University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The effectiveness of the literacy for success intervention at Wilson Middle School

(USC Thesis Other)

The effectiveness of the literacy for success intervention at Wilson Middle School

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LITERACY FOR SUCCESS READING
INTERVENTION AT WILSON MIDDLE SCHOOL

by

Josephine Tidalgo Bixler

____________________________________________________________

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

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Josephine Tidalgo Bixler
ii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my mom, who made me believe I can do anything and to
my husband, whose encouragement and good humor always keeps me smiling.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their support throughout
this process: Dr. Dennis Hocevar for patiently teaching and guiding me in this study,
Mr. Richard Lucas, for allowing me to collaborate on shaping the reading
intervention program and providing valuable insight into classroom instruction, and
to Katherine Knodel for being a wonderful colleague and friend .

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ………………………………………………………………………… ii
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………….. iii
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………… v
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………… vi
Chapter 1: Introduction …………………………………………………………… 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review …………………………………………………… 15
Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………… 26
Chapter 4: Results ……………………………………………………………….. 39
Chapter 5: Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations ……………………… 46
References ……………………………………………………………………….. 57
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Percent Proficient on English Language Arts on the California ………... 3
State Test

Table 2: Students Enrolled in Reading Intervention by Grade level and ………… 4
Ethnicity

Table 3: Experimental and Control Groups ……………………………………... 27
Table 4: GLPC: 7th Grade to 8th Grade Transition ……………………………. 40
Table 5: GLPC: 8th Grade to 9th Grade Transition …………………………….. 40
Table 6: Language by Group, Dependent Variable: CST2008 …………………. 42
Table 7: Grade by Group, Dependent Variable: CST2008 ……………………… 42
Table 8: ANCOVA results, Dependent Variable: CST2008 ……………………. 43
Table 9: Adjusted Means for Language, Dependent Variable: CST2008 ………. 44
Table 10: Adjusted Means for Group, Dependent Variable: CST2008 ………… 45
Table 11: Adjusted Means for Language by Group, Dependent Variable: ……... 45
CST2008
vi
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to determine if Literacy for Success brought
students nearer to proficiency on the English Language Arts (ELA) portion of the
California State Test (CST) at Wilson Middle School. The program was a year long
intervention for struggling students scoring below 325 on the ELA portion of the
2006 CST. The intervention included implementation of a supplemental curriculum,
High Point and Fast Track, and professional development for teachers. Participants
in the study included 41 seventh graders and 35 eighth graders at Wilson middle
school that completed a year of LFS reading intervention. Also participating were the
teachers of the intervention classes and school administration. The teachers and
administration shared their views on the effectiveness of the intervention, student
achievement, and curriculum in relation to the program.
To examine the effects of the intervention, a mixed methods approach was
used. For summative data, a factorial analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to
determine the main effects of the intervention, language, and two-way interaction of
language by intervention. Students were matched by CST score and then by primary
language. CST scores for the prior year were used as a covariate. It was a nearly
balanced design with the same number of Armenian, English and Spanish students in
the experimental and control groups. It was not perfectly balanced because not all
students could be perfectly matched by both CST scores and language. For
formative data, interviews, surveys, and informal observations were conducted.
vii
Results of the analysis showed that the year long intervention did not bring
struggling readers closer to proficiency at Wilson Middle School as compared to the
control school matched student group that did not receive the intervention. Nor was
the language by intervention significant. Results also indicated that in the
experimental group, a larger number of 7
th
grade students were raised to one or more
proficiency bands as compared to the 8
th
grade. The decline in scores of the eighth
grade as compared to the seventh grade may be attributed to the nature of the CST,
which gets increasingly more difficult with each grade level.
The lack of significant findings may be attributed in part to three factors:
inconsistency in the implementation of curriculum, a transition and lack of materials,
and assessing a two year program after only one year. Although the results of this
study do not indicate overall improvement due to LFS, students may have grown in
areas not measured by the CST scores. It is recommended that Wilson continue
making LFS a priority by continuing to provide strong administrative support, offer
professional development, and monitor the effectiveness of the program in bringing
students to proficiency.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Problem Identification
School
Woodrow Wilson Middle School (WMS) is one of four middle schools in
Glendale Unified School District. It is a high performing school and continues to
show significant growth in academic achievement. The Academic Performance
Index is 826 and the school has met Annual Yearly Progress in all of its subgroups
for three years. Over 50 percent of the students are on free or reduced lunch and over
65 percent of all students scored proficient or above in both English Language Arts
and math on the California State Test. Of the approximately 1,200 students in grades
six, seven, and eight, 18 percent are English Learners, eight percent have special
education needs, and 13 percent are designated gifted. Because the school has been a
high performing school for several years and a majority of the teachers are
experienced, organizational and instructional changes have not come easily.
Statement of the Problem
Even with the achievements I have mentioned above at Woodrow Wilson
Middle School, 39% of all students are not scoring proficient in the English
Language Arts portion of the California State Test (CST). To remedy this problem,
the students scoring below 325, not designated English learners or special education,
are placed in a reading intervention class called Literacy for Success (LFS). This
reading intervention at WMS is a year long class that students take in lieu of an
elective such as art, computers, cooking, drama, journalism, music, or yearbook. The
2
students in LFS take the intervention class for the entire year regardless of their
performance or growth during the year. The problem is that the LFS program has
never been evaluated to determine its effectiveness on student achievement.
Since each teacher uses different materials and assessments, it is difficult to
determine if LFS has addressed the needs of struggling readers and if it has raised
reading achievement. All LFS teachers are English teachers as well, but they do not
follow the standardized district curriculum. Assessments to accurately measure and
monitor growth of students throughout the year are missing. It is difficult to
determine if students are ready to move into an elective class or require further
intervention. Once the LFS curriculum is followed and assessments are used to
monitor growth are in place, then CST results may indicate if the intervention has
effectively improved reading achievement.
School Wide Data
In looking at data from 2002-2007, WMS has increased their scores from 744
to 826 on the API. The school had made continual growth and met AYP in all
subgroups. The ethnicities represented at the school are approximately 60% White,
21% Hispanic, 8% Asian, 7% Filipino, and 1% African American. Of the 60% of
White students, a majority are of Armenian descent. Significant subgroups include
Hispanic, White, socioeconomic disadvantaged, and English learners.
In 2006-2007, the number of students scoring Below Basic and Far Below
Basic decreased but while 63% of White students scored proficient in English
Language Arts, only 51% of Hispanics and 15% of English learners performed as
3
well. The data also show that as students progress from 6
th
to 8
th
grade, fewer
students score Proficient and Advanced in English Language Arts. It seems students
do not perform as well once they reach the 8
th
grade. Table 1 shows percent
proficient on ELA of CST by significant subgroup. Table 2 shows percent of
students enrolled in reading by grade level and ethnicity.

Table 1: Percent Proficient on English Language Arts on the California State Test

Student Group
Total Score
Reported
Percent Not
Proficient
Percent At or Above
Proficient
All Students 1098 42% 58%
Grade 6 159 57% 43%
Grade 7 467 42% 58%
Grade 8 472 37% 63%
Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
89 64% 36%
Special Ed 94 95% 5%
EL 199 90% 10%
EO 279 32% 68%
IFEP 66 15% 85%
RFEP 552 32% 68%
Asian 73 25% 75%
Black, not of Hispanic
Origin
11 82% 18%
Filipino 92 33% 67%
Hispanic 232 55% 45%
No Response 4 25% 75%
White, not of Hispanic
Origin
682 39% 61%
Compiled from Data Director
4
Table 2: Students Enrolled in Reading Intervention by Grade level and Ethnicity

7th Grade (N=41) 8th Grade (N=35)
White (not of Armenian descent) 10% 9%
Armenian 62% 50%
Hispanic 27% 28%
Filipino 0% 12%
Asian 0% 3%
African American 0% 5.7%

District
Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) is located in the San Fernando
Valley adjacent to the city of Los Angeles and is the third largest city in the county.
The district has five high schools, four middle schools, 20 elementary schools, and
two specialized schools. Eight of the schools have earned National Blue Ribbon titles
and 21 have been recognized as a California Distinguished School. In terms of
measurable achievement, GUSD has an Academic Performance Index (API) score of
807 and has met its Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in both English and math for all
subgroups. In addition, the district has more students scoring proficient or above
when compared to state averages. GUSD serves over 28,000 students and its largest
ethnic populations are Asian (13%), Hispanic/Latino (22%), and White (55%), with
a large portion of students coming from Armenian backgrounds. Twenty five percent
of students are English Learners and 39 percent qualify for free or reduced lunch.
5
GUSD is a data driven school district with high expectations placed on
schools, staff, and students. Beginning in 2005, the superintendent began Focus on
Results (FOR), a program that facilitates schools in establishing an instructional
focus and best practices to improve student achievement. Though it began small, all
schools, regardless of their performance are now required to follow the provisions
outlined in FOR by establishing an Instructional Leadership Team and attending
ongoing professional development as determined by the district. In addition, this year
the district introduced common formative assessments (CFA) with the goal of having
teachers develop common formative assessments in all secondary grades, for all
subjects, within five years. Several staff members at WMS feel overwhelmed at the
district expectations and have been growing more resistant to any changes and
additional requirements placed upon them.
The Community
The school community comes from a broad spectrum of socioeconomic
backgrounds. A large population of the community is from Armenian descent. Parent
involvement is low and WMS is continually working to increase community and
parent participation. WMS is the center of Glendale between the northern area with
more affluent families and south with more working class, immigrant families.
Part II – Problem Analysis/Interpretation
In order to make more informed decisions in improving performance, Clark
and Estes (2002) states that specific goals need to be established, and the gap
between current and desired goals levels measured to determine the most effective
6
way to close the gap. “The gap analysis diagnoses the human causes behind
performance gaps” (Clark and Estes, 2002, pg. 21). To make Literacy for Success
(LFS) a more effective reading program, the causes for the gap in performance will
be described. The challenges in delivering an effective reading intervention program
at WMS include implementing a viable curriculum, overwhelming instructional
demands on teachers, and a lack of accountability.
Teacher Knowledge Factors – A Viable Curriculum
Most teachers of reading intervention are not familiar with the required LFS
district curriculum. There are six LFS teachers and though all of them are veteran
teachers, three of them are teaching reading intervention for the first time. They
comprise a department, yet they do not meet to collaborate or discuss student needs.
Instead, each teacher has created their own LFS curriculum and use materials they
feel are appropriate. There are several levels of reading abilities within a class, yet
little evidence of differentiation was found when visiting classrooms. To reduce the
uncertainty about achieving the goal of LFS, teachers need more information on the
components of the curriculum (Clark and Estes, 2002). In addition, teachers need
ongoing training on effective reading strategies to be able to properly meet the needs
of struggling readers. “Students that have not acquired appropriate reading
skills…fall progressively behind their peers. As these students are expected by other
curriculum requirements to read texts that are too difficult, they lose confidence.
Poor readers can be taught if the program has all necessary components, the teacher
is well prepared and supported, and the students are given time, sufficiently intensive
7
instruction, and incentives to overcome their reading and language challenges”
(Moats, 2001, pg. 11). While teachers may be familiar with reading strategies, they
need training on how to properly use the materials and engage struggling readers to
close the performance gap. According to Clark and Estes (2002), this involves
guided practice in applying new skills and feedback during practice. Though they are
all experienced English teachers, many began with little direction on curriculum and
how to be effective reading teachers and need more information and training to bring
students to proficiency.
Recently, GUSD has adopted Data Director as its main tool to manage data.
Teachers have had some training, but do not use Data Director to analyze their
student progress or as a tool to guide instruction. Teachers are aware of the criteria,
that to enroll in LFS a student must score a Basic or below on the English Language
portion of the CST, but they do not go further into the data to analyze cluster scores.
Without looking more deeply into the test scores of students, teachers are less able to
target intervention on areas in which students are most challenged.
Principal Knowledge
Because of the increasing need for reading instruction, the principal has
become more familiar with the curriculum and materials for LFS. He requested
assistance from the district literacy specialist to provide an overview of data as well
as materials for English language arts, reading, and English language development.
Though reading was only a portion of the staff development, it helped to bring
awareness of available materials and allowed teachers to dialogue on classroom
8
practices. It has begun the discussion and created a feeling that reading intervention
is important and a focus for administration. The principal has embraced the need for
change and established goals as outlined by Focus on Results and creating common
formative assessments, but has not previously monitored nor mandated LFS teachers
to follow the district curriculum.
Motivation Factor – Overwhelming Demands
For teachers, motivation to respond to the needs of the intervention program
have taken a back seat to the tasks presented in FOR and CFAs. The principal has
been hesitant to make additional demands and feels that the district programs are
overwhelming the teachers with their focus pulled in several different directions.
According to Clark and Estes (2002), when there isn’t a clear goal, people tend to
substitute their own goal which may not be consistent with the goals of the
organization. With so many demands placed at once, teachers may not commit to
any. The difficulty has been to create the balance among all the requirements.
Organizational Factors - Accountability
Teachers are not held accountable to follow the LFS curriculum. Though
considered a department, it is not held to the same standards as other departments.
Often the reading and English departments meet together for convenience, but
combining the department meetings does not provide adequate time to address the
specific needs of the reading intervention classes. Since meeting times are at their
own discretion, it has been easy to forego meetings. There has been a history of
reading teachers providing the curriculum with which they are most comfortable and
9
consequently the shift desired for collaboration and curricula consistency goes
against what teachers have become accustomed to. In the past, LFS classes were
small and the few teachers that taught the classes had discretion as to how the
program progressed. Though the program has grown, no changes were made to
adjust to the growing needs of students and teachers. The administrative team and
reading department have had to adapt to increasing enrollment, staff, and varying
degrees of intervention that have been necessary to meet the needs of students. In
addition, the administrative team has had to be more proactive in making classroom
visits and finding evidence of curriculum and differentiation in LFS classes. Now
that the need for change has been identified, WMS has begun planning for ongoing
training and making time for collaboration on effective reading strategies.
Rarely has reading intervention been addressed by the entire staff and so, thus
far, it has not been viewed as a priority. The school’s instructional focus is on writing
and when staff development occurs, it is focused on writing strategies. As part of
FOR, all secondary schools have set their instructional goal as improving writing
achievement for all students. As a result, staff development targets writing strategies
and skills. The balance of focusing on both has been difficult to achieve.
Data is not accessed frequently or used to drive instruction. Teachers have
not analyzed data in ways that are meaningful for instruction. Data Director provides
a wealth of information regarding the past performance of a student, demographic
data, and contact information, while teachers appreciate the ability to access the
information, they are not fully aware of how to use it to best serve the needs of the
10
students. When this program was not available, the teachers were provided with
pertinent data already compiled and organized. Learning to access the information
and pull the data appropriate for instruction themselves has been a slow process for
many teachers.
Problem Solution
The district has placed increasing demands on schools and teachers and at the
same time the need for reading intervention has grown. WMS recognizes these
challenges and several steps are being taken to assist teachers with strengthening the
LFS intervention program. LFS is a district-wide course established to address the
needs of students performing below grade level in reading. Students enrolled in the
course “receive direct instruction in the key competencies of reading using
appropriate materials at each student’s tested reading level” (GUSD curriculum,
2004).
Viable Curriculum and Leadership
Now that there has been an awareness of district materials, teachers can work
further to make sure the district curriculum is followed. No longer can teachers make
“idiosyncratic decisions regarding what should be covered and to what extent”
(Marzano, pg. 23, 2003) to prevent holes in the continuum of content. There should
be no discrepancy between the intended curriculum, the content specified by the
district, and the implemented curriculum, content delivered in class (Marzano, 2003).
There should be an emphasis on differentiated instruction since students require
various levels of intervention.
11
Expectations for curriculum were clearly established by the administration.
The reading department was held accountable for attending meetings and providing
direction for their meetings. The focus was on reading strategies and pacing the
content. In addition, the administrative team made frequent visits to LFS classrooms
to continue the dialogue on reading instruction. The administrative team offered
feedback and support to the teachers.
Monitoring and Assessment
A critical element was for teachers to make sure students are aware of their
progress, how to achieve, and how to earn their way into a general elective class.
According to the California Reading and Language Arts Framework (2007), the
three types of assessment necessary to guide instruction are entry level, progress
monitoring, and summative. “Assessments should be conducted to assist in
determining the next steps for instruction, plans for interventions, and monitoring of
response to instructional supports” (CSBOE, 2007, pg. 265). Currently, LFS students
use Accelerated Reader to identify their reading level. Accelerated Reader is a useful
guide for students, but it does not provide students with skills or strategies to make
them better readers. Identifying students that fail to make progress is important when
targeting intervention. By regularly assessing students and sharing results, teachers
can monitor growth and determine if students have reached mastery (CSBOE, 2007).
Since the district has already begun creating common formative assessments (CFA),
the administration team provided banking time to create CFAs that the current LFS
12
program lacked. Based on these assessments, an exit criteria was created to provide
students with goals and expectations for the class.
WMS has several resources to gather data on students, the school, and
previous exams. Each teacher has access at school and at home to analyze student
test scores in a variety of ways, find demographic information, and input data to
monitor progress. Currently, teachers are only required to input data on semester
exams and there is no semester exam for LFS. A diagnostic reading assessment was
put in place to measure student growth at regular intervals. This provided teachers
and students with information on progress and help set goals for improvement.
Purpose, Design, and Utility
The purpose of this study is to determine if LFS, the reading intervention, is
an effective program to improve the CST scores of students, and if not, what actions
need to be taken to assure student progress. An additional goal is to strengthen the
intervention program at WMS by establishing diagnostic exams to monitor student
achievement and create a criterion for exiting the program so expectations are clear
for both students and teachers. Students in LFS should be able to maintain or exceed
levels of proficiency as they progress though grades.
Design
In this pre-post design comparing CST scores, both formative and summative
evaluations were used. The formative data included interviews, conversations with
the district literacy specialist and the staff of WMS. In addition, informal classroom
visits, department meetings, and staff development day agendas were gathered to
13
shed light on the LFS intervention. Summative data included results of CSTs, scores
from the reading diagnostic exam and information gathered from the CDE and Data
Director. To identify other causes, the achievement between grade levels was also
analyzed to determine if there were any discrepancies between grades. The cohorts
of students were followed for one school year to determine if LFS has been effective
in raising CST achievement.
A similar middle school in GUSD was also used as a non equivalent
comparison school. The school was chosen because of the many similarities. Both
schools have similar significant subgroups, district expectations, and geographic
locations. More than half the students at both schools receive free or reduced lunch.
Achievement in ELA among subgroups and overall will assisted in determining the
effectiveness of reading intervention.
The goal is to have an effective reading intervention that serves students in
need with a viable curriculum and improve their achievement.
Utility
As part of federal mandates under NCLB, we as educators have to make sure
students learn and reach minimum proficiency by 2014. In addition, as a Title I
school, the law states that “all children have fair, equal, and significant opportunity
to obtain a high quality education and reach a minimum proficiency on challenging
state academic achievement standards” (USDOE, 2002, sec 1001).
It is the intent of this research to determine if a reading intervention program
is effective in helping students achieve and improve their CST scores. Is WMS doing
14
enough to meet the need of struggling readers or are other actions necessary to
ensure student success?
15
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
According to the California Reading and Language Arts Framework (2007),
the goal of effective instruction “is to develop and deliver a language arts curriculum
that is systematic and carefully articulated and establishes specific, continuing
standards leading to competence and alignment with the English Language Arts
Content Standards” (pg. 12). The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of
selected literature related to reading instruction and the needs of students not meeting
reading proficiency standards required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB).
No Child Left Behind
NCLB requires schools to improve from year to year with the goal of all
students meeting proficiency by 2014. California has two measures of accountability
to assure all students learn. The first is the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) which
requires schools to meet academic targets regardless of their baseline levels of
performance (Department of Education, pg 3-4 overview). Schools must test 95% of
all students and meet AYP or face consequences (Edsource, 2005, pg.3). The other
measure of accountability is Academic Performance Index (API) which provides
each school with a score based on student scores on the California State Test (CST).
The CSTs are aligned to state standards and assess the skills and knowledge students
should master at each grade level (California Department of Education, overview
pg.1). Schools are required to meet growth targets for each numerically significant
16
subgroup and all schools are expected to meet an API target of 800, or annual growth
targets, until it is achieved.
While Wilson Middle School (WMS) has achieved an API of 826, it does not
have all students scoring proficient on the CSTs. The data from 2007 indicates that
of the 1,200 students enrolled at WMS, 42% of students have not reached
proficiency on the English Language Arts portion of the CST. These students not
meeting proficiency standards are provided additional support in ELA to meet the
requirements of NCLB.
The review will focus on three areas. The first is an overview of challenges in
reading instruction. The second are the requirements set forth by NCLB and the
challenges of meeting proficiency as measured by the California State Test (CST).
The third will focus on factors affecting the school site. Finally, the strategies to
meet the needs of students reading below grade level will be analyzed.
Reading Challenges
According to the National Assessment of Education Progress results of 2007,
the average score of eighth graders in reading in California did not change
significantly from 1998 to 2005 (US Dept of Ed, 2007). In 2007, California scores on
average remained lower than the nation’s public schools (National Reading Report
Card 5/26/08), and studies have shown a decline in voluntary reading and reading
test scores as well (National Endowment for the Arts, 2007). The National
Endowment for the Arts (2007) revealed that less than half of thirteen year olds are
daily readers, a fourteen percent decline from twenty years earlier. It was also found
17
that “American fifteen year olds ranked 15
th
in average reading scores from 31
industrialized nations” (National Endowment for the Arts, 2007, pg. 1). These trends
present a growing urgency to address the needs of struggling readers and bring them
to standards of proficiency as measured by NCLB. The results of the 2007 NAEP
reveals that 63% of eighth graders in California are reading at levels basic and below
and scores have remained roughly the same since 1998 (Department of Education,
2007). Students that fall behind in reading seldom are able to catch up to peers and as
they become older they have a tendency to avoid reading (Moats, 2001). Moats
(1999) stated that “low reading achievement, more than any other factor, is the root
cause of chronically low performing schools and the future success of all students
hinges upon their ability to become proficient readers” (pg. 7). The challenge has
become to teach students that dislike reading because they are unable, have little
experience reading, and are unfamiliar with vocabulary, grammar, and
comprehension (Moats, 2001). Because of the link between proficiency and
motivation, students need to be able to develop “competence in the fundamentals of
reading and writing” to increase their motivation to achieve (California Reading and
Language Arts Framework, 2007, pg. 12).
These gaps in achievement can be addressed and students reading below
grade level can achieve if the reading intervention program provides students with
the skills they missed and matches their level of development (Moats, 2001). Poor
readers are neither less intelligent, nor less motivated, but they do lack language
skills (Moats, 1999). Moats (1999) characterizes reading as a skill that is acquired
18
and follows a predictable course no matter how quickly the skills are attained
(pg.16).
Researched Based Strategies for Struggling Readers
Torgesen (1998) found that students that read poorly at an early age are rarely
able to catch up, unless effective instructional strategies are implemented to bridge
the gap for those readers that struggle. Research based reading intervention can bring
students to grade level and give them the skills they missed in the early grades
(Moats, 2001). The California Reading and Language Arts Framework (2007) asserts
that an effective reading program has four components: “(1) a strong literature,
language, and comprehension program that includes a balance of oral and written
language; (2) an organized, explicit skills program that includes phonemic awareness
(sounds in words), phonics, and decoding skills to address the needs of the emergent
reader; (3) ongoing diagnosis that informs teaching and assessment that ensures
accountability; and (4) a powerful intervention program that provides individual
tutoring for students at risk of failure in reading” (pg. 13). The ultimate goal of
reading instruction is to help students “acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to
comprehend printed material at a level that is consistent with their general verbal
ability or language comprehension skills” (Torgesen, 2002, pg. 10).
Reading Comprehension
Comprehension is the ability to construct meaning from the text and it is
enhanced when the reader is able to relate what they read to their own knowledge
and experience acquired through explicit instruction in cognitive strategies (National
19
Reading Panel, 2000). Dole, Duffy, Roehler and Pearson (1991) found that reading
comprehension is “an active process in which readers select from a range of cues
emanating from the text and the situational context to construct a model of meaning
that represents, to some degree, the meaning intended by the writer” (pg. 255). Dole,
Duffy, Roehler, and Pearson (1991) further state that readers “use their existing
knowledge and a range of cues from the text and the situational context in which the
reading occurs to build, or construct, a model of meaning from the text” (pg. 241).
Readers that comprehend what they are reading are able to use prior knowledge to
determine importance: “Readers use their existing knowledge as a filter to interpret
and construct meaning of a given text...[and] use it to determine significance,
elaborate, and monitor their own comprehension” (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, and
Pearson, 1991, pg. 241).
To effectively instruct students in reading comprehension, the teacher needs
to assist students in constructing meaning about the content and develop strategies
that help them interpret the text (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, and Pearson, 1991, pg. 252).
Because struggling readers are unaccustomed to reading for information, the skills
must be modeled and practiced several times (Moats, 2001). Pearson (1993) found
that students benefit from focusing on the structure of text and drawing relationships
between text and background knowledge.
Phonemic Awareness, Decoding, and Phonics
“Phonemes are the smallest units of spoken language” (National Reading
Panel, 2000) and “phonemic awareness is the ability to segment the speech stream of
20
a spoken work” (Pearson, 1993, pg. 507). Skilled readers have good word
identification – the ability to decode (Pearson, 1993) and students that are able to
read well have insight into phonemes (segments of speech) (Moats, 1999, pg. 16).
Readers require language skills that “include awareness of linguistic units that lie
within a word (consonants, vowels, syllables, grammatical endings, meaningful
parts, and the spelling units that represent them) and fluency in recognition and recall
of letters and spelling patterns that make up words” (Moats, 1999, pg. 16).
The National Reading Panel (2000) found that teaching students “to
manipulate phonemes in words was highly effective under a variety of teaching
conditions with a variety of learners across a range of grade and age levels and that
teaching phonemic awareness…significantly improves their reading” (pg. 7). To
assist students in being able to better decode and spell words, phonics instruction,
teaching the letter sound relationship and their role in reading and spelling, should be
included (National Reading Panel, 2000).
Diagnosis and Assessment
Torgesen (2002) states that the best way to identify students in need is to
directly measure their ability to read words accurately and fluently and recommends
assessing oral language vocabulary with continuous monitoring. To identify
struggling readers, Torgeson (1998) suggests a test of knowledge of letter names or
sounds and a measure of phonemic awareness with the first being the best predictor
of difficulties in reading and states that a lengthy assessment is not required to
accurately identify students in need of reading support and more intensive
21
instruction. “Adequate monitoring of the growth of children’s word reading abilities
should include out-of-context measure of work reading ability, phonetic decoding
ability (as measured by ability to read non-words), and word reading fluency”
(Torgesen, 1998, pg. 8).
A variety of assessments provide information to guide instruction and
determine to what extent students have mastered the material. The California
Reading and Language Arts Framework (2007) identifies several characteristics of
effective assessment in language arts which includes:
• Assessment in student performance to determine what students need to
learn and indicators to identify what skills and strategies they still need
• Assessments on an ongoing basis and linked directly to the goals of the
classroom, school, and state
• Both formal and informal assessments to guide instruction and document
student performance
There are three types of assessments required to effectively monitor students. The
first are entry-level assessments which provide information on the extent of content
knowledge the students already possess. The second are formative assessments
which should be given frequently to monitor student progress towards mastery of the
standards. It is usually informal and used as a guide to adjust instruction. The third
are summative assessments which are taken at the end of a unit, quarter, semester, or
year, and determine student mastery of the content.
22
For reading, Moats (1998) states that valid classroom assessments should
include administering tests in word recognition, phonemic awareness and phonics,
spelling, fluency, writing, and comprehension. These results should be compared to
scores of student that perform with linguistic skills that are appropriate for student
age and grade level (Moats, 1998).
Intervention
If student are experiencing difficulties, they should be provided with
opportunities for more skills practice and intensive instruction (California Reading
and Language Arts Framework, 2007). Torgesen (1998) found that more intensive
instruction is necessary for struggling students so they may receive more direct
instruction from the teacher. Without more intensity and duration, the students will
be unable to catch up to their peers (Torgeson, 1998).
Torgeson (2002) states that instruction needs to be more comprehensive and
explicit for at risk students through direct teaching and increased opportunities to
learn during the day to catch them up. Additional instruction may take the form of
peer tutoring, small group instruction, computer assisted instruction, and repeated
reading. Repeated reading requires the student to read a short passage several times
until they have reached the appropriate fluency (Mastropieri, Leinart, and Scruggs,
1999). Peer tutoring provides additional practice for students with peers monitoring
their active reading performance (Mastropieri, Leinart, and Scruggs, 1999).
Feldman (2004) asserts that literacy skills can increase with the
implementation of a school-wide program that increases the amount of time,
23
practice, and teaching of struggling readers. His six suggestions include: 1) assessing
students using scores other than standardized tests and grades, 2) adjusting
scheduling to provide more learning time, 3) using research based curriculum, 4)
choosing effective teachers, 5) providing meaningful professional development, and
6) monitoring student progress along the way to make adjustments for student
learning (Feldman, 2004).
Addressing the needs of students in middle school is important for future
success in school (Moats, 2001). Reading continues to worsen as students get older
and puts them at a disadvantage personally, socially, and professionally (National
Endowment for the Arts, 2007). The results of the 2007 NAEP reveals that the scores
of twelfth graders fell significantly from 1992 to 2005, with the sharpest decline
among lower level readers (NEA, 2007)
School Level Factors
As mandated by NCLB, chools are held accountable for all students reaching
proficiency by 2014; additionally, NCLB has provided schools with a goal and a
yearly track of accountability. To improve student achievement and meet the
challenge, schools must organize and create an environment for effective instruction.
Marzano (2003) identifies three factors that affect student achievement. The first is
the school factor which includes school policies and decisions. The second is the
teacher factor which includes instructional techniques, classroom management, and
curriculum. The third is the student factor, which addresses student background.
24
Schools have a large impact on student achievement and corresponding achievement
can be improved using research based practices (Marzano, 2003).
School level factors are decisions and policies that can impact school
achievement without drastic change in resources (Marzano, 2003). The policy with
the strongest impact on student achievement is a guaranteed and viable curriculum
(Marzano, 2003). In addition, students should have challenging goals and be
provided with effective feedback (Marzano, 2003). The feedback should be timely,
specific, and facilitate students as they work towards their goals. Schools should also
encourage participation from the parents and community (Marzano, 2003).
Communication between parents and the school should be exchanged in multiple
ways so parents are aware and have opportunities to join decision making
committees. Decisions and policies should provide students with a safe and orderly
environment (Marzano, 2003). The established school-wide procedures for behavior
need to be fair and enforced. Finally, teachers should plan instruction with
collegiality and professionalism (Marzano, 2003). The staff interactions should be
productive and meaningful as the school works towards improving student
achievement.
The teacher level factors are decisions made by the classroom teacher which
include strategies, classroom management, and curriculum design (Marzano, 2003).
Teachers can design their curriculum to engage students and make sure they
experience multiple exposures to the content using research based instructional
strategies. An effective classroom promotes learning, has consistent rules and
25
procedures, and establishes relationships with students that are appropriate
(Marzano, 2003). Marzano (2003) found that teacher impact can have a greater
effect on student achievement than all of the school level factors.
Student level factors include areas from the home environment, background
knowledge, and motivation that affect student learning. Marzano (2003) found that
home environment affects achievement and parents that communicate with their
children about school work and monitor with an authoritative parenting style can
positively affect achievement. Of the types of knowledge students have, crystallized
knowledge, the knowledge of facts and principles, is more strongly correlated with
academic achievement (Marzano, 2003). To enhance crystallized knowledge,
Marzano (2003) suggests teachers can provide students with a variety of experiences
outside the classroom and emphasize vocabulary development. To motivate students
to learn, activities should be engaging and teachers should have an understanding of
motivating factors (Marzano, 2003).
A multitude of factors affect student achievement. By making decisions and
policies based on research, schools can produce positive results. Marzano (2003)
found that school-based intervention can mediate negative aspects of a student’s
background.
26
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the study is to determine if the reading intervention program
at Wilson Middle School (WMS), Literacy for Success (LFS), positively impacts
California State Test (CST) scores in English Language Arts (ELA). If not, what
actions need to be taken to assure student progress? Students included in the study
are those requiring reading intervention that was not designated special education or
English language learner. Both quantitative and qualitative data was used to
determine the effects of the intervention and identify strengths and weaknesses of the
program. The quantitative designs included a pre and post dependent groups design
and a non equivalent control group design. The qualitative design included
questionnaires, interviews, and observations. The mixed methods design has limited
internal validity because participants are not randomly selected and causation cannot
be proven. Results of the study provided WMS with insight into student achievement
and effects of reading intervention.
Quantitative Design
A pre and post design was used to establish the impact of the intervention
using data that compares 2007 scores on the ELA portion of the CST to the 2008
scores. A factorial analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to determine effects
of the intervention, with a significance (p<.05) and effect size (Cohen’s d>.20), by
comparing the experimental and control group. Two way interactions determined the
effect of the treatment using language by grade, language by group, and grade by
group.
27
Pre X Post
2007 X 2008
The non equivalent control group design involved a comparison of Wilson
Middle School with a similar school in the same district. The school was chosen for
its similarity in geographic location, Academic Performance Index, grade levels,
demographics, and participation in free and reduced lunch. The comparison
determined if the CST growth was similar in both schools.

Table 3: Experimental and Control Groups

School/Grade
levels
Geographic
location
Percent on free or
reduced lunch
Demographics API
WMS 6-8
Experimental
Glendale 47% 60% white
21% Hispanic
8% Asian
7% Filipino
826
Toll Middle 6-8
Control
Glendale 56% 64% White
20% Hispanic
7% Asian
4% Filipino
773

Experimental Group (WMS) Pre X Post
Control (same district) Pre Post
In addition, a Grade Level Progression Chart (GLPC) was produced to
compare individual student performance against the prior year, grades 7 to 8 and 8 to
9 (Hocevar, 2008). The GLPC revealed whether students progressed within a
proficiency band or changed band levels.
28
Qualitative Design
To improve the reading intervention, qualitative data was gathered in the
form of surveys, informal interviews and classroom observations, and analysis of
existing documents and materials. The data helped to triangulate information and
identify the strengths and weaknesses of the program. Triangulating the data was
tested for consistency and provided cross-data validity checks (Patton, 2002, pg.
248). The data was also utilized to determine if the program is implemented as
intended to make a positive impact on student achievement. The teachers of the
reading program completed surveys and participated in interviews.
Intervention
Of the 1,200 students attending Wilson not designated English learner or
special education, 20% scored below 325 on the ELA portion of the CST. To bring
these students to proficiency, students were enrolled in reading intervention and
teachers were provided professional development.
Reading Intervention
Literacy for Success is a semester long intervention class for students that
demonstrate a gap in reading achievement (GUSD curriculum, 2004). The course
description states the learning objectives in reading, writing, and written and oral
language conventions, the amount of time to be dedicated to each objective,
instructional strategies, and recommended materials. The curriculum states that
“through frequent and guided independent practice, the student develops specific
skills in word analysis, vocabulary, analysis of literature, and developing
29
organizational and study skill techniques” (GUSD curriculum, 2004, pg. 1). Using
McDougall Littel, Fast Track, leveled libraries or High Point, students received
instructions according to the following timeline: 10% word analysis, 50% reading
comprehension, 30% writing application, and 10% written conventions.
At Wilson, students are placed in LFS based on their ELA score on the CST.
Students scoring below 325, Basic and below, and not already receiving additional
support, are programmed into reading intervention, taking the place of an elective
course for one period, every day. An additional component of LFS is Accelerated
Reader, an independent reading program where students read books and take a
multiple choice quiz to assess their comprehension. There is a separate library with
leveled books and a test bank of questions for each book. Students are assessed in the
beginning of the year to determine their reading level. At their own pace, they select
a book at their designated level and take an assessment when they are done. An
instructional aide monitors the library and students that use it. Performance on these
assessments is factored into the students’ overall grade in class.
With the exception of one teacher, there has been no consistency in the
instructors of LFS, and as the number of students requiring reading intervention
grows, more teachers are teaching a course of LFS. The school’s teacher specialist
and reading department chair gathered information on which materials were being
used in intervention classes and found that the instructional materials used were
inconsistent among teachers, and at times overlapped with English class instruction.
A chart was devised to align materials and LFS classes so students would not receive
30
duplicate instruction in English class. In addition, materials were reviewed and LFS
teachers participated in selecting additional workbooks to supplement what they felt
was missing from core materials.
In the fall of 2007, several teachers voiced their frustrations with LFS core
materials and stated that because students could not relate to the materials, they had
difficulty engaging students. As a result, the teacher specialist, department chair, and
district literacy specialist offered the option of using High Point materials. High
Point is a district approved intervention program, but only one teacher had
previously received training with these materials. Assessments were also discussed
and the Diagnostic Online Reading Assessment (DORA) was purchased and
intended for use in summer 2008. DORA is a quarterly formative assessment for
students and provides more information than Accelerated Reader. The supplemental
program requires students to be self motivated and fails to provide detailed
information on reading comprehension progress.
Professional Development
Wilson Middle School has an instructional focus on improving summary
writing by using three best practices: 1) graphic organizers, 2) quickwrites, and 3)
written explanations. Banking days were used to share practices and strategies to
incorporate more writing into the curriculum. Twice a month, staff met to collaborate
on instruction in various ways that included analyzing data, sharing lessons, and
reading articles. Formal and informal walk throughs were conducted throughout the
year to document evidence of best practices. While reading had not been the primary
31
focus, parts of the instructional goal had been to have students read passages and
summarize the information, making reading a component of improving summary
writing.
Three times during the 2007-2008 school year, teachers received professional
development on creating and using common formative assessments. The district has
a three year goal of creating common formative assessments for teaching a subject in
each grade level. Teachers were provided with data on semester exams and they
targeted those standards in which students were most challenged. From this data,
they created assessments. This year, teachers were asked to create one common
formative assessment per semester and collaborate on the best ways to bring students
to mastery based on the results. It was a way for teachers to get feedback on which
students have mastered the standards and which ones require re-teaching before
summative exams take place.
To specifically address the needs of the reading intervention program,
teachers were provided an in-service facilitated by the district literacy specialist.
Teachers had the opportunity to review research based reading strategies, collaborate
on instruction, and familiarize themselves with available materials. The district
literacy specialist clarified the roles of English language arts, English language
development, and reading intervention class in bringing students to proficiency. A
portion of the day was spent analyzing school data to remind teachers of the gap that
exists in ELA despite the high API score at WMS.
32
The number of students requiring reading intervention has grown and WMS
has a sense of urgency to address the needs of struggling students. In the beginning,
most teachers were unfamiliar with LFS curriculum. Time was spent with teachers
and teacher specialist to make materials and instruction more consistent. In addition,
school wide professional development focused on creating formative assessments to
better monitor student progress. LFS teachers received more specific training from
the district specialist to clarify the role of reading intervention.
Participants and Setting
The participants of this study were the students enrolled in reading
intervention in grades seven and eight that scored below 325 on the ELA portion of
the CST not designated English learner or special education. The study analyzed the
effectiveness of LFS in bringing struggling students to proficiency by analyzing
changes between the 2007 data and 2008 data. Further comparisons were made with
the similar school and among grade levels.
Also included in the study are LFS teachers and administration. There are
currently six LFS teachers with each teaching no more than two intervention classes.
Teachers and administration participated by sharing their practices and beliefs on
LFS, its components, and the effect on student achievement.
The setting is a middle school of approximately 1,200 students in grades six,
seven, and eight located in the Glendale Unified School District. The school is a
Title I school with over fifty percent receiving free or reduced lunch and 48% are
socioeconomically disadvantaged. The major ethnicities represented are White
33
(60%), Hispanic (21%), Asian (8%), and Filipino (7%). Many of the White students
are from Armenian descent. Thirteen percent of students are English language
learners and eight percent are special education.
Instrumentation: Achievement
The California State Tests are part of the state’s accountability system to
measure student achievement. “These tests are based on the state’s academic content
standards—what teachers are expected to teach and what students are expected to
learn” (EdSource, 2005, pg.1). It provides a way for comparing all schools using the
same measure. Students’ scores on the CST range from Far Below Basic, Below
Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced with the goal of having all students score at
or above proficient. While a score of Far Below Basic means students have little or
no command of the subject, a score of Proficient means students have a high level of
mastery (EdSource, 2005, pg. 1).
There are two state and federal measures for summarizing school
performance: Academic Performance Index (API) and Annual Yearly Progress
(AYP). Academic Performance Index measures how much a school improves from
year to year and is calculated from the school’s overall performance on the CST. API
scores range from 200-1000 and each school has a growth target of 800 for overall
performance and each of their numerically significant subgroup. The state then ranks
schools from one to ten based on a comparison to a similar school. Currently, WMS
has an API of 826, met its growth target for all of its significant subgroups and has a
similar schools rank of ten.
34
Academic Yearly Progress is another measure of school performance that
reports how well schools are meeting common standards of academic performance as
required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The ultimate goal is for
all schools to have 100% of all students achieving proficient in English Language
Arts and math by the year 2013-2014. “NCLB requires all schools of the same type
meet the same academic targets throughout the state, regardless of their baseline
performance” (CDE, 2008, pg. 4).
Procedures: Achievement
Each spring, WMS administers the CST to all of its students and the percent
of students scoring at or above Proficient on the ELA exam in 2007 was compared
with those from 2008. An additional measure was taken of individual student growth
from the three different grade levels using the GLPC. The GLPC measured the
number of students that moved across bands as well as within bands. Although
students that progress grade levels and remain in the same band are seen as failing to
make progress, students have maintained achievement on progressively harder tests
(Hocevar, 2008).
Instrumentation: Survey
The survey was used to gather beliefs and identify the use of core materials
and reading strategies in LFS. This also served as a springboard for discussion
regarding teacher opinions on the effectiveness of reading intervention and what they
perceived as strengths and challenges of the program. Teachers responded to open
ended questions.
35
Procedure: Survey
Surveys were distributed to LFS teachers and administrators and collected by
the teacher specialist. The information gathered was compiled and presented to the
reading department for discussion. Teachers and administrators were informed that
the data would be compiled and discussed at future reading department meetings.
Instrumentation: Qualitative Fieldwork – Informal Observations
Throughout the 2007-2008 school year, informal observations of LFS classes
were conducted by the administrative team. Informal observations focused on
implementation of core materials and reading strategies being used in class.
According to Patton (2003), several advantages to conducting observations include:
gaining a better understanding of the context of interactions, and moving beyond the
selective perceptions of others to experience things that may escape the awareness of
those routinely in the setting.
Procedures: Qualitative Fieldwork – Informal Observations
The informal observations occurred periodically throughout the school year
and were unobtrusive. They lasted approximately ten to twenty minutes with notes
taken after each observation. Teachers were aware that the administrative team
would regularly visit classrooms unannounced for short periods of time. The
information was taken on notes and logged for discussion during informal interviews
and department meetings.
36
Instrumentation: Interviews
Informal conversations were used to gather additional data for the study. The
interviews consisted of three questions and helped make the process systematic and
focused on the effectiveness of reading intervention. The three questions were:
1. What professional development do you need to more effectively
implement the LFS curriculum?
2. What do you feel are the weaknesses of the program?
3. What could be added and/or altered to help students reach reading
proficiency?
Informal interviews of LFS teachers and administration were conducted
throughout the year to clarify what was observed in the classroom and gather
feedback on student progress. Informal interviews “offers maximum flexibility to
pursue information in whatever direction appears to be appropriate, depending on
what emerges from observing a particular setting” (Patton, 2003, pg. 342).
Procedure: Interviews
The LFS teachers were interviewed at their convenience towards the end of
the school year, as discussions surrounding next year’s curriculum become more
common and materials were being ordered. The interviews lasted approximately
fifteen minutes and were conducted in teachers’ classrooms for convenience and
comfort. The administrative team was interviewed in their offices.
The informal conversational interviews were conducted following
observations. They lasted approximately two to ten minutes and served to clarify
37
actions observed. “Interview questions will change over time, and each new
interview builds on those already done, expanding information that was picked up
previously, moving in new directions, and seeing elucidations and elaborations from
various participants” (Patton, 2003, pg. 342). Notes were taken later as information
related to the study.
Instrumentation: Documents and Materials Analysis
Documents and materials related to reading intervention were gathered for
analysis. These documents included curriculum guides, core materials, minutes from
department meetings, student work, and district policies. Patton (2003) states that
documents “provide the evaluator with information about things that cannot be
observed…reveal things that have taken place before” (pg. 293). They also provide
“paths on inquiry that cannot be pursued in interviews and observations” (Patton,
2003, pg. 294).
Procedure: Documents and Materials Analysis
Curriculum guides, core materials, and district policies were reviewed with
LFS teachers and teacher specialist to provide an understanding of the components
and district expectations of the program. The program components, department
meeting minutes, and student work were more deeply examined by the teacher
specialist and assistant principal to learn more of how the program developed at
WMS. Questions and clarifications regarding documents were pursued during
observations and interviews.
38
Qualitative Analysis
Once the qualitative data was collected, they were analyzed in the six step
process outlined by Creswell (2003).
1. The data will be prepared and organized
2. Gather a general sense of the data and reflect on the overall meaning
3. Code the material by organizing it into like categories
4. Create a description of the categories
5. Prepare a narrative to describe how the categories will be presented
6. Interpret the data
Quantitative Analysis
To determine the effectiveness of reading intervention at WMS, the ELA
portion of the CST from 2007 was compared to the data in 2008. The pre-post design
was analyzed for the change at WMS using 1) a factorial analysis of covariance to
assess statistical significance, 2) Cohen’s d to assess practical significance, and 3)
GLPC to determine overall grade level and individual change. Results were also be
compared to those from the nonequivalent control group using a factorial analysis of
covariance.
Several measures were used to assess change and determine overall as well as
individual growth. Results determined what alterations needed to be made during the
2008-2009 school year to make LFS more effective and increase student
achievement.
39
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
A pre-post design was used to describe the impact the Literacy for Success
(LFS) intervention had using data that compared the 2007 scores on the English
Language Arts (ELA) portion of the California State Test (CST) to the 2008 scores.
A Grade Level Progression Chart (GLPC) was used to determine growth by grade
level (Hocevar, 2008). The GLPC is a 5x5 cross tabulation chart of individual
student performance on the 2008 CST results against their 2007 CST performance
for grade 7 to 8 and 8 to 9 transitions. The five tiers of performance used are Far
Below Basic (FBB), Below Basic (BB), Basic (B), Proficient (P), and Advanced (A).
Grade Level Progression Chart
The GLPC for the 7
th
to 8
th
grade transition is shown in Table 4. Twenty
three students remained in the same proficiency band and four students dropped one
band. Of the 14 students that went up at least one band, most moved from Basic to
Proficient. More than half of the 7
th
graders in LFS class remained in the same
proficiency band after one year of intervention. The fact that only four students
dropped one band when measured against the more rigorous eighth grade standard
does support the efficacy. However, it is unknown as to whether a change in test
difficulty might also explain this apparent progress.
40
Table 4: GLPC: 7
th
Grade to 8
th
Grade Transition
8th
FBB BB B P A
FBB
BB 5 3 1
B 3 14 7 1
P 1 3 2
7th
A 1

Table 5 shows the GLPC for the 8
th
to 9
th
grade transition. Nineteen students
stayed in the same proficiency band. Eleven students went down one band and five
students raised one or more bands. More than half of 8
th
grade students that received
a year of intervention remained in the same proficiency band, with 14 scoring in the
Basic band. Of those that went down one level, most went from Proficient to Basic
and Basic to Below Basic. Because 11 students declined a proficiency band, the data
might be taken as evidence that LFS did not work. However, the standards get more
rigorous from grade 8 to grade 9, this conclusion is not warranted.

Table 5: GLPC: 8
th
Grade to 9
th
Grade Transition

2008
FBB BB B P A
FBB
BB 2 3 2 1
B 4 14 2
P 5 2
2007
A
41
Nonequivalent Comparison Group Design
A factorial analysis of covariance was used to determine the effect of the
treatment by comparing the performance of students on the ELA portion of the CST.
It was used to identify significant interactions and main effects between the
experimental group (Wilson Middle School) and the control group (Toll Middle
School), the primary language of students, and the two grade levels. The
experimental and control group were not randomly assigned and only the
experimental group received the treatment. The control group belongs to the same
school district and was chosen based on similar geographic location, demographics,
and socioeconomic status. Groups were matched first by scores on the 2007 CST
ELA scores and then by primary language. The two groups were then compared on
the post-test CST data. The treatment was a district adopted reading intervention
program for struggling students called Literacy for Success. It is a class for
struggling readers that meets every day, for one period, and takes the place of their
elective class.
Comparison School Results
Table 6 and Table 7 show the means, standard deviations and cell sizes for
the language by group and grade level by group breakdown of CST ELA scores.
42

Table 6: Language by Group, Dependent Variable: CST2008

LANGUAGE GROUP Mean Std. Deviation N
ARMENIAN 1.00 331.07 40.900 41
2.00 337.67 47.604 46
ENGLISH 1.00 312.55 43.305 22
2.00 329.11 39.217 19
OTHER 1.00 339.40 23.320 5
2.00 334.00 50.912 2
SPANISH 1.00 347.13 35.313 8
2.00 335.67 50.720 9

Table 7: Grade by Group, Dependent Variable: CST2008

GRADE GROUP Mean Std. Deviation N
7 1.00 336.78 45.015 41
2.00 345.29 45.423 41
8 1.00 317.60 33.613 35
2.00 323.37 42.780 35

For each grade level, ANCOVA was used to determine the main effects of
the treatment, language and two-way interaction of language by group. The 2007
CST score was the covariate. ANCOVA results are shown in Table 8.
43
Table 8: ANCOVA results, Dependent Variable: CST2008

GRADE Source
Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 91478.322(a) 7 13068.332 13.141 .000
Intercept 147.952 1 147.952 .149 .701
CST2007 71801.971 1 71801.971 72.203 .000
LANGUAGE 3575.061 3 1191.687 1.198 .316
GROUP 470.462 1 470.462 .473 .494
LANGUAGE *
GROUP
1437.504 2 718.752 .723 .489
Error 73588.568 74 994.440
Total 9702155.000 82
7
Corrected Total 165066.890 81
Corrected Model 52997.245(b) 8 6624.656 8.380 .000
Intercept 142.110 1 142.110 .180 .673
CST2007 49647.653 1 49647.653 62.801 .000
LANGUAGE 318.935 3 106.312 .134 .939
GROUP 233.606 1 233.606 .295 .589
LANGUAGE *
GROUP
342.184 3 114.061 .144 .933
Error 48224.241 61 790.561
Total 7290998.000 70
8
Corrected Total 101221.486 69
a R Squared = .554 (Adjusted R Squared = .512)
b R Squared = .524 (Adjusted R Squared = .461)

Table 9 shows the adjusted CST 2008 means broken down by primary language. The
difference in means is not significant for grade 7, F (3,74) = 1.198, p=.316. The
grade 8 differences by language are also not significant, F (3,61) = .134, p=.939.
44
Table 9: Adjusted Means for Language, Dependent Variable: CST2008

GRADE LANGUAGE Mean Std. Error
7 ARMENIAN 342.677(a) 4.364
ENGLISH 331.888(a) 7.446
OTHER 327.089(a,b) 22.398
SPANISH 355.826(a) 11.158
8 ARMENIAN 318.282(c) 4.846
ENGLISH 323.104(c) 6.020
OTHER 319.657(c) 12.976
SPANISH 321.287(c) 9.441
a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: CST2007 = 326.07.
b Based on modified population marginal mean.
c Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: CST2007 = 321.21.

Table 10, shows that the 7
th
grade mean of the control group was higher than
the experimental group indicating that the control school scored higher on the CST,
but the difference is not statistically significant, F (1,74) = .473, p=.494. Similar
results are found for grade 8, F (1,61) = .295, p=.589. Both the experimental and
control group are within the Basic proficiency band. Even though the control group
did not receive the treatment, the experimental group did not perform better on the
CST after a year of intervention.
Table 11 shows the adjusted means for the group by language. The Table 8
ANCOVA results indicate that this interaction was not significant, p = .489 and p =
.933, respectively. The effect of the treatment was not moderated by language.
45
Table 10: Adjusted Means for Group, Dependent Variable: CST2008

GRADE GROUP Mean Std. Error
7 1.00 336.964(a) 7.450
2.00 346.672(a,b) 6.635
8 1.00 318.177(c) 6.031
2.00 322.988(c) 6.516
a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: CST2007 = 326.07.
b Based on modified population marginal mean.
c Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: CST2007 = 321.21.

Table 11: Adjusted Means for Language by Group, Dependent Variable: CST2008

GRADE LANGUAGE GROUP Mean Std. Error
7 ARMENIAN 1.00 340.276(a) 6.319
2.00 345.077(a) 5.985
ENGLISH 1.00 321.159(a) 10.143
2.00 342.617(a) 10.631
OTHER 1.00 327.089(a) 22.398
2.00 .(a,b) .
SPANISH 1.00 359.331(a) 15.804
2.00 352.322(a) 15.769
8 ARMENIAN 1.00 314.424(c) 7.039
2.00 322.141(c) 6.640
ENGLISH 1.00 322.015(c) 8.129
2.00 324.192(c) 8.913
OTHER 1.00 321.674(c) 16.329
2.00 317.641(c) 19.989
SPANISH 1.00 314.596(c) 14.129
2.00 327.978(c) 12.585
a Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: CST2007 = 326.07.
b This level combination of factors is not observed, thus the corresponding population marginal mean
is not estimable.
c Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: CST2007 = 321.21.
46
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview
This study was an evaluation of Literacy for Success (LFS), a reading
intervention program intended to bring students to proficiency on the English
Language Arts (ELA) portion of the California State Test (CST) at Wilson Middle
School. Students that scored below 325 on the CST were placed into a reading
intervention class for the 2007 – 2008 school year. This took the place of an elective
class which could have included art, music, computers, foods, yearbook, or
journalism. Students included in the study were those not designated English Learner
or special education who completed a year of intervention. A matched sample from a
nonequivalent comparison school in the same district was chosen because of its
similarity in demographics, percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch,
geographic location, grade levels and Academic Performance Index. In this chapter I
will elaborate on the findings of the study, describe the factors that may have led to
the findings, and provide recommendations for Wilson Middle School.
Purpose and Method
The purpose of the study was to determine if Literacy for Success brought
students to proficiency on the English Language Arts (ELA) portion of the California
State Test (CST). The program was a year long intervention for struggling students
scoring below 325 on the ELA portion of the 2006 CST. The intervention included
implementation of a supplemental curriculum, High Point and Fast Track, and
professional development for teachers.
47
To examine the effects of the intervention, a mixed methods approach was
used. For summative data, a factorial analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to
determine the main effects of the treatment, language, and two-way interaction of
language by group. Findings were analyzed to determine statistical significance of
p<.05 and effect size of d>.20. For formative data, interviews, surveys, and informal
observations were conducted. Students were matched by CST score and then by
primary language. It was a nearly balanced design with the same number of
Armenian, English and Spanish students in the experimental and control groups. It
was not perfectly balanced because not all students were able to be perfectly matched
by CST scores.
Participants in the study included 41 seventh graders and 35 eighth graders at
Wilson middle school that completed a year of LFS reading intervention. Also
participating were the teachers of the intervention classes and school administration.
The teachers and administration shared their views on the effectiveness of the
intervention, student achievement, and curriculum in relation to the program.
Summary of Findings
Analysis of the data provided information in answering the research question:
Does the Literacy for Success reading intervention bring students to proficiency on
the ELA portion of the CST? Results of the analysis show that the year long
intervention did not bring struggling readers to proficiency as compared to the
control school with students that did not receive the treatment. It also provided
information on three interactions and main effects of the experimental school when
48
compared to the control school. The data showed no interactions of primary language
by group, primary language by grade, or group by grade. The results of the
experiment did not depend on the primary language or grade level to which they
belonged. Results of the Grade Level Progression Chart, Tables 4 and 5 in chapter 4,
showed a larger number of 7
th
grades students raising one or more proficiency bands
as compared to the 8
th
grade. The decline in scores of the eighth grade as compared
to the seventh grade may be attributed to the nature of the CST, which gets
increasingly more difficult with each grade level. The test is based on California’s
academic content standards, which grows increasingly more rigorous and
challenging with each grade level (EdSource, 2005). Table 10 showed that the
control group did have a higher overall mean CST score as compared to the
experimental school, but the difference was not statistically significant. The
Academic Performance Index (API) scores of the experimental compared to the
control group reflected a decrease in overall achievement for the experimental group.
The experimental group went from an API of 827 to 822, a loss of 5 points, while the
control group went from 773 to 791, a gain of 18 points. The API of the
experimental group did decrease, but it still met its goal of reaching at least at 800, as
set by the California Department of Education. The results of the 2008 ELA CST
showed the experimental school with 60% of students scoring Proficient or above as
compared to 65% in 2007.
49
Implications for implementation of intervention and professional development
Results of the factorial analysis of covariance did not reveal any significant
findings that indicate that the LFS program improved student achievement and
brought students to proficiency on the ELA portion of the CST. The 7
th
graders did
make more of an improvement than the 8
th
graders. The changes to LFS were not
enough to ensure that students reached proficiency. Even with a year of additional
instructional time to focus on improvement, students at the experimental school did
not improve.
The lack of achievement may be attributed in part to three factors:
inconsistency in the implementation of curriculum, a transition and lack of materials,
and assessing a two year program after one year.
This lack of any significant effects on CST ELA achievement may be
attributed in part to the lack of fidelity to follow the intended curriculum. Qualitative
information was gathered in the form of surveys, interviews, and informal
observations to help to answer the research question: Is WMS doing enough to help
students achieve? Surveys were used to gather information on how teachers felt
about the effectiveness of the curriculum. Informal observations were conducted
from October 2007 – June 2008. Literacy for Success classes were visited for
approximately 10-15 minutes and the observer did not participate. Notes were
gathered during the observations and used as talking points during the interviews.
Following the observations, informal interviews were conducted to clarify what was
observed and provide teachers with an opportunity to describe lessons in more detail.
50
It was observed that all LFS teachers felt the intervention was necessary for students
and that students were benefiting from the period a day of additional instruction. It
was also observed that teachers were not using the materials on a daily basis and they
were not maintaining fidelity to the intervention curriculum. Fidelity to High Point
and Fast Track requires daily use according to the publisher recommended pacing
guide. The Fast Track Reading Program Guide recommends 60 minutes a day for
middle school students. The intended curriculum continued to differ from the
implemented curriculum and the teachers lacked consensus on what was going to be
taught. Some teachers used intervention materials as well as incorporating their own
materials, and others felt it was necessary to use instructional time to allow for silent
reading. Students were allowed class time to silently read their assigned Accelerated
Reader novel as opposed to receiving direct explicit instruction. There remained a
lack of consistency among teachers in following the instructional sequence of the
program as intended. Even with the professional development and training on how to
implement the curriculum, teachers did a variety of lessons instead of using the
materials and direct explicit instruction to teach reading strategies. This decreased
the instructional time allowed for implementation of the curriculum.
In addition, teachers did not collaborate on curriculum planning. Without
collaboration or articulation, teachers could not compare growth of students or share
pacing. The professional development gave teachers the tools and information but
only provided teachers with one day to collaborate. The reading teachers did not
regularly meet to discuss student progress or plan together. There was no measure of
51
growth used by teachers to determine if they are reaching mastery. Teachers did not
have common formative assessments or use Data Director to monitor the progress of
their students.
Another factor that may have prevented achievement was the lack of
materials for the teachers. Because of funding, materials were gathered for two
programs, High Point and Fast Track, for use in LFS classes. The district provided
some materials and others were borrowed from local schools. Both are state adopted,
researched based programs intended to bring struggling readers to proficiency.
Having two different sets of materials made it even more challenging to collaborate
and be consistent school wide with what students were learning. As the year
progressed, funding was directed towards the purchase of more Fast Track materials
and High Point was slowly phased out, with only Fast Track being used in the 2008-
2009 school year. This mid year transition was a result of a lack of resources.
Teachers and administration evaluated both programs and chose to invest in Fast
Track but teachers still had to share materials. This made the creation of common
assessments difficult. “Even for people with top motivation and exceptional
knowledge and skills, missing or inadequate processes and material can prevent the
achievement of performance goals” (Clark and Estes, 2002, pg. 103). Teachers were
not provided adequate time and support to “sequence and organize the essential
content” of Fast Track because of the staggered use (Marzano, 2003, pg. 30).
A final factor may have been the early evaluation of student achievement.
According to the Fast Track recommended timeline, it takes two years to bring
52
students reading below grade level to proficiency. The duration of the study having
been conducted during the first year, maybe proficiency will come after another year;
the effects of the intervention might be seen later. The students received instruction
daily, but their curriculum was inconsistent. Results of their achievement may show
growth once the program is followed to fidelity and students have had ample
opportunity to learn.
Recommendations
More can be done to help struggling students reach proficiency in reading
and improve on the ELA portion of the CST. Although the results of this study do
not indicate overall improvement, students may have grown in areas not measured by
the CST scores. It is recommended that Wilson continue making LFS a priority by
continuing to provide strong administrative support, offer professional development,
and monitor the effectiveness of the program in bringing students to proficiency.
Effective administrative support requires both support and pressure (DuFour,
DuFour, Eacker, and Many, 2006). School administration should be more active in
providing support by visiting classrooms, observing ongoing instruction, and
providing feedback to teachers on their instruction. “When top levels of an
organization support the routine setting, translating, and communicating of
performance goals, almost any type of improvement is possible” (Clark and Estes,
2002, pg. 36). Their support and guidance should focus on the specific content of the
intervention so that teachers are utilizing similar content as well as the extent of the
content they teach (Marzano, 2003). Without administrators visiting classrooms,
53
often teachers are isolated and do not receive feedback on their lessons. Feedback
should be both corrective and supportive to provide guidance and tools in how to
improve their lessons. Teachers selected to teach LFS should commit to the goals of
the program and be trained on how to use materials. “Intervention teachers need to
possess knowledge, compassion, and passion if they are going to connect with
adolescents who are in academic trouble” (Feldman, 2004, pg. 3). School leaders can
build on the knowledge teachers possess and build confidence in their skills.
“People’s beliefs whether they have the skills required to succeed is perhaps the most
important factor in their commitment to work tasks and the quality and quantity of
mental effort people invest in their work” (Clark and Estes, 2002, pg. 90).
Teachers have had training on Fast Track materials and require more in depth
training on the skills and strategies used in the intervention program that will bring
students to reading proficiency. In addition to making sure each LFS teacher has a
complete set of Fast Track materials, they should be offered professional
development in the area of direct explicit instruction and cooperative groupings, two
strategies emphasized in the Fast Track. So far, professional development at Wilson
has been limited to training on the components of Fast Track. What teachers require
is a deeper understanding of how to teach reading strategies using the provided
materials and practicing those effective strategies. The ongoing professional
development on reading strategies should provide teachers with time for
collaboration with peers and practical classroom application (Moats, 1999).
Teachers need time for collaboration, sharing strategies, and analyzing assessment
54
results. Because “most teachers have no basis of comparison that allows them to
celebrate strengths or make progress on weaknesses” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and
Many, 2006, pg. 201), collaboration time should include meeting regularly to model
and practice strategies and working together to refine instruction (Feldman, 2004).
It is also recommended that Wilson continue using Fast Track to fidelity and
reevaluate student achievement after another year to determine if growth is shown on
the ELA portion of the CST. To monitor growth throughout the year, an online
assessment, Diagnostic Online Reading Assessment (DORA), was purchased.
Teachers were trained to use the program, but needed more support in analyzing data
and using the information to adjust classroom instruction. For more effective
assessment and monitoring, the on site teacher specialist, familiar with LFS and
DORA, can provide ongoing support to teachers. There should be a reevaluation
after using one set of materials and having students in the program for two years.
Data should include CST and DORA to determine how students are performing and
where their challenges lie so that teachers and administration can collaborate on what
adjustments need to be made to strengthen the intervention program.
Limitations
This study has limited internal validity because participants were not
randomly assigned to control and experimental conditions. Even in the ANCOVA
design, it is not possible to identify a causal relationship between the intervention
and the outcome (McEwan and McEwan, 2003) because unobservable extraneous
factors (e.g., pre-existing differences) may have influenced the outcome of the study.
55
There was limited external validity of the study due to four factors: 1) unable
to generalize to a different population, 2) unable to generalize to other treatment
implementations, 3) unable to generalize across different settings, and 4) different
measures used for dependent variables could yield different findings (McEwan,
E.K.& McEwan, P.J., 2003).
Conclusions
The superintendent of Glendale Unified School District has made student
achievement a priority and continues to guide school leaders, using Focus on
Results, to facilitate school improvements. Currently in year four of the focus on
instruction, the superintendent has praised the good work and directed school leaders
to “stay the course.” Only by continuing to work on improving what is already in
place can the school get better at it. Teachers need a chance to learn and practice
their skills in LFS. Wilson has laid the foundation of an effective reading program
and needs to “stay the course” and continue to work together to bring students to
proficiency.
For further study, it might help Wilson to research the possibility of having
reading intervention before or after school, instead of during the school day, so that
even students that struggle in reading may participate in an elective while in middle
school. Students in reading are excluded from classes that might showcase their
talent or motivate them to get more involved in school.
According to Marzano (2003), the classroom decisions by teachers make a
greater impact on student learning than those made at the school level, but, the
56
school still plays a large role and the teacher, student and school are interdependent
in their impact on student achievement (pg. 77). To provide additional opportunity
for students to achieve, resources were put into strengthening the LFS program at the
study school. Materials were purchased, teachers received training, and additional
classes were created to keep class sizes small and provide it to all students that need
it. A diagnostic exam was purchased but not available for use until the 2008-2009
school year. These resources have been spent establishing a program to help
struggling students reach proficiency. While the results have not shown student
improvement after a year of intervention, the program has improved over that year
and made adjustments that can make it a highly effective program for struggling
students. Wilson should “stay the course” and continue to monitor the program and
deepen the skills of teachers to bring students to proficiency.
57
REFERENCES
California Department of Education. (March 2007). Overview of California’s 2006-
07 Accountability Progress Reporting System.

California State Board of Education. (2007). Reading and Language Arts
Framework for California Public Schools. Sacramento, CA: California State
Board of Education.

Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results. Atlanta, GA: CEP
Press.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. 2
nd
Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Dole, J.A, Duffy, G.G, Roehler, L.R., and Pearson, P.D. (1991). Moving from the
old to the new : Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of
Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., and Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree

EdSource.(June 2005). The State’s Official Measure of School Performance.

Glendale Unified School District (2004). Literacy for Success.

Fast Track Program Guide (2003). Chicago, IL: Wright Group/McGraw-Hill.

Feldman, K. (2004). Narrowing the literacy gap in middle and high school: A
framework for school-wide intervention

Hocevar, D. (2008) Leveled assessment modeling project. Unpublished manuscript,
Univeristy of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What Works in Schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Mastropieri, M.A., Leinart, A., and Scruggs, T.E. (1999). Strategies to increase
reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 278-283.

McEwan, E.K and McEwan, P.J. (2003). Making Sense of Research. Thousand Oaks,
Ca: Corwin Press, Inc.

58
Moats, L.C. (1999). Teaching Reading is Rocket Science: What Expert Teachers
Should Know and Be Able to Do. Washington, D.C.: American Federation of
Teachers

Moats, L.C. (2001). When older kids can’t read. Educational Leadership,58(6) taken
online from:

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: an evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3
rd
Ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Pearson, P.D. (1993). Focus on research teaching and learning reading: A research
perspective. Language Arts, 70, 502-511.

Torgesen, J.K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School
Psychology, 40(1), 7-26.

Torgesen, J.K. (1998). Catch the before they fall. American Educator/American
Federation of Teachers, 32-39

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to determine if Literacy for Success brought students nearer to proficiency on the English Language Arts (ELA) portion of the California State Test (CST). The program was a year long intervention for struggling students scoring below 325 on the ELA portion of the 2006 CST. The intervention included implementation of a supplemental curriculum, High Point and Fast Track, and professional development for teachers. Participants in the study included 41 seventh graders and 35 eighth graders at Wilson middle school that completed a year of LFS reading intervention. Also participating were the teachers of the intervention classes and school administration. The teachers and administration shared their views on the effectiveness of the intervention, student achievement, and curriculum in relation to the program.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining the effectiveness of the intervention programs for English learners at MFC intermediate school

PDF

The effect of a language arts intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The effects of a reading fluency intervention on the reading outcomes of middle school students with severe reading disabilities

PDF

What about the children left-behind? An evaluation of a reading intervention program

PDF

The comparison of hybrid intervention and traditional intervention in increasing student achievement in middle school mathematics

PDF

Examining the effectiveness of teacher training on the improvement of California standardized test scores at Eva B. Elementary School

PDF

Raising student achievement at Eberman Elementary School with effective teaching strategies

PDF

Alternatives for achievement: a mathematics intervention for English learners

PDF

The effectiveness of the cycle of inquiry on middle school English-learners in English-language arts

PDF

Closing the science achievement gap for ninth grade English learners through standards- and inquiry-based science instruction

PDF

The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...

PDF

The effect of site support teams on student achievement in seven northern California schools

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of algebra students

PDF

The impact of professional learning communities and block scheduling on English language learner students at Oak Point Middle School

PDF

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

PDF

Quantifying student growth: analysis of the validity of applying growth modeling to the California Standards Test

PDF

Reading prereferral intervention: developing, implementing and monitoring

PDF

Closing the achievement gap: successful practices at a middle school -- a case study

PDF

An evaluation of the impact of a standards-based intervention on the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The implementation of studio intervention at a medical magnet high school

Asset Metadata

Creator Bixler, Josephine Tidalgo (author)

Core Title The effectiveness of the literacy for success intervention at Wilson Middle School

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/09/2009

Defense Date 05/06/2009

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

Tag intervention,middle school,OAI-PMH Harvest,Reading

Place Name California (states), educational facilities: Woodrow Wilson Middle School (geographic subject), Glendale (city or populated place)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Brown, Richard Sherdon (committee member), Keim, Robert G. (committee member)

Creator Email bixler@gusd.net,tidalgo@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2338

Unique identifier UC1502084

Identifier etd-Bixler-3107 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-251175 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2338 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Bixler-3107.pdf

Dmrecord 251175

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bixler, Josephine Tidalgo

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu