specific formative
and summative feedback encourages attributions to be assigned to personal effort or the
appropriate use of strategies (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Additionally, modeling that
includes demonstrating the importance of the learning process, effort, strategy use, and personal
control over one’s learning should be delivered to increase self-efficacy and motivation (Pajares,
2006).
Various interviewees expressed that they believe they could use more training and that
conditions out of their control make it difficult to attribute their students’ reading progress to
their instructional efforts (which weighs on teacher motivation). To address the identified
organizational gap, this study recommends that Mesa Elementary provide policy and procedures
to facilitate the development of an intervention program structure and planning, receive district-
provided training, and schedule regular times for individual and team meetings. The latter is
important for reviewer training and oversight, as well as to provide recognition and incentives,
which are distinctly lacking at Mesa Elementary. As P6 said, “I don't necessarily need
recognition, but I don't think there's much recognition.”
This study recommends that Mesa Elementary’s primary teachers be given the
opportunity to engage in demonstration lessons, guided practice and model lessons, and assisting
in the construction of automation and schemas. Additionally, Mesa’s primary teachers should be
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 82
provided with activities that engage them in identifying prior knowledge, goal setting, self-
monitoring, collaborative discussions, and modeling their thinking processes.
Effective implementation strategies that relate to successful information processing
include providing teachers with information that they can connect to their prior knowledge of
foundational reading skills. Because motivation is responsible for up to 50% of learning
achievement, and information processing is a necessary element in learning, self-efficacy and
attribution were examined in the attempt to reveal Mesa Elementary's performance gap in early
reading instruction and intervention (Rueda, 2011).
Teacher’s indicated they need more time to plan, train, and reflect on their practice.
Meaningful learning can be enhanced by providing a visual diagram of the reading continuum, as
well as opportunities to engage in team-teaching, a model that involves collaborative planning,
monitoring, and co-teaching. To facilitate effective professional learning, training should include
connecting to prior knowledge to construct new meaning increasing germane load. This process
builds schemas that free working memory for new learning. This is accomplished by organizing
and scaffolding information into less complex parts. These learning strategies avoid extraneous
cognitive load that can inhibit long-term memory and can be applied to Mesa Elementary’s
primary teachers (Kirschner, Kirschner, & Paas, 2006; Rueda, 2011).
Procedural Knowledge Solutions
Teachers need to have the knowledge of how to deliver early reading intervention.
Procedural knowledge is that of knowing how to accomplish a task, and in the context of
delivering early reading intervention, this knowledge base includes activities that must be
implemented, such as using data to drive instruction, grouping students around skill needs, and
knowing how to provide instruction that addresses early literacy needs (Krathwohl, 2002).
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 83
Mesa Elementary’s primary teachers working with below-grade-level reading students
must not only understand their students’ needs but then possess the procedural knowledge and
skills to deliver essential, tailored instruction. Students struggling to reach early literacy
benchmarks require explicit and systematic phonemic awareness and phonics instruction, the
crucial building blocks of early reading instruction (Bursuck, Munk, Nelson & Curran, 2003).
Students need the ability to understand letter and sound relationships and the connections
they have to words (Foorman et al., 2016). To foster this, teachers need to know how to provide
both phonemic awareness and phonics instruction. Teachers must have the knowledge to provide
students with phonemic awareness activities, such as phoneme segmentation practice, where
sounds and letters within words are isolated, and phonics activities, like direct instruction of
sound spelling patterns (Foorman et al., 2016). Interviews and observations confirmed that
teachers understand the importance and have the procedural knowledge of these necessary early
literacy skill requirements.
In addition, students’ progress must be regularly monitored to determine if instruction
and intervention are successful, using the data from student assessments to reteach skills when
necessary (Vaughn et al., 2007). As part of their research-based practice, teachers should provide
opportunities for students to apply the reading skills in other subject areas (Denton & Hocker,
2006).
Implementation strategies that support teachers and positively affect information
processing, and therefore motivation, are opportunities to view demonstrations, modeling, and
engage in guided practice. Specific reading intervention strategies and procedures demonstrated
and modeled with continued practice help teachers activate prior knowledge and apply it to new
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 84
learning and information, which helps learners in schema building and automaticity (Amendum,
2014; Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions
Using metacognitive methods facilitates learners’ ability to activate the knowledge and
appropriate strategies needed to perform tasks successfully (Baker, 2006). A learner who uses
metacognitive strategies regulates their comprehension by checking for understanding, and using
problem-solving skills (Lin, Schwartz, & Hatano, 2005; Wilson & Bai, 2010). Metacognitive
thinking facilitates comprehension and retention (Curwen et al., 2010). As such, Mesa
Elementary primary grade teachers working with students at risk of literacy deficiency need to be
able to monitor and control their own learning to facilitate reflection on and self-regulation of
their practice. These self-regulation strategies allow teachers to understand their own cognition,
and give them a greater ability to control their thinking.
Metacognition impacts learning by using effective cognitive processes, ensuring that
knowledge is relevant and the necessary strategies are being used (Baker, 2006). Metacognitive
strategies that foster learning include identifying prior knowledge, presenting strategies for
effective goal setting, self-assessment, modeling metacognitive processes (e.g., talking through
the process), and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their practice. Peer collaboration
time should be provided to allow teachers to share their thinking and teaching strategies (Rueda,
2011).
Interviews with Mesa’s teachers revealed that they believe there is a lack of time for
planning, collaboration, and reflection time. The metacognitive strategies of planning, goal
setting, and monitoring one’s progress are essential to learning (Baker, 2006).

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 85
Motivation Recommendations
According to Clark and Estes (2008), choice, persistence, and mental effort are key
indicators of motivation. Choice refers to actively deciding to begin a task, persistence is
pursuing a goal (even when distractions exist), and mental effort is pursuing and implementing
new knowledge to solve a novel problem or perform a new task.
The results of motivational influences were partially validated. Generally, teachers
attribute their instructional efforts to the academic progress of their students and believe they
have the ability to produce successful readers; however, some teachers expressed concern
regarding events or conditions out of their control. P5 stated that there are many distractions,
while P6 felt uncertain of her ability because of behavior, home issues, and students receiving
special education services. P4 remarked that she had not received enough training.
Table 9 offers a list of motivational influences frequently mentioned in interviews, as
well as in the relevant literature. Self-efficacy and attribution were both partially validated. Self-
efficacy in particular proved to be a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. As self-
efficacy is a foundational element of motivation, teachers must believe in their ability and the
knowledge and skills they possess, to implement and persevere in their effort to deliver effective
early literacy instruction (Bandura, 1977). Table 9 also shows the recommendations for these
influences based on theoretical principles.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 86
Table 9
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, No
Partially
Validated,
(Y, N, PV)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y,N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
1. Attribution-
Teachers do not feel
confident that all
students’ low reading
skills can be directly
affected by their
instructional practices
and efforts.
N Y Individual’s learning and
motivation increase when
they can ascribe the
success or failure of their
performance to effort,
rather than ability. Use of
adaptive attributions and
perceived self-control are
motivating forces.
Therefore, they are more
inclined to put forth
increased effort (Mayer,
2011; Pintrich, 2003).

Provide specific formative
and summative feedback to
promote strategy use and
modeling that includes
demonstrating the
importance of the learning
process, effort, strategy use,
and personal control of
learning.
2. Self-efficacy-
Teachers are not
confident they have the
skills and knowledge to
support below-grade-
level students.
Therefore, they do not
persist or invest the
necessary mental effort.
PV Y Performance is increased
when individuals believe
they can perform
successfully and have the
knowledge and skills to
complete tasks (Clark &
Estes, 2008; Pajares,
2006)

Self-efficacy is higher
when individuals believe
they are capable of
successfully completing
a task (Pintrich, 2003;
Mayer, 2011; Pajares,
2006).
Make it clear to individuals
that they are capable of
learning and can perform the
task being taught.
Provide demonstration and
modeling to increase self-
efficacy and motivation.
Set goals that provide the
learner with the opportunity
to experience success.
Provide goal-directed
opportunities to practice with
frequent accurate feedback.
Provide instructional support,
such as scaffolding, and
gradually remove support.
(Pajares, 2006).
Provide opportunities to view
a similar model employing
behavior that has relevant
value to their teaching
practice.
Provide feedback that is
immediate for easy tasks and
delayed for difficult tasks,
with balanced comments
regarding strengths and
challenges.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 87
Attribution Theory Solutions
Attribution and self-efficacy affect motivational forces that play an important role in
successful teaching (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Mesa Elementary’s primary
teachers feel confident that all students’ low reading skills can be positively affected by their
instructional practice and efforts. Mesa’s teachers’ belief that their efforts are within their
control, and can be enhanced by increasing their knowledge and skills provides the impetus for
teachers’ belief that they can successfully influence student outcomes. To assist teachers in
promoting attributions to their instructional efforts or appropriate use of strategies, specific
feedback should be provided (Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Self-Efficacy
To successfully provide effective early literacy intervention, Mesa Elementary’s primary
teachers must have a strong sense of self-efficacy. Teachers must also be able to attribute the
successful instructional practices they employ to their efforts (Schunk, 1984). Mesa Elementary's
teachers’ success as learners and educators depends on the belief they have in their skills and
knowledge to support their students’ reading achievement. Mesa Elementary teachers’ self-
confidence can be enhanced by acquiring and implementing the skills and knowledge required to
support students who have below-grade-level reading skills.
Teachers’ successful practice and use of effective strategies are determining factors in a
teacher’s sense of self-efficacy (Moè, et. al., 2010). Accordingly, it is recommended that during
training, it is made clear to teachers that they are capable of learning and can perform the task
being taught (Pajares, 2006). Additionally, it is recommended to provide the following:
• Demonstration and modeling to increase self-efficacy and motivation;
• Setting goals to allow opportunities to experience success;
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 88
• Goal-directed opportunities to practice with frequent accurate feedback;
• Instructional support, such as scaffolding and gradually removing support;
• Opportunities to view a similar model employing behavior that has relevant value;
• Immediate feedback for complex or multi-step tasks and delayed feedback for more
difficult tasks, with balanced comments regarding strengths and challenges (Pajares,
2006).
When teachers’ ability or effort to perform successful instruction is attributed to internal,
unstable, or controllable sources, their self-efficacy increases (Schunk, 1990). If instructional
success is attributed to chance or other sources, however, self-efficacy may suffer. At Mesa
Elementary, teachers expressed that conditions out of their control affect the success of their
instructional efforts. This partially validates a motivational gap, revealing an area where
proactive steps could increase teachers’ self-efficacy.
Mesa Elementary teachers’ belief that their ability to provide research-based foundational
reading instruction and intervention is within their control can be enhanced by increasing their
knowledge and skills. Put in practice, the new knowledge and skills demonstrate that a teacher
can influence student outcomes, in turn improving self-efficacy, and by extension, early literacy
intervention.
Enhancing Mesa Elementary teachers’ sense of self-efficacy has the additional benefit of
fostering effort. If teachers do not believe that they have the knowledge and skills to produce
specific instructional outcomes, they will be unlikely to try. Conversely, if Mesa’s teachers
believe in their own abilities, they will be more likely to organize, plan, and pursue new
approaches (Moè et al., 2010). The positive self-perception that Mesa Elementary’s primary
grade teachers can embrace regarding the effectiveness of their instruction and confidence in
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 89
their practice directly addresses and supports their students’ academic achievement. This is a
significant factor in the successful delivery of early reading intervention and instruction
(Anderman & Anderman, 2006).
Organization Recommendations
Clark and Estes (2008) state that when stakeholder missions and goals are not aligned
with the necessary resources, performance goals are unlikely to be attained. According to
Gallimore, Goldenberg, and Garnier (2001), cultural models and settings determine what is
valued, what is believed, and what is enacted.
Table 10 lists the most frequently reported organizational influences on stakeholder goal
achievement, as well as those supported by the literature, organizational reviews, and culture
theory. The table indicates the organizational influences that were validated and the priority for
achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Recommendations based on theoretical principles are also
included in Table 10.
Table 10
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model 1:
The school needs to
provide an
environment that
supports teacher
collaboration.
Y Y Organizational
performance
increases when
structures and
resources are
aligned with goals
developed with
worker input
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
Provide the
foundational early
literacy education team
with district-provided
training that focuses on
collaboration,
development of goals,
and intervention
structure.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 90
Cultural Setting 1:
Teachers need policies
and procedures that
support planning,
collaboration time.
Y Y Organizational
performance
increases when
people, policies,
and processes are
aligned with goals.
Provide paid time
during the school day
for teachers to plan and
collaborate.
Cultural Setting 2:
Teachers need time to
learn, plan, and
analyze data.
Y Y Organizational
performance
increases when
leaders ensure that
people have the
resources
necessary to
achieve the
organizational goal
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
Provide policy and
procedures for teachers
to develop program
structure planning, data
analysis, and
collaboration.

As noted in Chapter 4 findings, primary teachers are not provided with sufficient time to
plan, to develop goals, collaborate, learn, and develop an effective intervention structure. To
address this, Mesa Elementary must provide an environment that encourages and supports
teacher collaboration. Effective organizational performance is accomplished through procedures
identifying how individuals and resources interact to produce the desired outcome. Even when
knowledge and motivation exist, inefficient organizational systems, resources, policies, and
procedures can hinder performance (Rueda, 2011). To facilitate effective foundational reading
instruction and intervention, Mesa Elementary’s teachers should be provided with district-
provided training to facilitate collaboration, goals development, and an intervention structure.
Knowledge, skills, motivation, and work processes must be aligned if organizational
goals are to be attained (Rueda, 2011). Rewards and incentives are an important part of this
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Successful organizations align incentives and constructive feedback
(Belsky, 2012), using rewards such as recognition to stimulate internal motivational influences
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 91
(Reilly, 2004). Yet, as interviews revealed, Mesa Elementary offers little-to-no meaningful
recognition of its teachers’ successes. While teachers do receive recognition and reward through
parent compliments and student success, the school itself does not provide recognition in a way
that the teachers interviewed for this study found valuable. Cultural settings that include rewards
can spur motivation and effort, and support Mesa’s teachers’ effective early literacy intervention
and instruction.
Cultural Models Solutions
Cultural models influence the way an organization is structured and the individuals’
workplace patterns, routines, and reactions to change (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). To
ensure successful change, resources (including personnel and time) must be provided and aligned
with organizational priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008). When resources, policies, and procedures
are aligned with goals, the patterns and responses of workers influence the challenges they face.
Effective organizations demonstrate their commitment to systems change by ensuring
that needed resources are provided and are in line with goals and values (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Workers who are supplied with appropriate resources needed to complete tasks are more likely to
accept new policies and procedures (Zimmerman, 2000). As a part of that, teachers require time
to collaborate, plan, analyze data, and engage in professional growth.
A successful intervention model needs a professional learning community to develop and
focus on achievement data. The model should offer a structure that allows teachers to
systematically acquire information, reflect on it, use the data to inform program design, set goals,
and learn from their instructional efforts. Systems that support these ends are vital elements of a
successful instruction and intervention program (Halverson et al., 2007).
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 92
The success of new plans and strategies, however, are determined by effective instruction
and how those strategies are implemented (Darling-Hammond et al., 2016). A professional
development program should provide a structure that allows teachers to systematically acquire
information, reflect and use the data to inform the program design, and learn from their
instructional efforts. Mesa Elementary should develop systems that help teachers collect data, set
goals, plan instruction, and enjoy time to reflect on their efforts.
For teachers to believe that changing their practice is supported, Mesa Elementary must
demonstrate that the organization values new practices (Clark & Estes, 2008; Halverson et al.,
2007). Therefore, it is critical to demonstrate to Mesa Elementary’s teachers that the school is
committed to providing the necessary resources, such as protected collaboration and planning
time used to develop and institute new strategies. By changing the cultural setting and allocating
adequate time for learning, metacognitive thinking, and collaboration with colleagues, Mesa
Elementary’s cultural models will also change and contribute to more effective early literacy
intervention and instruction.
Cultural Settings Solutions
Effective early literacy intervention depends on a continuous cycle of learning and data
analysis, and successful organizations align messages, rewards, policies, and procedures that
govern daily work with the organization’s goals and values (Clark & Estes, 2008). To promote
and sustain effective early reading instruction and intervention, Mesa Elementary’s teachers need
time to plan and collaborate, analyze data, and pursue professional development. This provides
teachers with the necessary opportunities to collaborate, analyze student information, and
monitor and respond to student progress.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 93
Professional development should be provided to teachers to learn about language,
literacy development, assessments, and data analysis to inform their intervention and instruction
(Hamilton et al., 2009). As P4 commented, “Could I probably do better at it? Yes. I don't think
[I] personally have been trained enough.”
Cultural models reflect an organization’s values and shape the cultural setting. When
policy, procedures, rewards, and recognition are in tune with worker needs, the organization is
culturally aligned. Therefore, aligning processes with organizational goals by making weekly
time for teachers to work together to exchange ideas and strategies is critical for effective
delivery of foundational literacy instruction and intervention at Mesa Elementary.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Mesa Elementary’s purpose is to instill in students a desire for lifelong learning and to
prepare them for college and/or a career. This is accomplished by delivering appropriate
instruction to each student, diagnosing their needs, and providing data-driven instruction. The
solution this study proposes is district-provided professional development that includes training
on data analysis, phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, teacher collaboration, and team-
teaching.
Mesa Elementary has identified three performance goals: 100% proficiency for all
students, 100% attendance, and parent and community engagement. Using the integrated
implementation and evaluation plan described here, Mesa Elementary could see all primary
grade teachers deliver research-based foundational reading intervention by May 2018. Applying
the proposed implementation and evaluation plan requires a methodical, systematic approach to
addressing gaps between existing and desired knowledge, motivational, and organizational
influences.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 94
This implementation and evaluation plan is based on the Kirkpatrick Four Level Model
of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). According to this model, evaluation plans
begin with organizational goals, using “leading indicators” that connect recommended solutions
with the organization’s goals. This method facilitates the identification of leading indicators or
sub-goals that are more closely aligned with organizational goals. The Kirkpatrick Model’s four
levels are:
Level 1 – Reaction – How did participants respond to training?
Level 2 – Learning – Did the trainees receive the intended learning?
Level 3 – Behavior – Are the participants able to apply their learning?
Level 4 – Results – Are desired outcomes a result of the training?
The model recommends that the levels serve as leading indicators, used in reverse order during
the program’s planning phase. Using the reverse order sequence allows for three other activities:
development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work behaviors, identification of
indicators to determine if learning occurred during implementation, and the emergence of
indicators that organizational members are satisfied with implementation strategies. Structuring
the implementation and evaluation plan using this method connects immediate solutions, the
larger goal, and elicits worker confidence in the implementation plan (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
If training, organizational resources and support for Mesa Elementary’s primary teachers
are supplied, internal and external outcomes will likely be attained. Table 11 illustrates the
proposed “Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators” in the form of outcomes, metrics, and
methods for both external and internal outcomes for Mesa Elementary.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 95
Table 11
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increase in the percentage
of students reaching
California State Standards
benchmark foundational
reading skills
Increase in the number of
students who reach grade-
level benchmark in
foundational reading skills
District-collected and
published grade-level
foundational reading
assessments scores
2. Decrease in the percentage
of students matriculating to
third grade without third-
grade benchmark reading
skills, as measured by the
California Assessment of
Student Performance and
Progress
Decrease in the number of
students not at grade-level
benchmark in foundational
reading skills, as measured by
DIBELS assessment given at
the beginning of third grade
California State Standardized
Tests

California Assessment of
Student Performance and
Progress -published

Internal Outcomes
1. Primary teachers learn and
provide research-based
foundational reading
intervention and instruction
The number of daily reading
intervention minutes teachers
provide.
Teachers attend district-
provided professional
development.
2. Teachers engage in regular
data analysis
The number of times teachers
meet to analyze data
Teachers meet weekly to
engage in data analysis
3. Increased teacher
collaboration and team
teaching.
The number of minutes
provided to teachers for
collaboration and planning
time
Teachers are provided with
regular collaboration and
planning time tracked by the
teacher leader and shared with
the administration

Level 3: Behavior
There are three critical behaviors teachers must perform as part of an integrated
implementation and evaluation plan. These are: universal screening for all primary grade
students, identifying and delivering instruction that meets student needs, and monitoring student
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 96
progress for those receiving instructional reading skills support. The specific metrics, methods,
and timing for each of these outcome behaviors are presented in Table 12.
Table 12
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for New Reviewers
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Teachers provide
universal screening
to all primary grade
students
The number of
students screened for
foundational reading
skills
Teachers assess all
primary students using
the Dynamic
Indicators of Basic
Literacy Skills
(DIBELS).
All primary students
are screened for
literacy skills during
the first month of the
school year.
2. Teachers identify
and provide
appropriate
instructional support
for students needs
The number of
minutes of
intervention support
provided per week
Early literacy team
leader (teacher leader)
tracks intervention
time
Weekly
3. Teachers regularly
monitor student
progress
The number of
monitoring
assessments must
match the number of
students receiving
early reading
intervention
Teachers conduct
assessments on
specific skills
Bi-weekly

Primary teachers who deliver foundational reading intervention and instruction require
support from the teacher leader and administration to reinforce their learning, encourage them to
apply it, and monitor their efforts (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Rewards should be
conveyed upon reaching established goals and benchmarks. Table 12 illustrates the
recommended drivers to support teachers’ critical behaviors. The required drivers for critical
behaviors are: reinforcing professional development and training, job aids for analyzing data,
teacher leader modeling and demonstration, primary team meetings to plan and analyze data, and
teacher collaboration to adjust groupings and training. Methods to encourage critical behaviors
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 97
include team collaboration, peer modeling, individual and team meetings for reviewing, training
feedback, and coaching.
The rewards that can encourage primary teachers’ critical behavior include public
acknowledgement before peers, such as offering praise during a school staff meeting. Required
drivers are monitored by the teacher leader and administrator. The teacher leader monitors
assessment data, and asks training participants to self-report their confidence and feeling of self-
efficacy. The teacher leader assesses the teacher performance with frequent check-ins to monitor
progress, and assists in adjusting the program if results do not align with expectations.
To ensure primary teachers’ implementation of research-based foundational literacy
instruction, the above drivers must be implemented and the administration must provide: weekly
meeting time with the teacher leader, monthly check-in time during the last week of the month,
and time during staff meetings for rewards and incentives. The required drivers are illustrated in
table 13.
Table 13

Required Drivers to Support Primary Teacher’s Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 etc.
Reinforcing
Professional development and training Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Job aid for analyzing data Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Teacher leader modeling demonstration lessons and video
lessons
Monthly
Primary team meetings to plan and analyze data Weekly 1, 2, 3
Primary teachers meet to work collaboratively to adjust
groupings and for additional training by teacher leader
Weekly 2, 3
Encouraging
Collaboration and peer modeling during meetings Weekly 1, 2, 3
Individual and team meetings for reviewer training feedback
and coaching from teacher leader (designee)
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Rewarding
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 98
Public acknowledgement, such as a mention at regularly
scheduled meetings when teachers’ performance reaches a
benchmark
Each
semester
1, 2, 3

Monitoring
Teacher leader (designee) and administrator monitor
assessment data
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Designee asks training participants to self-report their
confidence and feeling of self-efficacy in their instructional
effectiveness
Two months
after training
1, 2, 3
Designee can assess the performance of the learner with
assessment checks to assist in monitoring progress and
making adjustments if results do not match expectations
Monthly 1, 2, 3

Level 2: Learning
After completing the recommended solutions, Mesa Elementary’s primary grade teachers
will be able to:
1. Understand policies and procedures that ensure universal screening of all primary
students (Declarative knowledge)
2. Understand the essential components of foundational reading instruction (Declarative
knowledge)
3. Use the California State Standards grade-level benchmark reading skills to guide their
instruction (Declarative knowledge)
4. Learn how to analyze assessment data (Procedural knowledge)
5. Choose appropriate assessments to determine student skill level (Declarative
knowledge)
6. Use assessment data to inform instruction (Declarative knowledge)
7. Collaborate with primary team to use student grouping to target student skill needs
(Procedural knowledge)
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 99
8. Collaboratively plan and monitor instruction (Procedural knowledge)
9. Collaboratively plan next instructional steps (Procedural knowledge)
10. Verify teachers’ delivery of effective intervention by monitoring student progress
(Procedural knowledge)
11. Reflect confidence in reading intervention delivery (Self-efficacy)
12. Value the planning and monitoring of their work (Attribution)
The learning goals listed in the previous section are achieved using training and
collaboration that increases teachers’ knowledge and motivation about providing foundational
reading intervention and instruction. To expand teachers’ knowledge and motivation, this plan
provides for training in early literacy strategies and data analysis. Teachers are also provided
with time to collaborate and plan flexible skill-level instructional groups.
In training sessions, information is provided to help teachers learn the foundational
reading skills continuum and the declarative knowledge of explicit instruction for phonemic
awareness, phonics, word analysis techniques, and reading intervention strategies and
procedures (Amendum, 2014). Information should be organized and scaffolded into less
complex parts with a visual representation of the reading continuum. The training employs
commonly used phonemic awareness and phonics research-based strategies focused on
delivering instruction to students at risk for reading deficiency.
Demonstration lessons, guided practice, and model lessons are used to assist in schema
construction and automation with opportunities to engage in guided practice to increase
germane load. Additionally, training engages teachers in identifying prior knowledge, goal
setting, self-monitoring, collaborative discussions, and modeling their thinking processes.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 100
The professional development begins with four hours of study of literacy development,
starting with phonemic awareness and phonics. In this training, teachers learn how to analyze
data gathered via different assessments (e.g., DIBELS, BPST, the CORE Phonics Survey). In
collaboration with their primary colleagues, teachers use the data to form multi-grade-level skill
groups. They then use job aids to assist the continued use of data to inform instruction. Each
week thereafter, teachers meet with the teacher leader for a combination of continuing education
and training, feedback, demonstration lessons, collaboration, and data analysis.
As a part of this, and in agreement with the New World Kirkpatrick’s model, it is
important to evaluate the five components of Level 2 learning: knowledge, skills, attitude,
confidence, and commitment. Table 14 lists the methods and timing of the learning components
to be evaluated.
Table 14
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge: “I know i t.”
Knowledge checks during collaboration
meetings
During weekly collaboration meetings
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair,
think, share” and other individual/group
activities
During each training session and documented
via observation notes
Procedural Skills: “I can do it right n o w .”
During classroom application of strategies
taught in training sessions
After training sessions
Successful application of data to inform
instruction
During training sessions in grade level groups
Quality of the feedback from peers during
group sharing
During training sessions
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 101
Individual application of the instructional
strategies taught
During classroom observations
Survey asking participants about their level of
proficiency before and after the training
At the end of training sessions
Attitude: “I believe this is w or t h w h i l e .”
Teacher lead’s observation of participants’
statements and actions demonstrating that they
see the benefit of what they are being asked to
do on the job
During the training sessions
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do on the job
During the training sessions
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
item
After the training and instructional delivery
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job .”
Surveys Following each training session and 30 days
after training
Discussions following the delivery of
instruction and feedback
During the weekly collaboration meetings
Commitment: “I will do it on the job .”
Discussions during the training and following
the delivery of instruction with feedback
During training and weekly collaboration
meetings
Develop an individual plan of action During weekly collaboration meetings

Level 1: Reaction
Capturing reactions to training is an important part of the process of assessing training
effectiveness. Kirkpatrick (2016) recommends using instructor observation to determine interest
and pulse checks for an immediate response. There are important evaluation tools that help
measure participant reactions both immediately following program implementation and then
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 102
again later, after the program has operated for a given time. Table 15 lists the components to
measure responses to training.
Table 15
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation of participants During professional development training
Survey to assess engagement End of training session
Training evaluation One week after the training
Relevance
Brief check-in discussion with participants During and after every training
Training evaluation Two weeks after the course
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants During training session
Informal discussion-check-in with participants During training session
Training evaluation Two weeks after the training

Level 1 reactions are gathered throughout the training session through brief check-ins.
The trainer asks participants about the relevance of the content to their work, the organization,
instructional delivery, and the learning environment. Immediately after the professional
development session, the instructor facilitates a discussion about the relevance and usefulness of
the strategies and material shared. A brief survey requests the program participants to share how
relevant they perceive the training to be to their instructional practice, as well as share their
satisfaction with the course content. (See Appendix C for survey template.)
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 103
In addition to the immediate evaluations, approximately 30 days after the training, other
surveys are conducted to measure specific metrics at each level. These surveys, which use the
Blended Evaluation approach, measure:
• Level 4 – The extent to which teacher performance has been enhanced because of
the training
• Level 3 – Application of the training to teachers’ instructional practice
• Level 2 – Confidence and value of applying their training
• Level 1 – Participants’ satisfaction and the relevance of the training (See
Appendix C).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of primary teachers is measured by the number of students identified as
being at risk of reading failure (using universal screening) and the number of students that make
progress toward reaching grade-level benchmarks in foundational reading skills. Every two
weeks, teachers monitor student progress. The dashboard below (Figure C) tracks the number of
students being monitored, as this should match the number of students receiving intervention.
The dashboard also tracks students’ progress toward reaching grade-level foundational reading
skills by tracking those students below benchmark and well-below benchmark, as measured by
the DIBELS assessment.
Figure C

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 104

Summary
Using New World Kirkpatrick Model method of evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) can demonstrate Mesa Elementary’s teachers’ use of frequent monitoring and screening of
student progress, which facilitates the use of data to drive instructional decisions. The training
and professional development described in this chapter is expected to equip teachers with the
knowledge and skills necessary to achieve the stakeholder goal. Providing training, job aids,
ongoing professional development, checks for understanding, knowledge, and regular feedback
can encourage teachers’ critical behaviors in the use of research-based foundational reading
skills intervention and instruction.

Conclusion
Using the Clark and Estes KMO framework (2008), this study was designed to
investigate the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that impact the delivery
of research-based foundational literacy instruction and intervention. During the course of this
study, it became evident that performance goals must be established and based on best practices.
Delivering effective early literacy intervention and instruction will falter unless it is tied to
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 105
actionable strategies, knowledge, ongoing professional development, and a substantial amount of
paid time afforded to teachers to learn, plan, and collaborate.
In pursuit of this, cultural models must be challenged. Teachers must believe that
professional learning is valued by the school and the district. This can be accomplished by
changing the way training, professional development, and planning time are apportioned. When
an organization does not provide adequate resources to accomplish performance goals, workers
may question how much the tasks they are given are valued. As evidenced by nearly every
participant in this study, teachers questioned the value of the professional development activities
they were tasked with and did not see how the assignments they were given added value to their
practice.
The lack of professional development and collaboration time is primarily a funding
problem. In addition, there are district and state regulatory issues regarding instructional minutes
and staffing. However, creative approaches could be explored with the district. There are many
models that could work with district help and guidance. What is funded is what is valued, and
teachers are aware of this.
The implications of not fundamentally restructuring professional learning cannot be
overstated. Solving the problem of low reading achievement is vital to the lives of young
students, and without addressing literacy deficiency at a young age, students face a lifetime of
increased academic and social challenges. Failing to attain early reading proficiency not only
results in low overall school performance, it also negatively impacts cognitive development
(Cartwright, 2012). Students who do not attain grade-level reading skills by the end of first grade
are unlikely to become fluent readers (Torgeson, 2004).
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 106
If we fail to catch these four- to six-year-old children before they begin the cycle of
failure, they are more likely to drop out of school, spend their lives in poverty, and become more
susceptible to engaging in criminal activity. Reading can mean the difference between a dim
future and one full of opportunity. By addressing the influence gaps identified in this study, as
well as applying the integrated implementation and evaluation plan, Mesa Elementary primary
grade teachers can deliver even more effective early literacy intervention and instruction and
ensure their students are prepared for later grades, college and a successful professional life.
Limitations and Delimitations
While this study took a comprehensive and targeted approach to collecting and analyzing
data from Mesa Elementary primary grade teachers, the researcher did encounter some
limitations and delimitations, which may prove instructive for other scholars conducting related
research.
The study limitations included a small participant pool and the limited timeframe in
which to collect data. The time constraints in particular prevented the researcher from continuing
observations. These visits may have enabled the researcher to fully validate results that could
only be partially validated for this study.
Delimitations include the researcher’s decision not to interview a primary teacher who
was on maternity leave for most of the data-collection period. What is more, this teacher is in her
first-year teaching primary grades, and therefore did not necessarily have the breadth of
experience and knowledge to fully answer interview questions. Teachers who had experience in
primary grades but who were not currently teaching in those grades were not chosen to be
interviewed. Interviewing these teachers would have increased the participant pool, but it would
not have been possible to pair these interviews with observations of current practices.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 107
Recommendations for Future Research
Looking ahead to future research in this area, there were several intriguing themes that
other scholars may find value in pursuing. During the data collection, it became clear that Mesa
Elementary teachers believe they need more planning and collaboration time, as well as time for
meaningful professional development. Future research may look into best practices for providing
professional development, working hand-in-hand with teachers to design organizational systems
that support and facilitate professional growth.
Teachers repeatedly mentioned that the professional development they engage in is not
the kind of learning they can use in their classrooms. They reported that it is not valuable to their
professional growth. This study demonstrates the importance of working with teachers to decide
what professional development to deliver, as well as how it should be structured such that they
have adequate time to plan, collaborate, and reflect. Future research might investigate content-
focused research that sparks intrinsic motivation. Additional research could also explore teachers
taking on the responsibility to learn and lead professional development. This approach might
engage teachers while improving their own practice.
Recognizing that one limiting factor for this study was the time constraint, long-term
research should be conducted to ascertain if teachers are using best practices over time. This
could be accomplished through frequent observations over a given period. The results of such a
study could inform improvements to teacher learning and yield key training insights specific to
Mesa Elementary.

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 108
Appendix A

Qualitative Interview Questions
1. Do you evaluate students to determine where they are in terms of foundational reading skills,
and if so, how? (declarative knowledge)
2. How do you decide what reading skills to target when delivering reading intervention
and instruction? (declarative knowledge)
3. When you find that a student is reading below grade or benchmark level, how do you plan
your instruction, and what do you do? (procedural knowledge)
4. How do you differentiate instruction when you find that a student needs foundational literacy
skills support? (declarative knowledge)
5. How do you figure out the instructional approach you will use to deliver reading instruction
and intervention? (declarative knowledge)
6. Do you use any specific strategies in your reading instruction
to increase reading proficiency? (declarative knowledge)
7. How confident do you feel in your ability to provide effective early reading intervention?
How or why do you feel this way? (self-efficacy theory)
8. How do you think your reading instruction affect students’ reading level? Do you think it
makes a big difference? (attribution theory)
9. What resources and time are available for you to plan and to think about how you go about
your instruction? (organizational influence)
10. Do you value, and if so, is there enough time provided for collaboration, planning and
analyzing data? (organizational influence)
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 109
11. How are your efforts recognized, and what guidance do you receive in your efforts to provide
reading intervention? (organizational influence)
12. What aspects of Loyola’s mission and vision do you think people value most?
(organizational influence)
13. What grade do you teach?
14. How long have you been teaching?

15. How long have you been teaching in the primary grades?

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 110
APPENDIX B
Classroom Observation Protocol
Date:
Teacher:
Grade Level:
Time:
Activity/Task: Content, nature of activity, what teacher/students are doing/teacher-student
interaction

Student Grouping
Duration
Number of students
Other Observational Data

Description of the classroom:

Teaching materials:

Assessment strategies used:

Time not dedicated to teaching and description of the activity:

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 111
APPENDIX C
Early Literacy Intervention Training Survey
Scale: Strongly agree / agree / disagree / strongly disagree
Two weeks after training session:
I know what the phonemic awareness and phonics continuum are (L2: Declarative)
2. I can apply the phonemic awareness and phonics continuum to evaluate student foundational
skill level. (L2: Procedural)
3. I believe using the strategies I learned in this professional development is valuable. (L2:
Attitude)
4. I feel confident about applying what I learned today to my instructional practice. (L2:
Confident)
5. I have been using the strategies I learned in the professional development to guide my
instructional decisions. (L2: Commitment)
6. I found the information and strategies useful to my practice. (L1: Relevance)
Open-ended questions
7. How do you plan to apply what you learned in this professional development to your
practice? (L2: Procedural)
8. Describe how you will use the phonemic awareness and phonics continuum to determine
student skill needs. (L2: Commitment)
9. Please discuss the likelihood that you would recommend this training to your colleagues. (L1:
Customer satisfaction)

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 112
30 days after the training for L1-L4
1. What I learned in the training has been useful in my instructional practice. (L1 Relevance)
2. Please discuss how confident you feel about applying the reading instruction and data analysis
strategies outlined in the training to your practice. (L2 Confidence)
3. I have been able to use data to drive my instructional practice. (L3 Behavior)
4. What success have you and your students experienced as a result of your efforts? (L4 Results)

EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 113
References
Abdul Rashid, Z., Sambasivan, M., & Abdul Rahman, A. (2004). The influence of
organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 161-179.
Ahram, R., Fergus, E., & Noguera, P. (2011). Addressing racial/ethnic disproportionality
in special education: Case studies of suburban school districts. Teachers College Record,
113(10), 2233-2266.
Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Teachers’ views of their school climate and its
relationship with teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Learning Environments
Research, 19(2), 291-307. doi:10.1007/s10984-015-9198-x
Amendum, S. J. (2014). Embedded professional development and classroom-based early
reading intervention: Early diagnostic reading intervention through coaching. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 30(4), 348-377. doi:10.1080/10573569.2013.819181
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. (2016, June 25). Retrieved From
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Ash, G.E., Kuhn, M.R., & Walpole, S. (2008). Analyzing “inconsistencies” in practice:
Teachers’ continued use of round robin reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(1), 87-
103.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. (2016, June 25). Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/.
Balu, R., Zhu, P., Doolittle, F., Schiller, E., Jenkins, J., & Gersten, R. (2015). Evaluation
of response to intervention practices for elementary school reading (NCEE 2016-
4000). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 114
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological

review, 84(2), 191.
Belsky, S. (2012). The rewards overhaul. In Making ideas happen. New York:
Portfolio/Penguin.
Bianco, S. D. (2010). Improving student outcomes: Data-driven instruction and fidelity of
implementation in a Response to Intervention (RTI) model. Teaching Exceptional
Children Plus, 6(5), n5.
Blasco, P. M., Saxton, S., & Gerrie, M. (2014). The little brain that could: Understanding
executive function in early childhood. Young Exceptional Children, 17(3), 3-18.
doi:10.1177/1096250613493296
Bowey, J. A., Cain, M. T., & Ryan, S. M. (1992). A reading ‐level design study of
phonological skills underlying fourth ‐grade children's word reading difficulties. Child
Development, 63(4), 999-1011.
Burchinal, M., McCartney, K., Steinberg, L., Crosnoe, R., Friedman, S. L., McLoyd, V.,
& Pianta, R. (2011). Examining the Black–White achievement gap among low ‐income
children using the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child
Development, 82(5), 1404-1420.
Bursuck, W. D., Munk, D. D., Nelson, C., & Curran, M. (2003). Research on the
prevention of reading problems: Are kindergarten and first grade teachers
listening? Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth,
47(1), 4-9. doi:10.1080/10459880309604422
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2011). Matthew effects in young readers: Reading
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 115
comprehension and reading experience aid vocabulary development. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 44(5), 431-443. doi:10.1177/0022219411410042
Cartwright, K. (2012). Insights from cognitive neuroscience: The importance of
executive function for early reading development and education. Early Education &
Development, 23(1), 24. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.615025
Cavanaugh, C. L., Kim, A. H., Wanzek, J., & Vauhgn, S. (2004). Kindergarten reading
interventions for at-risk students: Twenty years of research. Learning Disabilities: A
Contemporary Journal, 2(1), 9-21.
Child Trends Databank. (2015). Reading proficiency: Indicators of child and youth well-
being. (n.p.): Author. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/?indicators=reading-
proficiency.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. (n.p.): Information Age Publishing.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.

Coyne, M. D., Kame'enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2001). Prevention and intervention
in beginning reading: Two complex systems. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 16(2), 62-73.
Creswell, John W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4
th
ed.). (n.p.): SAGE publications.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation
to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934.
Curwen, M. S., Miller, R. G., White-Smith, K. A., & Calfee, R. C. (2010). Increasing
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 116
teachers' metacognition develops students' higher learning during content area literacy
instruction: Findings from the read-write cycle project. Issues in Teacher
Education, 19(2), 127.
Cutting, L. E., Materek, A., Cole, C. A., Levine, T. M., & Mahone, E. M. (2009). Effects
of fluency, oral language, and executive function on reading comprehension
performance. Annals of Dyslexia, 59(1), 34-54.
Daniel, S. S., Walsh, A. K., Goldston, D. B., Arnold, E. M., Reboussin, B. A., & Wood,
F. B. (2006). Suicidality, school dropout, and reading problems among
adolescents. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(6), 507-514.
Darling-Hammond, L., Bae, S., Cook-Harvey, C. M., Lam, L., Mercer, C., Podolsky, A.,
& Stosich, E. L. (2016). Pathways to new accountability through the Every Student
Succeeds Act. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.
Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs: Development and use of the TEBS-self. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(3), 751-766. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2007.02.010
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. (2016, June 11).
Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based
measurements to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School
Psychology Review, 30(4), 507.
Denton, C. A. (2012). Response to intervention for reading difficulties in the primary
grades: Some answers and lingering questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3),
232-243.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 117
Denton, C. A., & Hocker, J. L. (2006). Responsive reading instruction: Flexible
intervention for struggling readers in the early grades. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Denton, C. A., Nimon, K., Mathes, P. G., Swanson, E. A., Kethley, C., Kurz, T. B., &
Shih, M. (2010). Effectiveness of a supplemental early reading intervention scaled up in
multiple schools. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 394-416.
Dion, E., Brodeur, M., Gosselin, C., Campeau, M. È., & Fuchs, D. (2010). Implementing
research ‐based instruction to prevent reading problems among low ‐income students: Is
earlier better? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 87-96.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. (2016 July 2). Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Ed Data: Education Data Partnership (2018).
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub ‐Zadeh, Z., &
Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read:
Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta ‐analysis. Reading Research
Quarterly, 36(3), 250-287.
Epstein, J. L., & Sanders, M. G. (2006). Prospects for change: Preparing educators for
school, family, and community partnerships. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 81-
120.
Ferrer, E., McArdle, J. J., Shaywitz, B. A., Holahan, J. M., Marchione, K., & Shaywitz,
S. E. (2007). Longitudinal models of developmental dynamics between reading and
cognition from childhood to adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 43(6),
1460-1473. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1460
Fiester, L. (2013). Early warning: Why reading by the end of third grade matters.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 118
Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Foorman, B., Beyler, N., Borradaile, K., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Furgeson,
J., Hayes, L., Henke, J., Justice, L., Keating, B., Lewis, W., Sattar, S., Streke, A.,
Wagner, R., & Wissel, S. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for
understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE 2016-4008). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small ‐group
instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 16(4), 203-212.
Foulin, J. N. (2005). Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to
read? Reading and Writing, 18(2), 129-155.
Franceschini, S, Gori, S. Ruffino, M., Pedrolli, K., & Facoetti, A. (2012). A causal link
between visual spatial attention and reading acquisition. Current Biology, 22(9), 814-819.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S.,
& Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to
intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades (NCEE 2009-
4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special

education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research

Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.

Gibson, S. A. (2010). Reading Recovery® teacher expertise: Gaining and structuring
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 119
content knowledge for early literacy intervention. Literacy, Teaching and
Learning, 15(1), 17-51.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:

Pearson.

Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause or effect? A
longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents' aspirations and expectations, and their
children's school performance. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 547-582.
Graham, P. (2007). Improving teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration: A case

study of a professional learning community. RMLE Online, 31(1), 1-17.
Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters.
International Journal of Training and Development, 15(2), 103–120.
Guide on the Side (Producer). (2012, May 24). “Automated knowledge” by Dr. Richard
E. Clark: Implications for future research, 70 percent rule [video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSK63nqEbLQ.
Gullo, D. F. (2013). Improving instructional practices, policies, and student outcomes for
early childhood language and literacy through data-driven decision making. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 41(6), 413-421.
Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Schwab, J. H. (1999). Instruction: A models approach (3rd
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2007). The new instructional
leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School
Leadership, 17(2), 159.
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., & Wayman, J.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 120
(2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE
2009-4067). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty
influence high school graduation. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the

concepts. Organization studies, 19(3), 477-493.

Hollenbeck, A. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational
and future responsiveness ‐to ‐intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 22(2), 137-146.
Honig, B., Diamond, L., Gutlohn, L., Fertig, B., Daniel, H., Zemelman, S., & Steineke,
N. (2013). Teaching reading sourcebook (2nd ed.). Core Literacy Library. (n.p.):
Academic Therapy Publications.
Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a
response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582.
Joseph, L. M. (2008). Best practices on interventions for students with reading problems. Best

practices in school psychology, 4, 1163-1180.

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2004). Print referencing: An emergent literacy enhancement

strategy and its clinical applications. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in

Schools, 35(2), 185-193.

Kempe, C., Gustafson, S., & Samuelsson, S. (2011). A longitudinal study of early reading
difficulties and subsequent problem behaviors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
52(3): 242-250. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00870.x
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 121
Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Wilkinson-
Flicker, S., Barmer, A., & Dunlop Velez, E. (2015). The condition of education 2015
(NCES 2015-144). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education.
Kezar, A. (2001). Research-based principles of change. Understanding and facilitating

organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and

conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 28(4), 113–123.

Kids Count Data Book, 2015: State Trends in Child Well-Being. (2015). Kids Count Data

Book Online., Kids count data book online, 2015.

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training
evaluation. Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P. A., & Kirschner, F. (2012). Mental effort. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences
of Learning (pp. 2182-2184). Boston, MA: Springer.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. (2016 June 18).
Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Lee, J. S., & Bowen, N. K. (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the
achievement gap among elementary school children. American Educational Research
Journal, 43(2), 193-218.
Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The nation’s report card: Reading 2007
(NCES 2007-496). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 122
Lervag, A., & Hulme, C. (2009). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) taps a mechanism
that places constraints on the development of early reading fluency. Psychological
Science, 20(8), 1040-1048.
Little, M. E., Rawlinson, D., Simmons, D. C., Kim, M., Kwok, O.-m., Hagan ‐Burke, S.,
Simmons, L. E., Fogarty, M., Oslund, E. & Coyne, M. D. (2012). A comparison of
responsive interventions on kindergarteners’ early reading achievement. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(4), 189-202. doi:1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00366.x
Lin, X., Schwartz, D. L., & Hatano, G. (2005). Toward teachers’ adaptive metacognition.
Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 245-255.
Lonigan, C. J., & Shanahan, T. (2009). Executive summary. In Developing Early
Literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: Eunice Kennedy
Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes
of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights
and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-48.
Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision
making in education. RAND Corporation.
Marzano, R. J., Brandt, R. S., Hughes C. S., Jones, B. F., Presseisen, B. Z., Rankin, S. C.,
& Suhor, C. (1988). Dimensions of thinking: A framework for curriculum and instruction.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
Applied Social Research Methods. (n.p.): Sage Publications.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 123
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McNamara, J. K., Scissons, M., & Gutknecth, N. (2011). A longitudinal study of
kindergarten children at risk for reading disabilities: The poor really are getting
poorer. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(5), 421-430.
doi:10.1177/0022219411410040.
Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Edge,(6), 4.

Menzies, H. M., Mahdavi, J. N., & Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in reading:
From research to practice. Remedial and Special Education, 29(2), 67-77.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). (n.p.): Jossey-Bass.
Mesmer, E. M., & Mesmer, H. A. E. (2008). Response to intervention (RTI): What
teachers of reading need to know. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 280-290.
Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
source book (3
rd
ed.). (n.p.): SAGE Publications, Inc.
Moè, A., Pazzaglia, F., & Ronconi, L. (2010). When being able is not enough. The
combined value of positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in
teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1145-1153.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015). The nation’s report card: 2015
mathematics & reading assessments (NCES 2015136). Washington, DC: National Center
for Educational Statistics, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 124
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/6023
Ning, H. K., & Downing, K. (2010). The reciprocal relationship between motivation and
self-regulation: A longitudinal study on academic performance. Learning and Individual
Differences, 20(6), 682-686.
Oak View School District. Title I Ranking for 2017-2018. (2018, January 12).
Oak View School District. 2015-2016 School Report Card. (2016).
O’Connor, R. E., Bocian, K. M., Sanchez, V., & Beach, K. D. (2014). Access to a
responsiveness to intervention model: Does beginning intervention in kindergarten
matter? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(4), 307-328.
Paine, S., & McCann, R. (2009). Engaging stakeholders: Including parents and the
community to sustain improved reading outcomes. Sustaining Reading First, 6, 1-16.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. (2016 July 2). Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts
and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.
Pintrich, Paul R. (2003). "A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts." Journal of Educational Psychology 95(4)
(2003): 667.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 125
Prasse, D. P., Breulin, R. J., Giroux, D., Hunt, J., Morrison, D., & Their, K. (2012).
Embedding multi-tiered system of supports/response to intervention into teacher
preparation. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 10(2), 75.
Reilly, P. (2004). Non-financial recognition: The most effective of rewards? In New reward II:

Issues in developing a modern remuneration system. Brighton, UK: Institute for

Employment Studies, 40–60.

Ritchey, K. D., Silverman, R. D., Schatschneider, C., & Speece, D. L. (2015). Prediction
and stability of reading problems in middle childhood. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 48(3), 298-309. doi:10.1177/0022219413498116
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Rupley, H., Blair, R., & Nichols, D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling
readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3), 125–
138. doi:10.1080/10573560802683523
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for
sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self ‐efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational
Psychologist, 19(1), 48-58.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated
learning. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 71-86.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. (2016 June 17).
Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-
theory/.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 126
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sesma, H. W., Mahone, E. M., Levine, T., Eason, S. H., & Cutting, L. E. (2009). The
contribution of executive skills to reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychology, 15(3),
232-246. doi:10.1080/09297040802220029
Shanahan, T., & Lonigan, C. J. (2010). The national early literacy panel: A summary of
the process and the report. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 279-285.
Simmons, D. C., Coyne, M. D., Kwok, O. M., McDonagh, S., Harn, B. A., & Kame'enui,
E. J. (2008). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from
kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 158-173.
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and scope of the

study.

Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Castillo, E. M., Davis, R. N.,
& Papanicolaou, A. C. (2002). Brain activation profiles during the early stages of reading
acquisition. Journal of Child Neurology, 17(3), 159-163.
Sparks, R. L., Patton, J., & Murdoch, A. (2014). Early reading success and its
relationship to reading achievement and reading volume: Replication of ‘10 years later.’
Reading and Writing, 27(1), 189-211. doi:10.1007/s11145 013-9439-2
Stage, F. K., Muller, P. A., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning centered
classrooms. What Does Learning Theory Have To Say? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
Report, 26(4).
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 127
Stecker, P. M., Lembke, E. S., & Foegen, A. (2008). Using progress-monitoring data to
improve instructional decision making. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education
for Children and Youth, 52(2), 48-58.
Stewart, E. B. (2008). School structural characteristics, student effort, peer associations,
and parental involvement: The influence of school- and individual-level factors on
academic achievement. Education and Urban Society, 40(2), 179-204.
doi:10.1177/0013124507304167
Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How
to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and
leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496-536.
doi:10.1177/0013161X11400185
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC
Digest. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.
Department of Education.
Torgerson, C., Brooks, G., & Hall, J. (2006). A systematic review of the research
literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling (RR711). (n.p):
University of Sheffield.
Torgesen, J.K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School
Psychology, 40(1), 7-26.
Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Avoiding the devastating downward spiral: The evidence that
early intervention prevents reading failure. American Educator, 28(3), 6-19.
Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F. G. W. C., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G, & Schmidt, H.G.
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 128
(2002). Cognitive load theory and aging: Effects of worked examples on training
efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 87–105.
Van Roekel, N. P. D. (2008). Parent, family, community involvement in education.
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Kouzekanani, K., Pedrotty Bryant, D., Dickson, S., &
Blozis, S. A. (2003). Reading instruction grouping for students with reading
difficulties. Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 301-315.
doi:10.1177/07419325030240050501
Vaughn, S., & Wanzek, J. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with
reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 29(2), 46-53. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12031.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2007). Prevention and early

identification of students with reading disabilities.

Walker, D., & Yell, M. (2010). The legal basis of response to intervention: Analysis and
implications. Exceptionality, 18(3), 124-137. doi:10.1080/09362835.2010.491741
Wanzek, Jeanne & Vaughn, Sharon, (2007). Research-based implications from extensive
early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541-561.
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational

process. Review of educational research, 42(2), 203-215.

Whelan, T. J. (2007). Anonymity and confidentiality: Do survey respondents know the
difference. Poster session presented at the 30th annual meeting of the Society of
Southeastern Social Psychologists, Durham, NC.
Wilson, N. S., & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive
EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTION 129
knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacognition and
Learning, 5(3), 269-288.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do
about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238-249.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In the 2015-2016 school year, Mesa Elementary School’s student test scores reflected that 58% of students in the third-through-fifth grades were below English Language Arts State Standards, as measured by the California Assessment of Student Performance. In the primary grades, more than 24% of Transitional Kindergarten, kindergarten, first-grade and second-grade students were at risk of reading failure, as measured by the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Skills assessments. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational (KMO) KMO (since this is the first mention, I would spell this acronym out) conceptual framework, which examines the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences that facilitate or hinder meeting performance goals, this study examines factors that impact Mesa Elementary primary grade teachers in delivering research-based foundational literacy instruction. ❧ Six primary teachers at Mesa Elementary who are responsible for delivering foundational early reading skills instruction volunteered to inform this study by taking part in interviews and allowing classroom observations. This small, non-probability sample was used to determine how teachers interpret their teaching experience and what meaning they attribute to those experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 20165). The study partially validates both declarative and procedural knowledge of early research-based foundational reading skills instruction among primary grade teachers at Mesa Elementary. In addition, motivational influences of attribution and self-efficacy, were also partially validated. Research also validated organizational barriers, including insufficient dedicated time for planning and collaboration, and a lack of organizational rewards and acknowledgement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives

PDF

Creating changemakers: integrating social innovation and service-learning to empower student voice and bolster college, career, and civic readiness

PDF

The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

An exploration of the effect of the development of spatial awareness as a prerequisite science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) skill on the STEM gender achievement gap: an innovation study

PDF

Improving early grade reading instruction in Ghana: a discrepancy gap analysis

PDF

Supporting women business owners: the Inland Empire Women’s Business Center: an evaluation study

PDF

The use of differentiation in English medium instruction in Middle Eastern primary schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Sustainable intervention for learning gaps in middle school mathematics: a gap analysis

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Teacher retention influences: an evaluation study

PDF

Foreign-language teachers' needs to achieve better results: the role of differentiated instruction

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Addressing the principal shortage: women teachers

PDF

Functional illiteracy: high stakes learning in the community college environment

PDF

Characteristics that create a quality early learning center: An evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Beck-Southers, Caryn Shawn (author)

Core Title Early literacy intervention

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 03/27/2018

Defense Date 01/26/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag decoding,early literacy intervention,early reading instruction,early reading intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,phonemic awareness, phonics

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hyde, Corrine (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email becksout@usc.edu,cbecksouthers31@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-487695

Unique identifier UC11265824

Identifier etd-BeckSouthe-6126.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-487695 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BeckSouthe-6126.pdf

Dmrecord 487695

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Beck-Southers, Caryn Shawn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA