University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Play, read, learn: building young Black males literacy skills through an activity-based intervention

(USC Thesis Other)

Play, read, learn: building young Black males literacy skills through an activity-based intervention

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PLAY, READ, LEARN 1

PLAY, READ, LEARN: BUILDING YOUNG BLACK MALES LITERACY SKILLS
THROUGH AN ACTIVITY-BASED INTERVENTION

by

Shenora Nicole Plenty

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

May 2014

Copyright 2014 Shenora Nicole Plenty
PLAY, READ, LEARN 2

Epigraph

Any book that helps a child to form a habit of reading, to make reading one of his deep and
continuing needs, is good for him.
-Maya Angelou

PLAY, READ, LEARN 3

Dedication
I lovingly dedicate this dissertation to the following angels in heaven whose wings soar and
watch over me daily: To my loving mother Terry Jo Plenty, although you departed from earth
while I was a little girl your spirit reigns forever. I am so blessed to have been granted the
opportunity to complete my doctoral degree; the degree you started but did not get the
opportunity to finish! Thank you for planting the seed to follow in your great footsteps to
become a scholar and educational warrior. Thank you for setting the bar high and letting me
know that my goals are attainable. I will FIGHT-ON in your honor. Granddaddy (William
Richardson), I cherish the memories that we shared. Until your last breath in 2012 you played an
integral part in my life and I will always carry your words of wisdom with me. You devoted a
part of your life to helping my dad raise three little girls and I am forever grateful. Uncle Ruben
Richardson, I know that you are all smiling down on me and never left my side throughout this
educational journey. Until your last breath in 2013, you always supported my sisters and me,
spoke greatness into our lives and loved us unconditionally. Thanks to your constant reminders,
we know that our Black is beautiful and that we can accomplish anything we put our minds too.
Dr. John Cawthorne, my former college mentor, thank you for supporting me and being an
exemplar of a phenomenal student-centered educator. You modeled what excellence looks like
inside the classroom and inspired me to be an educator who always puts the needs of my students
first. May each of you rest in peace... Until we meet again! I love you!
To my beautiful goddaughter Kynnedi D. Mickles, I am so proud of you. Always remember that
no matter how hard it gets you can achieve any set goal in life. Keep the faith and lean on God
for help and strength. To all my former and future students whose paths I may cross always
remember that “no matter where you come from, your dreams are valid.” ~Lupita Nyongo
PLAY, READ, LEARN 4

Acknowledgements
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.
Philippians 4:13, Holy Bible, NKJV

Father God in the name of Jesus I thank you for your unconditional love, guidance,
faithfulness, favor, grace, and mercy upon me throughout this educational journey. Thank you
Jesus for all of your countless blessings bestowed upon me. I am a witness that those who walk
with God always reach their intended destination. I have learned to trust your will, timing and
process.
I would like to thank my “Dream Team” also known as my prestigious dissertation
committee. You each have pushed me further than I ever thought I could go and I am very
grateful for your willingness to serve as mentors throughout this process. Dr. Sandra Kaplan,
thank you for being a chair that believed in me and supported my desire to be an independent
researcher who held fast to my passions and areas of research interest. You set extremely high
expectations for me which not only helped to produce high quality work but also taught me to
never settle for anything but excellence. Dr. Gallagher, thank you for always being a voice of
intellectual reason and always adding humor to my committee meetings. Dr. Mora-Flores, we
had an instant connection and I admire your passion, commitment and expertise in the area of
literacy. Thank you for all your comprehensive feedback and positivity throughout this entire
process.
I would like to thank my wonderful parents Leonadus and Jacqueline Plenty for your
unwavering love and support. Thank you for instilling the value of hard work; it has truly paid
off! My two beautiful sisters, Charnika and Sade Plenty, thank you for the constant reminder that
no matter the circumstance, sisterhood is a special unbreakable bond. I am so proud of both of
PLAY, READ, LEARN 5

you. Always remember that Plenty Girls Rock! To my loving godmother Pearl Thorpe, words
cannot express how much I appreciate you. Thank you for always knowing what to say at the
right times and encouraging me at my weakest moments during the program. Grandma Graham,
I would not have made it through this doctoral program without our daily phone calls and
prayers. You are a mighty woman of God who taught me the importance of stepping out on faith
and the power of prayer. Granddaddy Graham you are my biggest cheerleader and I have always
appreciated your words of encouragement and support. You taught me to value my own worth
and never settle for less. Thank you to my adopted Los Angeles parents the Swarengers’. From
the moment I arrived in LA you took me in and I became a part of your family. I always knew
you were only a phone call away and a five minute drive to campus. Tiyonna M. I am so blessed
to have you as my best friend since the seventh grade. Thank you for all your words of
encouragement throughout this experience. Thank you to all my loving aunts, uncles, cousins
and extended family and dear friends. I am grateful for your phone calls, text messages, emails,
thoughts and prayers. I truly appreciate all your love and support throughout this process. I love
you all!!
I would like to thank the five second-grade Black male participants, their teachers and
principal who helped make this study possible. Thank you for informing my leadership and
pedagogical practices. Thank you for amplifying my passion to serve my community and
validating the necessity for me to continue to be an educational warrior on the front lines
advocating for equitable high quality educational opportunities for all children. Your futures are
bright and I know that you are all destined for greatness. I wish you the best!
Thank You: Naima AK., Jasmine W., Alaina J., Yoci G, Lillian A., Chidi I., Toutoule
“The Data God”, Professor Ahmadi, Dr. Cole, Dr. Rousseau, Dr. Pendakur, Dr. Keim, Dr.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 6

Jimenez y West and the DSC, Dr. A. Flamer & my DCPS/Simon ES family, CeCe P. (USC
mom), USC Residential Education family, EDPT- 110 family, Dr. Deeva, Rosalind, Markeith
and my CBCSA family, MSMBC family, HOP family, the elite USC Brown Girls Club (we did
it). Thank you Dr. D. Brown (Azusa Pacific University) for all your support and mentorship.
Thank you to my editors Amanda B., Peter T., and Georgette A. Thank you to my brothers from
another mother Dr. Sweet and Dr. Smith for your support throughout this entire experience. Dr.
Lyons-Moore, I am so proud of you and admire your persistence. All of your phone calls and
text messages helped me get through this program. Thank you Dr. S. Pearson. You were right
there for every laugh, tear, triumph and obstacle- I love you sister! My fellow Trojans, USC
Cohort 2011-Class of 2014 we made it! Congratulations and forever FIGHT-ON!

PLAY, READ, LEARN 7

Table of Contents

List of Tables 10
List of Figures 11
Abstract 12
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 13
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 18
Theoretical Framework 22
Significance of the Study 26
Research Questions 30
Brief Overview of Methodological Design 31
Assumptions 32
Limitations 33
Delimitations 33
Definition of Terms 34
Chapter Two: Literature Review 38
Historical Context of Literacy Development 40
The Gender Gap 45
The Purpose of Reading 47
The Complexity of Literacy 48
How is Literacy Defined 48
The Key Components of Literacy 49
Phonological Awareness 50
Phonics 51
Fluency 51
Vocabulary 52
Reading Comprehension 53
The Role of Writing as a Part of Literacy Skill Development 54
Parental Involvement in Children’s Literacy Development 58
Benefits of Early Literacy Intervention and Effective Reading Instruction 62
Long-Term Impacts of Black Students Who Do Not Receive Effective 64
Literacy Instruction
Methods of Teaching & Learning 66
Direct-Instruction vs. Active Teaching 67
Direct Instruction 67
Active Teaching 71
Active Learning Through Play 76
Teacher’s Role During Play 82
Student’s Role During Play 83
Play Techniques 84
Guided Play 84
Guided Play and Academic Outcomes 84
Free Play 85
Free Play and Academic Outcomes 86
Long-term Effects of Playful Pedagogies 87
PLAY, READ, LEARN 8

Cognitive & Social Cultural Outcomes to Effective Reading Instruction 89
Self-Efficacy Outcomes
Understanding Reading Attitudes & Behaviors 92
Cultural Outcomes to Effective Reading Instruction 95
Conclusion 99
Chapter Three: Methodology 102
Introduction 102
Overview of Problem 103
Nature of Study 105
Sample and Population 107
Instruments 110
Research Procedure 117
Reading Intervention Program 117
Data Collection 118
Qualitative Data Analysis 118
Quantitative Data Analysis 119
Triangulation 120
Ethical Considerations 121
Summary 120
Chapter Four: Findings 121
Research Questions 123
Participants 123
Methodology 125
Instrument 128
Research Procedures 133
Reading Intervention 133
Descriptive Statistics 136
Discussion of Descriptive Statistics: Profile Summaries 146
Summary of Findings 158
Research Question One 159
Research Question Two 163
Research Question Three 170
Summary 173
Chapter Five: Discussion 174
Introduction 174
Brief Overview of Problem 175
Research Questions 175
Methodology 175
Discussion of Findings 176
Research Question One 176
Research Question Two 180
Research Question Three 189
Summary 191
Limitations 191
Implications 195
Recommendations 193
PLAY, READ, LEARN 9

References 200
Appendix
Appendix A 239
Appendix B 241
Appendix C 245
Appendix D 251
Appendix E 256
Appendix F 259

PLAY, READ, LEARN 10

List of Tables
Table 1: Relationship Between Instructional Practices & Cognitive 26
Outcomes of Curriculum
Table 2: 8 Key Principles of Active Learning for Boys Who Struggle In 71
School
Table 3: Major Theorists That Help Shape Conceptual Framework 73
Table 4: Basic Demographics for Children in the Play, Read, Learn After- 104
School Intervention Group
Table 5: Research Questions and Data Matrix 108
Table 6: Population Demographic Information 122
Table 7: Components of the Data Collection Process 123
Table 8: Play, Read, Learn 6 Week Intervention Curriculum 132
Table 9: ERAS Recreational Reading Attitude Responses (Pre) 136
Table 10: ERAS Recreational Reading Attitude Responses (Post) 137
Table 11: ERAS Academic Reading Attitude Responses (Pre) 138
Table 12: ERAS Academic Reading Attitude Responses (Post) 139
Table 13: ERAS Overall Reading Attitude 140
Table 14: Observations of Fluent Readers 169
Table 15: Observations of Non-Fluent Readers 170

PLAY, READ, LEARN 11

List of Figures
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework 24
Figure 2: Transactional Strategy Instruction 76
Figure 3: Bruner’s (1966) Three Modes of Representation 78
Figure 4: Garfield Facial Expressions on ERAS 112
Figure 5: Administering the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey 129
Figure 6: Play, Read Learn Curriculum Instructional Patterns 132
Figure 7: Participants’ Recreational Reading Subscale Results 138
Figure 8: Participants’ Academic Reading Subscale Results 141
Figure 9: Participants’ Composite Reading Attitude Results 143
Figure 10: Andre’s Recreational Reading Attitude Results 144
Figure 11: Andre’s Academic Reading Attitude Results 144
Figure 12: Brandon’s Recreational Reading Attitude Results 147
Figure 13: Brandon’s Academic Reading Attitude Results 147
Figure 14: Charles’ Recreational Reading Attitude Results 149
Figure 15: Charles’ Academic Reading Attitude Results 150
Figure 16: Dwayne’s Recreational Reading Attitude Results 152
Figure 17: Dwayne’s Academic Reading Attitude Results 152
Figure 18: Elijah’s Recreational Reading Attitude Results 154
Figure 19: Elijah’s Academic Reading Attitude Results 155

PLAY, READ, LEARN 12

Abstract
In the realm of education, there is a debate between opponents and proponents of activity-based
pedagogy as educators move beyond direct instruction to a more student-centered hands-on
approach to developing literacy skills. Although, active learning through play has not been
recognized as the exclusive pedagogical approach to teaching reading, research suggests that it is
needed to balance children’s development and their readiness for school. The purpose of this
study was to advance and provide an in-depth, holistic description and interpretation of second
grade Black males reading attitudes, reading behaviors and self-efficacy after they engage in an
activity-based intervention. The specific reading behaviors for this study included: selection of
reading materials and levels of engagement in literacy activities. Driven by a constructivist and
transactional framework, a mixed methodology inquiry design strategy was used for data
collection and analysis. Five second grade Black males attending Bears Elementary school,
located in South Los Angeles, California made up the sample for this study. The participants
engaged in a six-week activity-based afterschool intervention program. Findings from this study
suggest that an activity-based intervention has positive effects on second grade Black males
reading attitudes, reading behaviors and reading self-efficacy. Participants with positive reading
attitudes are likely to read for pleasure and have a high sense of self-efficacy in reading than
children with a lower sense of self-efficacy. When participants are immersed in a print rich
classroom environment that gives them opportunities to engage in autonomous meaningful
learning experiences and hands-on literacy activities, their reading attitudes mirror their reading
behaviors. The data generated about Black male students’ reading attitudes, self-efficacy and
reading behaviors through their participation in an activity-based intervention can be used to
improve literacy achievement outcomes for second-grade Black males.
Keywords: play, Black males, literacy, reading attitudes, reading behaviors, self-efficacy
PLAY, READ, LEARN 13

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF STUDY
The relative decline of American education is untenable for our economy, unsustainable for our
democracy, and unacceptable for our children, and we cannot afford to let it continue.
-President Barack Obama, March 2009

Statement of the Problem
Over the last century, there have been changes in Black identity and it was reasonable to
conceptualize Black identity as a multidimensional phenomenon; being Black means different
things to different segments of the Black population (Demo & Hughes, 1989; Agyemang, Bhopal
& Bruijnzeels, 2005; Maylor, 2009). The term ‘Black’ identity is the meaning a person attributes
to the self or an object in a social situation or social role (Demo & Hughes, 1989; Smith 1992;
Maylor, 2009). Labels define the groups and help to determine how both the ‘in’ and ‘out’ group
members respond to the group; this is especially true for Black Americans in particular (Smith,
1992; Maylor, 2009). The current groupings of African descent populations in the United States
hide the vast heterogeneity with this group (Agyemang et al., 2005). The term ‘Black’ is
employed as a term of self-identity and sets itself apart from the collective meaning of the term
to encompass all minority ethnic groups (Maylor, 2009). Black American generally refers to a
person with African ancestral origins (Agyemang et al., 2005; Maylor, 2009; Smith, 1992).
Demo and Hughes (1989) noted that structurally, being Black in American society means
occupying a racially defined status; associated with this status includes roles in the community,
family, and the greater society. Hylton and Miller (2004) note that,
Black Americans animate their notion of Blackness against the living memory of
segregation and lynching’s, and the knowledge that they were forcibly transported to
America around the same time that White mass immigration occurred. So the Black
American claim to being a legitimate part of America is unchallenged, although before
this era it was assumed to be a subordinate role. Black Americans concurred in defining
PLAY, READ, LEARN 14

their subjectivities as a Blackness that heralds a romantic saga of self-love, mental
liberation and pilgrimage to locate an organic self. (p. 384-385)

Black is a term of endearment that embraces great pride (Hylton & Milton, 2004). Thus, for this
dissertation, the term Black(s) was used as the collective standard racial reference term.
Race in the United States is one of the most salient social constructions and categories
that shape how individuals perceive who they are as well as how they are perceived by others
(Newman, 2005; Smith, 1992). Opposition against the realities of race opens up arguments that
race is nonexistent and irrelevant, limiting understandings of how race and racism still affect
individuals’ and groups’ opportunities, especially in terms of equity, access and success in the
realm of education. The problem of educating Black children in the American context is as old
as the presence of Blacks in our society (Kunjufu, 2000). In the year of 1933, Carter G.
Woodson declared that since emancipation, educational opportunities have been placed entirely
in the hands of Whites whom have overtly mentally and physically enslaved and segregated
Blacks for decades. Gadsden (1991) also noted that for Black learners, literacy has been a
tenuous struggle, from outright denial during slavery, to limited access in the early 1900s, to
segregated schools often with outdated textbooks.
The persisting deficiency in the education of children of poverty has generated a large
portion of the United States population that lacks adequate literacy skills (Dinkevich, Mulvihill,
Ozuah & Sharif, 2003). In fact, by the end of fourth grade, nearly 70% of students from poverty
nationwide stricken communities read below grade level and are at greater risk for school failure,
special education, substance abuse, and juvenile delinquency (Good, Gruba & Kaminski, 2001).
Forty-percent of adults living in poverty have the lowest levels of literacy (McGee & Richgels,
2003). Research suggests that children raised in poverty have limited access to develop language
PLAY, READ, LEARN 15

and literacy skills (Bond, Hindman & Wasik, 2006). Students of color and impoverished inner-
city children are at increased risk of language delay, oral language development, reading ability,
and overall school performance (Broderick, Cheng, Dreyer, Forman, Mendelsohn, Mogilner,
Moore & Weinstein, 2001). Black males in particular, fall below that of White boys (Prager,
2011). Only 12% of Black fourth-grade boys are proficient in reading, in comparison to 38% of
White boys (Prager, 2011). Thus, it is important to closely examine reasons why Black males
continue to fail academically.
Analyzing the ways in which Blackness and maleness intertwine is an important research
endeavor. Twenty-six years ago, Gibbs (1988) declared Black males in America an “endangered
species”; becoming scarce under adverse environmental conditions due to a society which
ignores the social and physical needs of inhabitants (Kunjufu, 2005). Today, Black males in
America are in trouble (Noguera, 2008). The adversities affecting Black males in education,
health, employment, income, overall well-being, and the criminal justice system have become so
acute and pervasive they have been described as a crisis; a population that is distinguished by
hardships, disadvantages and vulnerability (Noguera, 2008). Education is one of the
fundamental elements in the progression of Blacks in American however, academically, nearly
60% of Black males in urban cities across the country drop out of high school (Kunjufu, 2011;
Noguera, 2008, Schott Foundation, 2004; 2008; 2010). Of those enrolled in school throughout
the United States, Black males are more likely than any other group in American society to be
punished typically through some form of exclusion, suspension or expulsions (Noguera, 2008)
and are labeled, and categorized for special education often without an apparent disability
(Schott Foundation, 2004; 2008; Noguera, 2008). In fact, 80% of Black students in special
education are male (Kunjufu, 2011).

PLAY, READ, LEARN 16

Black and Hispanic children perform considerably lower than their Anglo counterparts as
early as fourth grade in the area of reading (Garcia & Pearson, 1991). Many Black children
attain poorer academic skills at all educational levels in comparison to White students
(Matthews, Kizzie, & Rowley, 2010). For instance, Darling- Hammond (2007) noted that the
average Black twelfth grade student has the literacy skills equivalent to a White eighth grade
student. The above statistics suggests that Black students and students of color overall are being
failed by the inequitable American public school system. The problem further asserts the notion
that in the 21
st
century, Black youth are not only being “miseducated” but actually “de-educated”
(Kunjufu, 2000; Woodson, 1933).
Research suggests that, if current trends hold true, 6.6 million low-income children in the
birth to age eight group are at increased risk of failing to graduate from high school on time
because they will be unable to meet NAEP’s proficient reading level by the end of third grade
(Feister, 2010). In response to these large underachievement rates, educators and policy-makers
are tasked with developing and implementing effective instructional practices to close the
existing literacy achievement gap. Educators have faced the challenge of improving literacy
pedagogy for low-achieving students. As a result, educational leaders and policy makers
continue to seek ways to eradicate the growing illiteracy rate in the United States.
One attempt to combat this problem and improve student performance outcomes in the
literacy domain was through launching the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. NCLB
federally mandated that all students must be proficient in the content areas of Reading and
Mathematics based on state-adopted tests by the year of 2014 (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). NCLB is
a performance-based accountability system built around student test results with consequences
attached to those results (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Furthermore, in order to avoid lower
PLAY, READ, LEARN 17

standards for poor children and to ensure that failure from particular groups does not submerge
in unfocused averages (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003), NCLB requires each state to develop
objectives and report by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability and limited English proficiency (Linn,
2005) and to disaggregate data for minority groups (Foorman & Connor, 2011). These mandates
aim to encourage states to raise their academic achievement standards for all students (Foorman
& Connor, 2011).
In addition to NCLB requirements, in 2010 the National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) released the
Common Core State Standards Initiative in an effort to shift away from disparate content
guidelines across individual states in both English language arts and mathematics (Porter,
McMaken, Hwang & Yang, 2011). Created in an effort to establish consensus on expectations
for student knowledge and skills that should be developed in grades K-12, the Common Core
Standards explicitly focus on what students are to learn and not how that content is to be taught
(Porter et al., 2011). According to the Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010), the
standards were developed so that many more students than at present can meet requirements of
college and career readiness (Bingham, Hall-Kenyon & Culatta, 2010; Porter et al., 2011).
While high-stakes tests and higher standards create an accountability system, it is not a
substitute for substantive changes in teaching and learning pedagogical practices; they aim to
increase motivation to make instructional changes in the classroom (Hochschild & Scovronick,
2003). The need for innovative early literacy pedagogy across urban public school districts has
been amplified. The achievement gap is the evidence that validates the assertion that a problem
exists in the realm of education. One significant problem facing early childhood literacy
educators, school leaders and policy makers is the need to determine what method of instruction
PLAY, READ, LEARN 18

can be added to existing instructional practices to improve student outcomes and achievement
gaps in the subject of reading. Hochschild and Scovronick (2003) assert that in order for high-
stakes testing to be fair, for standards to be met, state-level finance reform, and strong action will
be necessary to improve the quality of teaching for students who are not learning enough to
pursue their dreams. Effective instruction is essential in poor urban school districts everywhere
(Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). There is a need for teachers to implement the best
pedagogical practices in classrooms across American public schools and to deliver effective high
quality instruction (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). And yet, moving beyond direct instruction
and implementing a student-centered hands-on approach to acquiring literacy skills continues to
be a historical debate that has given rise to both opponents and proponents of activity-based
instructional approaches (Alfieri Brooks, Aldrich, & Tenebaum, 2011; Tobias & Duffy, 2009).
Purpose of the Study
No challenge has been more daunting than that of improving the academic success of
Black students (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Ladson-Billings (2009) noted as the face of education
continues to progress, gaps in school achievement remain disproportionate for academically at-
risk children, especially Blacks and the poor. There have been several studies that document the
poor achievement of Black males throughout their school years. In particular, research
repeatedly documents an achievement gap in reading skills between socioeconomically
disadvantaged students and their non-disadvantaged peers (McClurg, 2009). In 2009, the
average reading score of Black fourth grade students was 26 points less than White fourth grade
students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). According to the National Education
Association (2011) 42% of Blacks students attended schools that are under-resourced and rated
as performing poorly. Of the 42% of Black males, only 12% of Black boys are proficient in
PLAY, READ, LEARN 19

reading (Kunjufu, 2011). In particular, results have indicated that students are entering the third
grade below beginning of the year reading expectations. This is a problem because the National
Research Council asserts that a child who is not at least a modestly skilled reader by the end of
third grade is unlikely to graduate from high school (Feister, 2010). This is largely due to the
fact that, in the early elementary year’s kindergarten through Grade 3, language is the content as
well as the medium for learning and students are learning through exposure to and imitation of
the words, expressions and patterns of language use they observe others using (Duke & Carlisle,
2011). In addition, there is a national focus on primary grade reading mandated by the Reading
First component of NCLB which requires instructional strategies in kindergarten through third
grade based on scientifically-based reading research (Foorman & Connor, 2011). Thus, this
study focused on second grade Black males, as the second grade is a critical period for literacy
development, attitudes towards reading and the development of positive reading behaviors (Duke
& Carlisle, 2011). The specific reading behaviors for this study focused on participant’s
selection of reading materials and levels of engagement during literacy activities.

The National Research Council (1998) suggests that lingering difficulties in reading
largely originate from rising demands for literacy, not from declining absolute levels of literacy
because the demands for higher literacy are ever increasing, creating more grievous
consequences for those who fall short. Thus, there is a need for innovate instructional practices
and research that relates to the large populations of diverse children in the urban sector of public
schools throughout the United States in order to help eliminate the literacy achievement gap that
exists. Ladson-Billings (2009) wrote that the current demographic shift in the public school
student population in urban areas have forced teachers to examine more closely the academic
performance of students from a variety of cultural, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 20

The amount and type of literacy instruction children receive in the classroom is
consistently and systematically associated with their literacy skill growth (Foorman & Connor,
2011). Thus, there is a demand for creative instructional methods and fearless teachers in the
classroom to meet the needs of NCLB (Salpeter, 2003). This demand for creativity specifically
requires more than basic reading, writing and computing skills; rather, it requires individuals
who can learn, unlearn, relearn, and actively engage in the process of creating their own
knowledge (Salpeter, 2003). Talking at kids has never been, and never will be, an effective way
to help them learn; rather, all human beings learn by doing, analyzing, talking, processing, and
problem-solving (Salpeter, 2003). Students need more opportunities to play and engage in
activities that require them to analyze in a more in-depth manner (Roskos & Christie, 2004).
Bok (2006) reported that interests, values and cognitive skills are more likely to last longer, as
are concepts and knowledge that students have acquitted not by passively reading or listening to
their instructors, but through their own mental efforts. Students also need opportunities to
collaborate, explore and engage in student-centered activities that allow them to construct
personal meaning and develop creative, higher order thinking skills that foster valuable learning
for the their future (Thomas, Mergendoller, & Michaelson, 1999). Rueda and Houghton Mifflin
Company (2006) noted that this type of learning creates opportunities for students to control their
learning environments while the teacher serves as a facilitator in the learning process. Thus, it is
important that new curriculums are developed to help motivate students to learn because student
engagement and motivation contribute to students’ literacy development (Foorman & Connor,
2011).
Activity- based approaches, also referred to as discovery-based learning (Alfieri et al.,
2011) is a form of instruction that provides opportunities for students to engage in real-world
PLAY, READ, LEARN 21

meaningful and engaging learning activities (Roskos & Christie, 2004). One form of activity-
based learning is through play. Play is a prominent and integrative experience for young
children in which children use both social and academic skills while creating meaningful
learning experiences and connections to the content (Roskos & Christie, 2004; Zigler, Singer, &
Bishop-Josef, 2004). Bredekamp and Copple (1997) suggest that,
play is an important vehicle for children’s social, emotional, and cognitive development,
as well as a reflection of their development.…Play gives children opportunities to
understand the world, interact with others in social ways, express and control emotions,
and develop their symbolic capabilities…. During play, a child can learn to deal with
conflicts, and to gain a sense of competence. (p. 14-15)

This view suggests that the whole child integrates cognitive and emotional information in
meaningful ways with the help of a rich environment and supportive adults (Vygotsky, 1962;
1978). Learning is not compartmentalized into separate domains; rather, all learning is
intimately intertwined (Froebel, 1897; Piaget, 1970). In fact, Zigler, Gilliam and Jones (2007)
noted that the brain is an integrated instrument that mediates emotional and social development-
which are constantly interwoven into the lives of children. This view presupposes that children
seek meaning in all they do and that through play they not only practice and hone their social
skills, but engage in cognitive acts that expand their repertoires (Piaget, 1970). Play is a
prominent and integrative experience for young children in which they use both social and
academic skills. Comprehensive programs that integrate reading and language arts activities
help to create balanced-literacy instruction (Foorman & Connor, 2011). Research further
suggested that children develop stronger literacy skills when provided with opportunities to
engage in higher-order meaning-focused instructional activities (Foorman & Connor, 2011).
There have been several studies about the role of play in literacy learning and research
that validates the positive effects of activity-based instructional methods. However, there is little
PLAY, READ, LEARN 22

research that explores the role of play and the effects of activity-based learning on second grade
Black males reading attitudes and behaviors in urban school districts. There is little known about
Black males’ performance outcomes in the classroom when an activity-based intervention is used
as the basis of reading instruction. There is also little known about second grade Black males
perceptions of self-efficacy after engaging in activity-based learning.
The purpose of the study was to examine how implementing activity-based learning
methods of instruction affects second-grade Black males’ attitudes towards reading and their
reading behaviors. In particular, the reading behaviors examined during this study included
participant’s selection of reading materials and their levels of engagement during literacy
activities. Rooted in constructivist and transactional theories, the rationale of the study was to
document the implementation of a six week activity-based learning experience in order to
positively improve second grade Black male student’s attitudes towards reading and their
behaviors. In addition, this study also documented student’s perceptions of self-efficacy in the
area of reading. It is intended that other members of the educational community desiring to
positively impact students reading behaviors and dispositions will have a framework in which to
do so. The results from this study can also be utilized to bring about social change, educational
equality and impact the pedagogy used in urban school districts by ensuring that all students
have a solid foundation of early literacy instruction, academic success and achievements that
extend throughout their academic and professional careers.
Theoretical Framework
The underlying primary theoretical frameworks for this study included the constructivist
and transactional theories (see Figure 1). These theories helped understand the importance of
PLAY, READ, LEARN 23

readers' prior knowledge in helping them actively construct their literacy skills. Furthermore,
these theories helped convey how students’ engaged learning has always been an integral part of
a successful classroom (Jones, Valdez, Nowakowski & Rasmussen, 1994).

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework Overview

The primary framework for this study as seen in Figure 1, stemmed from the
Constructivist theory, which involves several leading psychology approaches. Constructivists
believe that individuals learn best by actively constructing their own understanding (Bruner,
1966). Since the early 1900’s, researcher John Dewey (1938) placed great emphasis on learning
by doing. This notion is reflected in constructivism which explains how individuals construct
knowledge through interactions with their environment. Constructivist theory of learning
suggests that learners actively construct their own knowledge, representations and interpretations
of materials (Gill, 2008). Learners read, write, draw and create graphic organizers that help
students build and extend their reading comprehension skills (Gill, 2008). Students learn
Constructivist
&
Transactional
Theories
Dewey (1910)
Learning is an active
process
Brunner (1966)
Teacher and student
engaged in active
dialogue
Piaget (1969) Children
learn inductively
through
experimentation,
testing, hands-on play
Vygotsky (1978)
Learning occurs
through social
interactions with
skillful tutor (teacher)
Rosenblatt(1978)
There is a mutual
reciprocal relationship
between the reader
and the text .
PLAY, READ, LEARN 24

through conducting investigations and conversations; by constructing new knowledge students
build upon their current knowledge (North Carolina State University, 2002). Constructivist
teaching also fosters critical thinking and creates active and motivated learners (Zemelman,
Daniels & Hyde, 1993).
According to Thomas et al. (1999), using a constructivist approach in the classroom
provides teachers with the opportunity to encourage students to use their abilities to investigate,
reason, and ask questions. Classrooms based on the theory of constructivism, allow students to
control their learning environments and each make a valuable contribution to the lesson (Thomas
et al., 1999). The teacher functions as the facilitator rather than the primary instructor which
promotes appropriate student interactions with other individuals and helps to ensure that the
students take an active role in producing and discovering their own knowledge (North Central
Regional Educational Laboratory [NCREL], 2005). Researchers suggest that the constructivist
theory be incorporated into the curriculum and advocate that teachers create environments in
which children can construct their own understandings (Zemelman et al., 1993).
The Transactional theory was also used to guide this study (see Table 1). A transactional
approach (Rosenblatt, 1978) suggests that the reader is fully engaged in the meaning-making
process of reading. Through transactions the reader engages in a back-and-forth relationship
with the text. Specifically, there is a mutual reciprocal relationship between the text and the
reader (Rosenblatt, 1995). The reader links past experiences with symbols that are entrenched in
the language of a given text (Rosenblatt, 1995). Children are the center of the reading process
and are able to recreate their realities through engaging with the text (Rosenblatt 1978; 1991;
1995; 2004; Sameroff, 2003; 2009).

PLAY, READ, LEARN 25

Table 1: Relationship Between Instructional Practices & Cognitive Outcomes of Curriculum
Active Teaching Using Activity-
Based Instruction
Direct-Instruction Cognitive Outcomes of
Effective Reading Instruction
 “Play and activity, according
to Piaget are equated with
intellectual growth”
(Seefledt & Barbour, 1994,
p. 11)

 Students gain cultural
artifacts like language,
moral reasoning, and other
guiding principles that help
individuals of those shared
cultures coordinate with
each other and with their
physical worlds. (Karpov &
Haywood, 1998)

 Discovery learning is a more
heavily demanding method
that leads to greater
comprehension than the
direct instruction approach
(Chandler & Sweller, 1991;
Kalyuga, Chandler, &
Sweller, 2001; Nadolski,
Kirschner, & Van
Merriënboer, 2005)

 “Literacy work stations are
designed to eliminate busy
work and increase student
engagement in activities that
meet the varying needs and
levels of students” (Pearson
& Gallagher, 1983; Diller,
2003; Wharton-McDonald,
Pressley & Hampston,1998,
p. 254).

 Leads to greater student
achievement, more positive
social, motivational, and
attitudinal outcomes for all
age levels, genders,
ethnicities, and social
classes (Slavin, 1983, 1990;
Gambrell et al., 2007).
 Uses unison responding to
monitor progress (Watkins
& Slocum, 2004)
 Used with a small group of
students at the same
instructional level
(Watkins & Slocum, 2004)

 It stresses the use of small-
group, face-to-face
instruction by teachers
while implementing
carefully scripted lessons
in which cognitive skills
are broken down into small
units for learning how to
read (Carnine, Silbert,
Kame’enui & Tarver,
2004; Engelmann, Hanner
& Johnson, 2002.)

 Direct Instruction puts
emphasis on frequent
teacher-student interaction
guided by carefully
sequenced lessons utilizing
principles of learning and
advanced strategies for
obtaining generalization of
reading skills (Engelmann
& Carnine, 1982;
Englemann, 2004).

 One of the most effective
ways to teach phonemic
awareness and phonics
(National Reading Panel,
2000)

 A balanced literacy
approach strengthens
student’s conceptual
knowledge and builds a
stronger schema for
information processing
(Pressley et. al, 2002).
 Metacognitive strategies
have a positive shift in
student’s conceptualizing
the value of reading
strategies and overall
beliefs about reading
independently which
enhances knowledge and
enables the students to
become self-regulated
readers and lifelong
learners (Nash-Ditzel,
2010).

 Students benefit from a
classroom culture that
enhances positive beliefs
and expectations, fostering
a motivational climate
increased confidence, and
values about work to help
narrow the existing literacy
gap (Clark & Estes, 2008).

 Motivation and attitudes to
work provide meaningful
learning and increased
interest (Edgerton) as cited
in Smith, Sheppard,
Johnson, & Johnson (2005).

 Good readers are aware
why they are reading a text
and are able to evaluate
how they might use the
ideas they encounter in a
given text (Pressley et. al.,
2002).

PLAY, READ, LEARN 26

The constructivist classroom is the ideal place for students to be involved in cooperative
learning projects where problem solving, brainstorming and finding solutions are an integral part
of the lesson (Newman & Wehlage, 1995). Students participate in collaborative learning
contexts and develop greater student achievement, attitudinal and social outcomes in
constructivist classrooms (Slavin, 1983; 1996; Gambrell, Malloy & Mazzoni, 2007).
Researchers suggest that children who quickly develop effective reading skills begin to enjoy
and practice reading more, whereas children who fail to quickly develop reading skills develop
more negative attitudes toward reading and thus practice it far less (Juel, 1988). Juel (1988)
notes that children who do not acquire effective reading comprehension skills spiral downward
as increasingly reluctant, unskilled, and frustrated readers. Hence, it is important that students
acquire effective reading skills in order to be successful throughout their academic careers.
Significance of the Study
Frederick Douglass (1845) noted that once Black people learned to read, they will forever be
free. In order to understand the inequity of learning experiences, one must be aware that
educational attainment for Blacks is rooted in historical realities that shaped their educational
development (Ravitch, 1985). Slaves were prohibited from learning to read or to be educated,
and this has underscored the possibility and power of education for liberation, and equal
opportunity (Ladson-Billings, 2009). However many Americans, in particular Blacks, remain in
bondage due to the inability to read. This is largely due to the fact that literacy is seen as a
process of consciousness-raising aimed at human liberation which enables one to have mastery
over the processes by which culturally significant information is coded (Ladson-Billings, 2009).
The high illiteracy rates in America continue to be a problem and educational leaders and policy-
makers seek innovative solutions to eradicate this problem. Researchers Donahue, Finnegan,
PLAY, READ, LEARN 27

Lutkus, Allen, and Campbell (2001) noted that the National Assessment of Education Process
reported that 37% of all fourth grade students cannot read on a basic level and only 32% can read
at or above a proficient level. In addition, the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (Grossen, 1997) reported that 40% of the average school population has reading
problems. The high rates illiteracy for Americans is a problem at the macro level that needs to
be addressed.
On a micro level, students attending urban public schools across the nation collectively
continue to be racially unbalanced, and continue to produce low levels of achievement among
students of color and high numbers of students with varying degrees of special needs. Harry and
Anderson (1994) report that, “Black students were twice as likely to be placed in special
education and were over represented to some extent in every disability category” (p. 604). High
numbers of Black and students of color placed in special education is a major systemic public
education problem (Gandara & Contreras, 2009). Teachers often operate from a deficit frame
(Connor & Baglieri, 2009) when providing instruction to students of color in special education
classrooms and schools populated with students from low-income households. The students do
not develop higher order thinking skills needed to meet core standards in school. Hence,
children of color and students in special education are still being deprived of the quality
education that they are constitutionally guaranteed and deserve (Ladson-Billings, 2009). More
specifically, the illiteracy rates of the said populations continue to increase. Research also
conveys that the older the students become, the wider the gap grows between proficient and
struggling readers. Many researchers note that the reading attitudes and motivations of poorer,
disengaged readers tend to worsen over time, (Anderson, Tollefson, & Gilbert, 1985; McKenna,
2001; McKenna, Kear, & Ellsworth, 1995; Richards & Bear, 1986).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 28

As literacy development continues to be an important element in the field of education, Black
students in poverty continue to fall behind. The reasons why Black children from impoverished
backgrounds have lower literacy rates has been debated for years. Some of the factors that
impact the academic achievement of Black students in public school include, but are not limited
to: (a) failure in the quality of instruction; (b) inadequate funding allocation; (c) outdated course
materials; (d) questionable fairness and accuracy of grading; and (d) the overrepresentation of
Black males in special education classrooms due to over referrals of behavioral dysfunction
(Kunjufu, 2011; Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini, Simmons, & Feggins-Azziz, 2006). Tatum
(2009) also noted that:
Literacy reform efforts and approaches used to improve the reading achievement and life
outcomes of African American adolescent males are woefully inadequate and suffer from an
underestimation of the depths of their literacy needs in largely racially segregated schools
and racially integrated schools. (p. xvii)

The negative consequences of the achievement gap can also be attributed to negative influences
related to social identity, cognitive ability, emotional capacity and social competence (Davis,
2003; Tatum; 2005; 2006). Thus, there is not one salient issue that answers why Black children
continue to fail in school.
This study addressed the influences of an activity-based intervention, which is one effective
early literacy method that can be used to bridge the achievement gap (Rasinski, Pakak, &
Fawcett, 2010). Activity-based instructional methods have been infused into many classrooms
across the nation. Proponents of activity-based approaches believe that projects are especially
valuable for children in undertaking in-depth studies of real world topics. Learning through
project involvement was filled with active and engaged learning, and inspires students to obtain a
deeper knowledge of the subjects they are studying (Chard, Vaughn & Tyler, 2002).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 29

Specifically, this study looked at the effect of play, which is a form of active learning.
According to Isenberg and Quisenberry (2002), play is a major part of young children’s lives and
an important context for literacy learning. Prior research asserts that preschool children develop
and refine motor skills, experience the joy of mastery and develop and use basic academic skills
such as counting, reading and writing while they engage in play (Isenberg & Quisenberry, 2002).
Play-based learning activities also provide multiple ways for children to learn a variance of skills
and concepts. Children are also provided with the opportunity to learn relevant skills and feel
competent about their ability to learn in a comfortable and supportive environment (Isenberg &
Quisenberry, 2002).
A seminal factor related to instructional intervention is that it must engage students while
simultaneously considering their motivation, cognition and social interactions and providing
opportunities for them to be architects of their own learning (Grant, Guthrie, Rice, & McGough,
1994). Moreover, the literature suggests that instruction needs to create opportunities for
students to take the initiative of their own learning, hone their organizational and research skills,
develop better communication with their peers and adults, and to work within their community
while seeing the positive effect of their work (Newell, 2003). Play enables a child to behave
beyond their age and daily behavior and contains all the developmental tendencies in a
condensed form and it is a major source of development for children’s learning (Vygotsky, 1962;
1978). Research also suggests that play encourages the use of creativity, imagination and, the
implementation of real world planning while creating opportunities for intellectual development
(Vygotsky, 1978).
Although play has not been identified as the sole pedagogical approach, it is absolutely
essential to balancing children’s development and their readiness for school (Kagan &
PLAY, READ, LEARN 30

Lowenstein, 2004). This approach contributes to learning and achievement of students in the
classroom. In addition, this form of instruction is aligned with the recently released Common
Core Standards (2010a) because the standards were designed to be robust and relevant to the real
world reflecting the knowledge and skills that students need in order to be successful in college
and the workforce. The standards require educators to create classrooms where students are able
to explore, read, and interact in participatory learning environments (Roskos & Neuman, 2013).
More specifically, the use of play with young children is not indicated by the Standards, but it is
welcomed as a valuable activity in its own right and as a way to help students meet the set
expectations (“What is Not Covered by the Standards”, 2010). Thus, incorporating play as an
instructional method can be beneficial to students (Bingham et al., 2010). While research on the
role of play and development has provided new insights about literacy learning, there is still the
need for further research as it relates to second grade Black males.
Research Questions
The study was guided by the following three questions:
1. What reading attitudes are enhanced through second-grade Black males
participation in an activity-based intervention?
2. What are the perceived relationships between Black male second grade students
attitudes towards reading and their reading behaviors after they engage in an
activity-based reading intervention?
3. What is the relationship between self-efficacy and reading behaviors of second
grade Black male students who engage in an activity-based intervention?

PLAY, READ, LEARN 31

Brief Overview of Methodological Design
This study utilized a mixed-method research approach in which both qualitative and
quantitative data was collected and analyzed. Specifically, the study design used interviews of
second grade males, observations, survey, and document analysis. A mixed methods approach
provided information about the effects of an activity-based intervention on second male student’s
attitudes and reading behaviors. Specifically, the reading behaviors included participant’s
selection of reading materials and their levels of engagement during literacy activities.
Participation in the study was voluntary and based on parental consent. Data collection for this
study was divided into five distinct and linear phases. The first phase of the study involved the
initial meeting with the students and parents. At this meeting, parents received information
sheets that outlined the purpose and goals of the study and parental consent forms for their
children. During the initial phase, the researcher began the implementation of the Play, Read,
Learn (PRL) activity-based reading intervention program once a week over a six-week period.
The second phase of data collection consisted of administering of the Elementary Reading
Attitudinal Scale (McKenna & Kear, 1990) that measured the participants reading attitudes and
disposition. Prior to administering the survey, the attitudinal scale was presented to parents and
students along with the purpose of the scale. During the third phase of data collection,
qualitative interviews were conducted with each participant. This qualitative approach is aligned
with process theory in which, questions seek to gain an in depth meaning of the study
participants whereas, quantitative research follows variance theory, which focuses on the
differences and correlation of variables (Maxwell, 2013). The fourth phase of data collection for
this study included conducting on-site field observations during the intervention period. The
final phase of data collection was an analysis of internal and external documents that detailed
PLAY, READ, LEARN 32

aspects of the students reading dispositions and performance outcomes in the literacy domain. In
accordance with the provisions of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of
Southern California (USC), applications were submitted to ensure that the research subjects were
protected during the course of the study and all identifiable data was protected from access
beyond this study and the participant’s identities remained confidential.
Assumptions
It was assumed that students participating in the study honestly responded during
interviews, surveys, and during the after-school intervention, which accurately reflected their
self-efficacy, reading attitudes and reading dispositions. It was also assumed that the researcher
recorded observations, conducted interviews objectively and adequately explained all
instructions during the after-school intervention activities. In addition, it was assumed that the
students participating in the small group literacy intervention would attend on a regular basis and
were therefore familiar with each activity and independent activity instructions. There was also
the assumption that the students were in a classroom environment that supported activity-based
instructional practices. Furthermore, there was the assumption that that the information gathered
from disaggregating the assessment data was an accurate portrayal of the student participants
understanding of each activity. Lastly, it was assumed that the one-on-one interviews with the
students provided the researcher with the opportunity to ask open-ended questions to determine
the degree to which activity-based learning enhanced their reading attitudes, reading behaviors
and the relationship between self-efficacy.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 33

Limitations on Generalizability
This study only focused on a small population of Black male second students, which
produced a sample size limitation. The ways in which the activity-based lessons were defined,
constructed, delivered, understood and utilized presented additional limitations to the study. The
classroom environment and school culture were limitations to the study because there was a
deviance from the normal classroom culture and routine. The participants were also selected
from two different second-grade classrooms and received reading instruction from different
teachers which adds a limitation to the study. The length of the study was only six-weeks which
presented a limitation to the study. Furthermore, the students in the study represented various
levels of reading abilities, self- efficacy, reading behaviors and reading attitudes which served as
a limitation to the study. Limitations to the study also included the researcher’s biases, limited
resources for the activity-based lessons, and participants’ biases and perceptions. Lastly, the
context of the classroom and school climate and culture cannot be described but may have had an
impact on the data.
Delimitations Regarding Nature of Project
There are several definitions and interpretations of how an activity-based intervention
should be implemented into the classroom. The study focused on the perceived relationships
between Black male second grade students attitudes towards reading and their reading behaviors
who were engaged in an activity-based intervention through a series of interviews, observations
and document analysis. The study focused on interviewing and observing five second-grade
Black males and focused on their reading efficacy, their reading attitudes, and reading behaviors.
The delimitations included the number of participants, the data collection methods and
PLAY, READ, LEARN 34

instruments, and the location of the study.

Definitions of Related Terms
 Academic Reading- Engaging in reading activities based on directives from adults rather
than own choice; assigned reading that does not necessarily match their interest (Ivey &
Broaddus , 2001).
 Achievement-gap- The term achievement gap is used to denote the inequalities in
academic achievement that are based on race and ethnicity and social economic status
{income} (Reynolds, 2002). Achievement gaps refer to differences in average achievement
test scores among demographic groups. These gaps tend to vary by grade level, growing
larger as children progress through school. They also tend to vary depending on the outcome
{e.g., math vs. reading} (Reynolds, 2002).
 Activity-based Learning -Proponents of activity-based learning suggest that this form of
instruction provides opportunities for students to engage in real-world meaningful and
engaging learning activities (Karpov & Heywood, 1998).
 Active Learning- Individuals engage with the content and with others, activating prior
knowledge, making connections between ideas, and constructing new meaning from
experiences (Uecker & Gess-Newsome, 2008)
 Black- The term Black generally refers to a person with African ancestral origins. The
term Black has a long service in political, social, and everyday life and in its use to
denote African ancestry (Agyemnag et al., 2005). Maylor (2009) defines Black as a
political signifier used to identify those who experience structural and institutional
PLAY, READ, LEARN 35

discrimination because of their skin color; namely people of African, African-Caribbean
descent.
 Common Core Standards Initiative- The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a
state-led effort that created a distinct set of clear educational standards for kindergarten
through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt
(Common Core Standards, 2010a).
 Direct-Instruction-The term Direct Instruction refers to a rigorously developed, highly
scripted method for teaching that is fast-paced and provides constant interaction between
students and the teacher (Hempenstall, 1999). The essential components of Direct
Instruction include phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary
development, and reading comprehension. Specific features that distinguish direct
instruction from other behavioral approaches include: (a) the explicit teaching of
problem-solving strategies, (b) an emphasis on small group instruction as opposed to
students working alone, (c) a systematic technology of correction procedures, (d)
principles for cumulative review of previously learned material, and (e) insistence on
mastery of each step in the learning process (Gersten, 1985; Rosenshine, 1983; 1986).
 Emergent Literacy- The term is used to denote the idea that the acquisition of literacy is a
developmental continuum with origins in the early years of a child. The skills,
knowledge, and attitudes that are developmental precursors to reading and writing and
the environments that support these developments. The term also refers to the importance
of social interactions in literacy-rich environments for prereaders. The key components of
emergent literacy consist of language, conventions of print, knowledge of letters,
linguistic awareness, and phoneme-grapheme (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 36

 Intervention. A plan based on data, which ensures every student will receive additional
time and support for learning as soon as they have trouble in acquiring essential skills and
knowledge. Emphasis is placed on targeted-instruction beyond the core curriculum to
provide students in a small group setting the opportunity to increase and improve in
deficient skill areas (Richards, Pavri, Goiez, Canges, & Murphy, 2007).
 No Child Left Behind (NCLB)- In 2001, the federal government sought to address some
of the complex problems in educational accountability through launching No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) legislation which mandates that all students must be proficient in the
content areas of Reading and Mathematics based on state-adopted tests by the year of
2014 (Stecher & Kirby, 2004). NCLB is a performance-based accountability system built
around student test results with consequences attached to those results (Stecher & Kirby,
2004). Furthermore, NCLB emphasizes groups of low-achieving students monitoring
their achievement and narrowing achievement gaps in all curriculum domains (Linn,
2005).
 Play- Explorative, manipulative, fun, and enjoyable activities including games or puzzles
with pictures/words, constructive play, and dramatic play during circle time or center
time in a classroom (Sutton-Smith, 1997). Play is a dynamic process that cultivates and
changes as it becomes more varied and complex and according Isenberg & Quisenberry
(2002) it is considered a major facilitator for learning and development across domains
and reflects the social and cultural contexts in which children live.
 Reading Attitude- Is the degree to which a person has a positive or negative disposition
towards reading. (McKenna & Kear, 1990).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 37

 Reading Behavior- The types of books that children choose to read, the amount of time
they spend reading, and children’s out of school literacy choices are identified as reading
behaviors (Worthy, Turner, & Moorman, 1998).
 Reading Disposition- The voluntary and active pursuit of reading-related activities
(Getzel, 1956; McDowell, 1993).
 Reading Self-Efficacy- Is an individual’s belief in his or her ability to accomplish reading
tasks including but not limited to reading challenging texts, reading for long periods of
time, reading a variety of genres and the ability to use independently use reading
strategies (Henk & Melnick, 1995).
 Recreational Reading- “Voluntary reading of self-selected materials, either for
information or pleasure" (Spiegel, 1981, p. 3).
 Self-Efficacy- Albert Bandura (1978) wrote that individuals possess a self -system that
enables them to exercise a measure of control over their thoughts, feelings and actions.
Self-efficacy is the beliefs in one's abilities to organize and execute the courses of action
required to manage potential situations. Efficacy beliefs help determine how much effort
people will expend on an activity, how long they will persevere when confronting
obstacles and how resilient they will prove in the face of adverse situations-the higher the
sense of efficacy, the greater the effort, persistence, and resilience. In addition, efficacy
beliefs also influence individuals' thought patterns and emotional reactions (Bandura,
1977; Pajares, 2006).
 Traditional Methods of Teaching: The teacher has the authority for transmitting
information, teaching discrete skills and is often limited to pre-selected vocabulary and
workbook exercises (Simpson, Stahl, & Francis, 2004).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 38

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Currently, most children experience a wide range of disparate experiences that jumble together
and end up requiring our youngest learners to figure them out on their own. Our children are not
failing to learn. Our schools are failing to teach them effectively. To reverse this trend and
provide children with the skills necessary for life-long learning, all Americans must take
responsibility for guaranteeing a high-quality Pre-K 3
rd
education to this and future generation.
-The Foundation for Child Development (2008)

Introduction
The purpose of the study was to examine how implementing activity-based learning
methods of instruction affected students attitudes towards reading and their reading behaviors.
The rationale of the study was to document the implementation of activity-based learning, in
order to positively improve second grade Black male student’s attitudes towards reading and
their behaviors. In addition, this study also documented student’s perceptions of self-efficacy in
the area of reading. It was intended that other members of the educational community desiring to
positively impact students reading behaviors and dispositions would have a framework in which
to do so through this study.
Research in the field of literacy instruction continues to evolve as practitioners seek to
shape teacher pedagogy, best instructional practices and the development of effective reading
curriculum (Cohen & Hill, 2001). Chapter two offers a review of the literature, which may help
to understand how an activity-based intervention promotes understanding of literacy
development for second- grade Black male students. This chapter provides a context for the
study and supports the proposition that (a) an activity-based intervention will positively enhance
second grade Black male student’s attitudes towards reading and improve their reading behaviors
and (b) an activity-based intervention will provide increased opportunities for Black male second
PLAY, READ, LEARN 39

grade students to engage in literacy activities that improve their self-efficacy in the area of
reading.
Historical Context of Literacy Development: Why Are Black Students Failing Overall?
In order to understand existing educational inequities; one must be knowledgeable of the
historical establishments of the American public school system. Kunjufu (2000) suggests that,
“history is not a subject that keeps children memorizing dates and events of the past, but is the
study making contemporary decisions and future predictions based on historical data” (p. 3).
According to Woodson (1933) current conditions are a direct reflection of the past. Woodson
(1933) declared that since emancipation, educational opportunities have been placed entirely in
the hands of Whites whom have overtly mentally and physically enslaved and segregated Blacks
for decades. Since the inception of slavery, Blacks have had limited access to appropriate
literacy education and have been restricted from learning to read merely because of their race,
religion, class, gender, and geography (Willis, 2002). The institutionalized system of slavery
denied people of color in particular Blacks, access to the quality education that their White
counterparts were automatically entitled to receive.
The notion that hard work coupled with a good education can assist individuals with
achieving the American Dream was resident in Blacks during the early days of enslavement and
segregation (Gardener & Mayes, 2013). Civil rights legal precedent, such as the Brown v. the
1954 Board of Education and the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, infiltrated the
educational system as advocates of justice forced law makers and politicians to acknowledge
their role in perpetuating widespread inequities. These civil rights cases also encouraged policy
makers and provided them with the ability to make the necessary changes for better educational
outcomes. Brown v. Board of Education held that Black children had a constitutional right to
PLAY, READ, LEARN 40

participate on the same terms as their White peers in the public education system (Hochschild &
Scovronick, 2003).
In an attempt to combat the existing educational inequality, The No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 signed into law by former President George Bush on January 8, 2002, is a legacy of
the Education Department’s A Nation at Risk report and the first reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Act since 1994 (Bickel & Maynard, 2004). No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) is based on four main principles: stronger accountability, more local freedom, proven
education methods, and more choices for parents (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). The
federal law was a revolutionary enactment that mandated an accountability model for America’s
public schools (Guthrie & Springer, 2004). The purpose of this increased federal involvement
was to eliminate the achievement gap in reading and math between disadvantaged and minority
students and their Caucasian peers, therefore raising all students to a proficient level by 2014
(Bickel & Maynard, 2004).
Another attempt to shift the disparate content guidelines across individual states in an
effort to combat educational inequality and raise educational standards for all students was
through the release of the Common Core Standards Initiative in 2010 (Common Core Standards
Initiative, 2010a; Porter et al., 2011). These new standards aim to generate a greater emphasis on
higher order cognitive demand and inform instructional content (Roskos & Neuman, 2013).
Specifically, the standards were designed to help ensure that students who graduated from high
school are prepared to enter college or the workforce (Common Core Standards, 2010a).
Researchers suggest that the set of standards does not tell how, but rather what students are
expected to learn (Porter et al, 2011; Roskos & Neuman, 2013). The broad goals and
architecture of the Reading Standards as identified by Common Core Standards include: (a)
PLAY, READ, LEARN 41

alignment with college and work expectations; (b) clarity of expression; (c) rigor; (d) a
foundation in what exists; and (e) an evidence base (Common Core Standards, 2010a; Roskos &
Neuman, 2013). These new standards aim to develop reading programs nationwide that assist
students in achieving rigorous standards (Roskos & Neuman, 2013).
Despite the recent efforts to improve education nationwide, currently, the promise of a
quality education remains an important civil and human right that has yet to be fully achieved in
the American public education system (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003; Gardener & Mayes,
2013). While millions of Blacks, through education and hard work have been successful in
achieving the dream, there are even more Blacks, particularly those who reside in poor urban and
rural communities who have been unable to achieve the American dream (Danziger & Danziger,
2008; Gardener & Mayes, 2013). Gamoran and Long (2006), note that levels of segregation are
nearly as high today as they were in 1966 and although the black-white achievement gaps have
somewhat narrowed since the report, they still remain significant. African-American students
are more likely to attend high-poverty schools minimizing their ability to achieve academic
proficiency (Schott Foundation, 2008).
According to the National Education Association (2011) 42% of Blacks students attended
schools that are under-resourced and rated as performing poorly. Of that 42% of Black males,
only 12% of Black boys are proficient in reading (Kunjufu, 2011; Tatum; 2005; 2006). Further
compounding Black males academic struggle, is the rate at which they are dropping out of school
or being placed in special education. This rate far exceeds the amount of Black males who
graduate or reach high levels of academic achievement (Schott Foundation, 2008). In 2010, the
report generated by the Council of the Great City Schools reported that less than half of Black
males students in public schools graduated from high school on time, although many eventually
PLAY, READ, LEARN 42

completed a GED (National Education Association, 2011). Research also conveys that while 4.6
million Black males attended college in 2008 nationally, only 11% completed a bachelor’s
degree (National Education Association, 2011). Kunjufu (2011) noted that 80% of Black males
are in special education and only 53% of Black males drop out of high school. These statistics
validate the assertion that the current educational conditions have a direct correlation to past
limited educational opportunities afforded to Black students.
The large disparity in standardized test scores among students of color and White students
is known as the achievement gap (Kunjufu, 2011). Urban public schools across the nation
collectively continue to be racially unbalanced, and continue to produce low levels of
achievement among students of color and high numbers of students with varying degrees of
special needs. Teachers and students both male and female, often act in accordance with a
hegemonic set of unspoken tenets that are subtly or explicitly reinforced through tacit approval,
willing indifference, or lack of awareness (Cleveland, 2011). This type of behavior helps to
increase the disproportionate number of Blacks in special education and helps to understand why
Black males in particular struggle in school (Cleveland, 2011). Harry and Anderson (1994) report
that, “African American students were twice as likely to be placed in special education and were
over represented to some extent in every disability category” (p. 604). In 2011, Black males
students made up 20% of all students in the United States classified as mentally retarded,
although they were only nine-percent of the student population (National Education Association).
Black boys were also 2.5 times less likely to be enrolled in gifted and talented programs
according to the 2010 report generated by the Council of the Great City Schools. High numbers of
African-American and students of color being placed in special education is a major systemic
public education problem. Teachers often operate from a deficit frame when providing
PLAY, READ, LEARN 43

instruction to students of color in special education classrooms and schools populated with
students from low-income households (Connor & Baglieri, 2009). The students do not develop
higher order thinking skills needed to meet core standards in school. Children of color and
students in special education are still being deprived of the quality education that they are
constitutionally guaranteed and deserve Connor & Baglieri, 2009. The illiteracy rates of the said
populations continue to increase.
Although, an achievement gap exists in America, there are very few school districts that
have strategic plans in place to prevent reading failure (Torgesen, 1998). Darling- Hammond
(2007) reports that Black children enter school districts where resources have been inequitably
allocated to wealthier communities; thus, it is inevitable that there will be disparate learning
opportunities and a greater chance for high levels of illiteracy. Research conducted by Darling-
Hammond (2007) suggests that providing a quality public education to students of color is still
not a priority in America.
As literacy continues to be a leading domain in education, Black students in poverty
continue to fall behind. The reasons why Black children from impoverished backgrounds have
lower literacy rates has been debated for years. Haycock (1998) argued that teachers are the most
significant factor in student achievement for this student population because minority and poor
children are systematically taught by teachers with the least content knowledge. On the contrary,
Davis (2003) reported that the negative consequences of the achievement gap can be attributed to
negative influences related to social identity, cognitive ability, emotional capacity, and social
competence. Craig, Thompson and Washington (2004) contend that Black children who speak a
“nonstandard” variety of Standard American English potentially are at a disadvantage when
compared to their majority peers because they lack the ability from a young age to “dialect shift”.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 44

“Dialect shift,” is the ability to speak Standard American English across all literacy context and
speak African American English which is a predominant linguistic system used in many urban
communities outside of the education setting (Craig et al., 2004). Black students heavily rely on
their primary discourse which Gee (2008) refers to as one’s culturally specific vernacular
language or everyday language. Gee (2008) notes that a person can know the grammar of a
language and still not know how to use that particular language. In contrast, Bond et al. (2006)
argue that the reason that children of poverty have limited language and literacy skills is due to
the fact that there is incongruity between the expectations of home and school. There is not one
reason that signifies why Black children of poverty continue to develop inadequate literacy skills.
Rather, there are several debatable elements that contribute to this literacy gap that exist amongst
Black students. Despite the above debatable elements, the fact still remains that, most twelfth
grade students do not have the basic skills and knowledge considered proficient for their grade
level (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003). This problem continues to be an educational emergency
and civil rights issue.
The Gender Gap: Development of Reading Achievement Amongst Black Males
Equally garnering the public attention of educational leaders, policy makers and
curriculum specialist, in American public schools is the broadening gender gap (Kunjufu, 2011).
Boys are decreasing in literacy skills and overall academic performance (Coley, 2001).
According to Smith and Wilhelm (2002) for many boys, literacy is a social activity especially
outside of school, because boys are more likely to read the newspaper, sports pages, video game
manuals and other types of non-fiction materials that are relevant to their personal lives oppose
to engaging in academic reading. However, this social aspect of reading is not often favored in
school thus, when boys read books of their choice during independent reading in-class, this time
PLAY, READ, LEARN 45

remains mostly silent. This silence perhaps lends an explanation to the gender gap in reading
that exists between boys and girls. According to a study cited by the National Center for
Education Statistics (2000), boys lag behind girls in reading performance across all age groups.
Additionally, boys are more likely than girls to earn poor grades, be held back a grade, have a
learning disability, form a negative attitude toward school, be suspended and drop out of school
(Costello, 2008). Sixty-six of the students suspended are male and, boys are being expelled from
preschools four in a half- times as frequently as girls and twice as likely as their White and
Latino counterparts (Kunjufu, 2011). In providing literacy instruction to the Black male,
Kunjufu (1989; 2000; 2011) argued that boys and girls learn and mature at different rates, yet
educators are not differentiating instruction based on gender. Cleveland (2011) noted that this
negative attitude towards school, learning and reading may be a result of the “Boy Code” (p. 40).
To describe this idea of the “Boy Code”, Cleveland (2011) writes:
Sadly, because many girls are successful at tasks requiring literary skills- reading,
writing, and speaking among them- boys often purposely shun such tasks in order to
avoid being associated with anything feminine or “girly,” thereby stunting their ability to
master the kind of skills necessary for success in school and, arguably, outside school as
well. Boys who possess a natural affinity for literacy- based tasks are often rejected,
labeled, and isolated if they demonstrate interest or ability in using these “feminine”
skills, because it means they are acting like a girl and, by association, might be “gay. (pp.
40-41)

Black males in particular, also are accused of “acting White” in addition to “girl” if they do well
academically which makes it difficult for them survive in school and may result in being bullied
(Cleveland, 2011). These statistics and the notion of the “Boy Code” both help to convey the
existing gender achievement gap and reasons behind boys struggling in literacy development and
school overall.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 46

The development of reading achievement amongst Black males is particularly alarming.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mandated by Congress in 1969 to
measure the academic success of America’s youth, offered a comprehensive measure of the
achievement of students across the nation, revealed that Black males in the 12th grade had the
same reading levels as their White male counterparts in middle school (Kunjufu, 2011; Council
of the Great City Schools, 2011). In a state of peril, a more recent study revealed that only 12%
of Black males are proficient in reading, compared with 38% of White boys (Kunjufu, 2011;
Council of the Great City Schools, 2011). Black male students compared to other students by
race and gender consistently rank lowest in all academic performance areas. They are also more
likely to be placed in special education classes, suspended more from school, less likely to enroll
in honors or advanced placement (AP) classes, have poorer attendance, and are most likely to
discontinue their education prior to high school graduation (Kunjufu, 1989, 2011; Coley, 2001;
Ogbu, 2003; Gay, 2010). Black women now earn two thirds of all bachelor’s degrees obtained
by Blacks. Over the past decade, the number of bachelor’s degrees earned by Black men has
increased more than 47%; however, it has increased by 60% by African American women over
the same ten- year span (The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 2009; Kunjufu, 2011). This
research supports the notion that both a racial and gender achievement gap current still exists.
The Purpose of Reading
Reading is the fusion between the text information and knowledge activated by the
comprehender (McNamara & Kinstch, 1996). Reading has many purposes. One purpose of
reading is to communicate (Hall & Ribovich, 1973). According to the Partnership for Reading
the purpose of reading is to comprehend and understand a text that is read (Armbruster, Lehr, &
Osborn, 2003). A reader engages in a "construction process" in order to create meaning of a
PLAY, READ, LEARN 47

given text. During the reading process all the elements are working together as a text is read to
create a representation of the text in the reader's mind (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2003).
Reading enables children to relate content to relevant information from memory and understand
a given text (Walczyk & Griffith-Ross, 2007). The next section of this literature review will
thoroughly discuss the elements of literacy that aid in the process of reading.
The Complexity of Literacy
How is literacy defined? Historical elements described in the last section help to convey
why Black students have lower literacy rates than their White peers. Underachievement in reading
can also be attributed to the various definitions of literacy and the ways in which instruction is
provided. Willis (2002) suggests that literacy cannot be defined without considering the stories
of marginalized groups and their efforts to obtain literacy despite normative thinking and various
oppressive forces. Willis (2002) describes early literacy acquisition as a tool used for liberation.
Taber (1987), on the other hand, argues that functional literacy is determined by one’s cultural
and social experiences. In contrast, Hillerich (1976) suggests that literacy is a continuum based
on an individuals’ age, their ability to effectively communicate and function in society. Certainly,
the domain of literacy is very complex and signifies the ways in which children learn to read,
write and perform overall in school. The complexity of literacy heightens the importance of
quality early literacy intervention programs that are adequately staffed with educators who
possess dynamic ways of thinking about the students and instruction (Connor & Baglieri, 2009).
With dynamic thinking, educators can provide students with challenging, engaging, and
meaningful classroom experiences.
Despite the various definitions of literacy, learning to read is a key component of overall
academic success. In particular, the period from birth to age five is a critical time for children to
PLAY, READ, LEARN 48

develop early literacy and cultural awareness that will enable them to progress in grammar school
and beyond. Children who do not have a solid foundation in reading rarely catch up to with their
literate peers (Torgesen, 1998). Once children fall behind, intensive interventions are required or
they will remain poor readers (Torgesen, 1998). Research conveys that 17% of African
Americans between the ages of 25 and 29 earned a college degree in the year 2005, as compared
with 34% of Whites in the same age bracket (Darling- Hammond, 2007). This statistic suggests
that there are more Whites obtaining college degrees than Blacks which could be a result of the
literacy gap that exists between the two populations. The plague of illiteracy amongst Black
children must be addressed. Therefore, as stated above, there is a demand for early literacy
intervention programs across urban communities. Early intervention helps to ensure that Black
students have a solid academic foundation and ultimately access to the same equitable educational
outcomes that White students are entitled too nationwide.
The Key Components of Literacy

There is a significant population of students who struggle to read and develop adequate
literacy skills. Washington (2001) reports that many Black children, particularly those from low
income frequently have lower oral language skills at the time of entry into preschool. Black
students are at high risk for reading failure and perform significantly lower than White students
in reading, writing and vocabulary development (Craig, Connor & Washington, 2003). This
section of the literature review, will attempt to convey what current research has to say about the
critical components of literacy.
The area of literacy is very complex. The five essential components of a comprehensive
literacy curriculum include phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension (Pruisner, 2009; Fiester, 2010). According to Neuman and Roskos (2005), in
PLAY, READ, LEARN 49

order “to attain a high level of such skills, young children need opportunities to develop these
strands, not in isolation, but interactively; children acquire these skills in coordination and
interaction with meaningful experiences” (p. 126). There is a reciprocal relationship between
these domains; skills that engage one domain appear to enhance the others, suggesting that an
integration of content and curriculum is crucial for young learners (Neuman & Roskos, 2005).
Phonological skills are highly interdependent because code-related skills are highly predictive of
children’s initial early reading success while oral language skills become highly predictive of
comprehension abilities and later reading achievement (Neuman & Roskos, 2005). And yet,
Carroll et al. (2011) reports that learning to read requires the development of making connections
between both speech sounds and letters. Each of these skills should be integrated meaningfully
to create a solid foundation for early literacy development.
Phonological awareness. Phonological Awareness is one domain of literacy. Some
researchers would argue that it is one of the most important domains of literacy. Kaderavek and
Justice (2004) report that “the most powerful predictors of later reading success are letter-name
and phonological awareness” (p. 212) because they reduce the likelihood of later reading
difficulties. Pogorzelski and Wheldall (2002), assert that explicit awareness of phonemes have
been the best predictors of early reading success. While Nueman and Roskos (2005) contend
that without a firm phonological awareness, the road to learning to read can be very detrimental
and challenging. Phonological awareness is a developmental skill which requires the knowledge
of an alphabetic code, segmenting and manipulating words and phonemes within words
(Pogorzelski & Wheldall, 2002). Phonological awareness refers to the general ability to attend to
the sounds of language as distinct from its meaning (Nueman & Roskos, 2005). Craig et al.
(2003), reports that phonological awareness skills are a robust predictor for reading achievement.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 50

Current research conveys that the development of decoding and encoding ability in students is
linked to their underlying phonological awareness knowledge (Weiser & Mathes, 2011).
Phonological awareness is a critical skill needed to help ensure reading success.
Phonics. Phonics is the relationship between letters and their sound, connecting
phonemic awareness and alphabetic principles and providing readers with the necessary tools to
successfully decode a given text (Pruisner, 2009 & Shriver, 2006). The ease of learning letters by
name or sound is a strong predictor of reading development in first-grade children (Muter &
Diethelm, 2001). Learning letters and letter sounds is a strong predictor of short-term and long-
term reading success because the letter names mediate the ability to remember the sounds
associated with each individual letter (Nueman & Roskos, 2005). Nueman and Roskos (2005)
report that letter knowledge also enhances language and print awareness. Blaiklock (2004)
suggests that knowledge of letter names and sounds helps young children to see that words are
not simply whole units but are made up of patterns of letters. Letter knowledge assists children
to establish and recall words in memory, and to decode unfamiliar words (Blaiklock, 2004).
Fluency. Fluency is one of the pillars of effective reading instruction and bridges word
recognition accuracy to text comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000; Rasinski, 2012).
Rasinski et al., 2011 defines reading fluency as the characteristic of reading that occurs when a
reader’s cognitive and linguistic systems are developed to the extent that they can read with
sufficient accuracy and rate to allow for understanding of a text and reflecting is prosodic
features. There are three essential components of fluency including automaticity and accuracy in
word recognition, and prosody in oral textual reading (Rasinski et al., 2011; Rasinski, 2012).
Automaticity is the ability to recognize words effortlessly and prosody is linked to
comprehension where the reader can enhance and add meaning to a given text through reading
PLAY, READ, LEARN 51

with expression (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Rasinski, 2012; Samuels, 2006). At the word level,
the speed component facilitates reading comprehension because the attention once required for
the task of decoding is then devoted to text comprehension (Klauda & Guthrie, 2008). Fluency
is more than just reading fast, it allows for purposeful deep reading that allows the reader to
focus on constructing meaning from text (Chard & Pikulski, 2005; Rasinski, 2012). Reading
fluency is rooted in oral reading (Rasinski et al., 2011). Oral language further supports fluency
because it is essential in providing the reader with basic familiarity of syntax and grammar
functions (Chard & Pikulski, 2005). Strong oral language skills, both expressive and receptive
are critical for reading and general academic success (Washington, 2001). Bond et al (2006),
report that oral language is an essential precursor to learning to read and plays a critical role in
laying the foundation for developing literacy skills overall. Verbal abilities are consistently the
best predictors of later reading achievement (Neuman & Roskos, 2005).
Vocabulary. Vocabulary knowledge is one of the most important components of early
literacy because it is used as a measure of general verbal ability that underlies all learning and is
one of the most significant predictors of reading comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000;
Blachowicz, Fisher, Ogle, Watts- Taffe, 2006). Hemphill and Tivnan (2008) conducted a study
that focused on a sample of several hundred low-income children in 16 urban schools that were
implementing literacy interventions and 1st-grade predictors of literacy development were traced
over time. The study results indicated that vocabulary was the best predictor of reading
comprehension at the end of 2nd and 3rd grades (Hemphill & Tivnan, 2008). Word knowledge,
however, is not just developed through exposure to increasingly complex language, but to
knowledge-building experiences that involve children in developing and refining networks of
categorically related concepts. With opportunity and practice, children’s word knowledge is put
PLAY, READ, LEARN 52

to use in syntactic structures that grow in length and complexity (Neuman & Roskos, 2005).
Good vocabulary instruction takes place in a language and word rich environment that fosters
word consciousness and teachers intentionally selecting words with opportunities for repeated
exposure, use and practice (Blachowicz, et al., 2006). Children with better developed vocabulary
had better developed awareness of phonological units of speech whereas children with poor
language skills at the entry of school begin a downward spiral of poor literacy, and ultimately
become poor job prospects as young adults (Carroll et al., 2011). This section validates the
assertion that children would benefit from early literacy intervention because the domain of
literacy is so complex and contains several critical components for maximal development.
Reading comprehension. All components of literacy lead to the ability to effectively
comprehend a given text. Duke and Carlisle (2011) define reading comprehension as the act of
constructing meaning with oral or written text. Several researchers suggest that reading
comprehension is dependent on a specific set of skills including decoding, vocabulary, and
background knowledge, and each of these skills are largely influenced by children’s early life
experiences (Gee, 2008). Reading comprehension is also a process of discovery which is
different for all readers by virtue of their experience, social relations, habits of mind, culture, and
emotional fabric (Diamond, Gutlohn & Honig, 2000). According to constructivist Eleanor
Duckworth (1987) through reading and comprehending, people create intellectual, emotional,
and cultural products to enrich their personal, professional, and civic lives. These early
experiences are influenced by the family culture and affluence, and serve as the foundation upon
which episodic events are constructed, and create opportunities for stronger student vocabulary
skills and reading comprehension (Guthrie, et al., 2004). Reading comprehension is influenced
by a variety of interrelating elements including personal experiences, background knowledge,
PLAY, READ, LEARN 53

language structure and vocabulary and engagement and motivation (Guthrie, et al., 2004; Snow,
2000; 2002). Comprehension is ultimately affected by: (a) individual differences in students’ at
home and school; (b) language and cognitive abilities; (c) individuals reading experiences; (d)
knowledge about the world; (e) access to literacy-related materials; and (f) the assistance and
instruction of their teachers. All of these factors interact to shape the developmental trajectory of
their reading comprehension capabilities (Duke & Carlisle, 2011).
The ultimate goal of reading comprehension is to actively extract and construct meaning
from a given text acquiring the skills to understand and enjoy written language (Diamond et al.,
2000; National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, 2000; 2002; Torgesen, 1998). In order to achieve
this goal, readers must stop briefly and actively make sense of what they read to increase
comprehension and build a sense of competence as a reader and encourage them to persist
(Cleveland, 2011). This section clearly asserts the validation that all the components of literacy
are critical to the development of a child’s reading comprehension skills. The next section
discusses the link between developing emergent reading and writing skills.
The Role of Writing as Part of Literacy Skill Development
The above sections have identified the five essential literacy skills. This section will
examine the role of writing as part of literacy skill development. In American education history,
there has been historical pattern of separating reading and writing (Clifford, 1989; Fitzgerald &
Shanahan, 2000; Shanahan, 2006). In fact, schools often delay writing instruction until reading
behaviors are firmly established (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, 2000). And yet, both reading and
writing are interrelating language skills that both need to be efficiently taught in order to ensure
overall literacy achievement. The results from the National Center for Education Statistics
PLAY, READ, LEARN 54

(2011) suggest that only about 24% of students nationally in the 8
th
and 12
th
grades were
proficient in writing and 3% were performing at an advanced level in the area of writing. With
the recent release of the Common Core Standards (2010a) a greater emphasis has been placed on
the importance of developing proficient reading and writing skills. As outlined in the Common
Core Standards (2010a), writing is a critical means of asserting and defending claims, showing
what students know about a given subject, and conveying what they experienced, imagined,
thought, and felt during their learning experiences. It is important that students are able to
demonstrate increasing sophistication in all aspects of language use and have a strong command
of the grammar usage of both spoken and written standard English to succeed academically and
professionally (Common Core Standards, 2010a). Langer and Filhan (2000) suggest that the
combined effort between reading and writing can reinforce a writer’s ability to read and a
reader’s ability to write. Thus, it is important that educators continue to seek innovative ways to
ensure that students are receiving adequate instruction capitalizing on the knowledge and skills
shared by both reading and writing.
From an early age, preschool children learn that the purpose of language is to covey
meaning and that the function of both reading and writing is to generate meaning (Puranik,
Lonigan & Kim, 2011). Both reading and writing require a learner to use symbolic structures of
meaning, follow similar patterns of thinking, and involve past experiences with language (Hilden
& Pressley, 2007; Rosenblatt, 1978; 2004; Sameroff, 2003; 2009). Writing strengthens early
literacy learning in classrooms (Clay, 2001) and may be a way into reading (Chomsky, 1978).
Emerging literacy researchers suggests that a child’s emerging literacy is built on three factors
including (a) functional expectation for print to make logical sense; (b) an expectation of how
language operates in alternate contexts; and (c) a growing control of orthography, wordness,
PLAY, READ, LEARN 55

directionality, grapheme-phoneme correspondences, and syntax (Puranik et al., 2011). Chomsky
(1978) also emphasizes that the composition of words according to sounds is one of the first
steps toward reading. In particular, research suggests that name writing during the early stages
of learning correlates highly with children’s print concepts, emergent literacy skills development
(Bloodgood, 1999; Blair & Savage, 2006; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Puranik et al., 2011).
Name writing revels pertinent information about a child’s emerging understanding of literacy
including their receptive and expressive alphabet knowledge and knowledge of letters-sound
relationships implicitly captured during the task of spelling (Puranik & Lonigan, 2012).
Research examining the relationship between reading and writing dates back to the 1930s
and historically, most pedagogy has separated reading and writing instruction (Nelson & Calfee,
1998). Early research in this field has influenced thinking about the nature of reading and
writing and how to improve student learning in both areas. Several studies have been conducted
to examine the relationship between name writing and emerging literacy skills. For example,
Welsch, Sullivan and Justice (2003) conducted a study that examined the relationship between
name writing and emergent literacy knowledge in print and phonological awareness amongst
children from diverse backgrounds. The study included a sample size of 3, 546 four-year old at-
risk children in 47 school districts across the state of Virginia of which 40% of the children were
Black, 42% were European American, 5% were Latino, and 6% of the children represented other
mixed ethnicities (Welsch et al., 2003). During the study, the participants were placed in four
comparison groups and administered a literacy screening that measured alphabet knowledge,
concept of word, print knowledge, rhyme awareness, and initial sound awareness. The results of
the study indicate that the participants who were able to correctly write their names were the
same participants showing the highest accuracy rates on tasks including awareness of rhymes
PLAY, READ, LEARN 56

and initial sounds, knowledge of uppercase letters and recognition of the concepts and functions
of print (Welsch et al., 2003). Welsch et al. (2003) also noted that the accuracy of children’s
name writing reflected their general knowledge about print and sounds. It is important to note
that all of the text-dependent skills are vital for reading acquisition and make significant
contributions to children’s reading success (Welsch et al., 2003).
In a more recent two-part study, Puranik and Lonigan (2012) examined whether
preschool children’s name-writing proficiency differentiated them on other emergent reading and
writing tasks, and the overall effect of name length on preschool children’s emergent literacy
skills including alphabet knowledge and spelling. In the first study, a range of emergent literacy
tasks was administered to 296 preschool children between the ages four and five. The results
indicated that the more advanced name writers outperformed the less advanced name writers on
all emergent literacy measures and the children with longer names did not show superior
performance compared to children with shorter names. The second part of the study conducted
by Puranik and Lonigan (2012) examined the effect of name length on preschool participant’s
emergent literacy skills including both alphabet knowledge and spelling. Four different
measures of alphabet knowledge and spelling were administered to 104 preschool children. The
results of the second part of the study also indicated that more advanced name writers
outperformed the less advanced name writers on the alphabet knowledge and spelling measures
and that having longer names did not equate to greater proficiency in the areas of alphabet
knowledge and spelling tasks. Both studies findings suggests that name writing proficiency, not
length of name are associated with preschool children’s developing emergent literacy skills and
reflects knowledge of some letters (Puranik & Lonigan, 2012). The results from both studies
also validates that proficiency in name writing reflects children’s general knowledge about their
PLAY, READ, LEARN 57

emerging literacy skills (Puranik & Lonigan, 2012). In sum, there is a positive correlation
between the process of developing both literacy and writing skills. The next section of this
chapter will discuss the role of the parent as it relates to a child’s literacy skills development
outside of the classroom.
Parental Involvement in Children’s Literacy Development
Research suggests that parental involvement in children’s learning is a way to increase a
child’s opportunities for academic success through bridging the literacy learning experiences of
the home and school to increase a child’s overall academic ability (Hallgarten, 2000). Although,
parental involvement in a child’s education does not guarantee success, research does support the
notion that parents play a vital role in a child’s early years of literacy development and reading
skills (Sukhram & Hsu, 2012). The approach should be seamless between home and school
(Irvine, 2003). Parents play a critical role in a child’s formative years because parental
involvement in the reading process begins long before the child arrives at school and should
continue throughout the school years (Vukelich, 1984). And yet, Black children are at a higher
risk for reading failure (Washington, 2001) and often live in households where fine and gross
motor, language and, reading development are not encouraged (Kunjufu, 2005). Irvine (2003)
purported that the Black students’ home and the school lack alignment that could facilitate the
marginalization process that could impede learning. Parents of Black children have reportedly
increased their involvement in home literacy activities once their children enter school but,
failure to promote these activities prior to school entry unfortunately places them at a
disadvantage. This section of the literature review will explore research and literature on the
impacts of parental involvement as it relates to early literacy development.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 58

Children’s home background is extremely important because parents are the children’s
first early language and literacy teachers (Cunningham & Neuman, 2009; Bissett, 1969; Elley,
1992; Krashen, 1993; LeMoine, O’Brian, Brandlin, & McQuillan, 1997; Trelease, 1995). A
study conducted by Brooks-Gunn and Markman (2005) reported racial and ethnic variations in
certain parenting behaviors that impacted school readiness and the development of early literacy
skills. Nurturance, discipline, teaching, and oral language use were associated with a child’s
cognitive, social, and emotional skills. The results conveyed that Black and Hispanic mothers
talked less with their young children than did White mothers, were less likely to read to them
daily and had fewer reading materials in the home (Brooks-Gunn & Markman, 2005).
Researchers Brooks-Gunn and Markman (2005) concluded that parenting differences accounted
for as much as one-half of the social and ethnic differences in school readiness.
Sukhram and Hsu (2012) note that children are exposed to reading through informal
parental interactions and approaches and this early exposure to reading provides children with
knowledge and literacy skills which are critical for the development of strong foundational
reading, academic and social skills. Children must be cognitively, socially, emotionally, and
physically ready to succeed when they enter school before they can learn (Fiester, 2010).
However, a rising proportion of children enter early education programs with limited exposure to
early literacy experiences at home or in childcare, putting them at risk for not achieving expected
language and literacy outcomes in preschool and beyond (Greenwood, Bradfield, Kaminiski,
Linas, Carta & Nylander, 2011).
There are several suggestions for parents to successful promote literacy development in
the home. Washington (2001) suggests that the connection between home and school should be
bidirectional, such that the school is influenced by the home practices and vice versa. Weigel,
PLAY, READ, LEARN 59

Martin, and Bennett (2006) noted, ‘‘Parents who express positive attitudes about reading and
actively engage their children in literacy enhancing activities are creating an atmosphere of
enthusiasm for literacy and learning’’ (p. 374). Heywood and Stagg-Peterson (2007) suggest
that parents should read books to their children and take them to visit the library from a young
age to foster a young love for learning all aspects of literacy. Parents are the primary teachers of
literacy to their children and teaching the love of literacy must be a priority in all parents’
households (Bissett, 1969; Elley, 1992; Heywood & Stagg-Peterson, 2007; Krashen, 1993;
LeMoine et al., 1997; Trelease, 1995). Researchers have determined that one of the most
important activities parents can do to promote vocabulary growth in their children is to read
aloud to them and to have them read on their own daily (Cunningham & Neuman, 2009).
As a child’s first teacher, best coach, and most concerned advocate (Fiester, 2010),
parents should engage in daily and varied reading activities at home during the early year such as
storytelling, reading books and visiting the library to help guide their children’s literacy
development (Sonnenschein, Baker, & Serpell; 2010). Parents can play an important role in
assisting their children to learn to read, and can act as good role models in promoting reading
behavior. Fiester (2010) noted that:
Parents should: read to and converse with their very young children to instill the language
and vocabulary skills that lead to proficient reading later on; cultivate a joy of learning
and a desire for education—and then make sure their children show up for school every
day; understand why it’s important to read proficiently by the end of third grade and then
proactively monitor their child’s progress toward that goal; encourage their children to
choose reading as a free-time activity; find and mobilize help from teachers, schools,
education specialists, and/or medical professionals if the child struggles to read; find
afterschool activities for their children that provide literacy enrichment and summer
activities that protect against summer learning loss; and develop their own literacy and
English language skills, if necessary, so they can help their children succeed in school.
(p.4)

PLAY, READ, LEARN 60

Dail and Payne (2010) report that when parents engage in ‘story-book-reading’ children’s
literacy development is positively impacted. Dail and Payne (2010) also suggest that
“recognizing routines, beliefs, and norms within the home positions families as participants co-
constructing their children’s literacy alongside the teachers, resources, and materials” (p. 3).
Kunjufu (2005) notes that, parents can help to cultivate their male child’s development by
reading and discussing text ideas together. The ‘‘how’’ parents read to their young children
encompasses the discourse that occurs during the sharing of a text and these conversations
surrounding books is essential in helping children to become familiar with the language,
knowledge, and culture of reading and (Gjems, 2010). During these discourses, parents must
pose open-ended questions to allow children to explore and discover both meaning and
understanding of the text (Snow 2000).

Black parents’ involvement at home and in school is positively related to their children’s
overall academic achievement, particularly elementary school-aged boys (Reynolds, 1989, 1992,
2002). Black boys whose parents are not actively involved are at greater risk for
underachievement by far (Reynolds, 1989, 1992, 2002; Mandara & Murray 2002). Mandara and
Murray (2002) also reported that Black boys who have authoritative parents are more
psychologically and behaviorally adjusted and have higher academic achievement than boys in
other types of families. In fact, boys that grew up in neglectful and permissive homes tended to
be more at risk for psychological, behavioral, and academic problems (Mandara & Murray,
2002).
Research suggests that, students who do not have access to early literacy skills in the
home may lack confidence in their reading ability and develop negative attitudes toward reading
(Sukhram & Hsu, 2012). However, students with well-developed foundational skills become
PLAY, READ, LEARN 61

skillful readers who continue to increase their reading success in later years (Sukhram & Hsu,
2012). It can be concluded that children raised in home environments rich in literacy exposure
and shared-reading experiences are more likely to have successful reading outcomes. Parents
definitely play a vital role in their children’s literacy development. While there has been a raft of
research conducted on the impact and value of parents as a child’s first teacher in the home, there
has been little empirical analysis on the impact of parents in modeling reading (Cunningham &
Neuman, 2009). Further research also needs to be conducted in the area of how Black parents in
low-income households can promote early literacy skills with limited educational attainment and
social capital. The next section of this literature review will thoroughly discuss effects of a
child’s reading disposition on their development of literacy skills.
Benefits of Early Literacy Intervention and Effective Reading Instruction

Literacy is a very complex content area. Black students should engage in early literacy
intervention programs to help alleviate some of the possible long-term implications (Washington,
2001). There are several examples that validate the assertion that Black children can benefit
from early literacy programs in many ways. Enhancement of early cognitive development in
poor children is important because of the realization that cognitive processing will have a great
deal to do with academic and vocational success (Campbell & Ramey, 1995). Likewise, early
educational intervention can potentially enhance cognitive development and, can lead to higher
levels of academic confidence and motivation (Campbell & Ramey, 1995). Researchers Craig et
al., (2003), report the best weapon to combat the problem of reading failure is to allocate
resources for early identification and prevention programs. Gaskins (2003) noted that effective
reading instruction in the primary grades is necessary to help children reach their potential, but it
must include different levels of support as teachers work to meet the needs of all children.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 62

Classrooms containing a high percentage of successful beginning readers typically had teachers
that provided well managed, productive, and focused classrooms with a high level of
involvement in learning (Gaskins, 2003).
Successful interventions can establish that children of all racial and ethnic groups have
great potential and can be successful with adequate resources and opportunities (Ferguson,
2002). Research also shows that ongoing clinic-based parental literacy interventions increase
children’s word knowledge (Dinkevich et at., 2003). Preschool high intensity intervention
programs improve vocabulary skills and language comprehension of urban preschoolers
(Dinkevich et al., 2003). Hardman and Jones (1999) report that literacy intervention programs
help increase the frequency of book sharing. Kaderavek and Justice (2004) suggest that at-risk
children, benefit from explicit language and literacy training because they promote positive
literacy interest and development. Language and pre-literacy development has a profound effect
on young children’s cognitive abilities, successful transition to school and overall reading
success because they have higher levels of motivation and are capable in engaging in the
complex task of learning to read (Bond et al., 2006). Thus, successful interventions can assist in
ensuring that Black children are exposed to all the critical components of literacy and have a
solid grasp of each skill decreasing the risk for school failure and high levels of illiteracy.
Recent research suggests that early intervention programs foster foundational skills of
literacy in the hopes of enabling children who enter school ‘at risk’ of reading difficulties have
the ability to close the gap between themselves and their literate peers (Carroll et al., 2011).
Carroll et al. (2011) also report that children who participate in early literacy intervention
programs have the ability to ‘catch-up’ to their literate peers. Greenwood et al. (2011) reports
that early intervention programs provide literacy experiences for those children who lack these
PLAY, READ, LEARN 63

experiences. Early intervention programs also help to prevent the need for special education
services for language, literacy, and behavior disorders, particularly for this population of children
with experiential deficits (Greenwood et al., 2011). Hence, early literacy intervention programs
help lay a solid foundation for overall school success and exposure to those critical components
of literacy. The next section of this literature review will outline the long-term impacts of Black
students who do not receive effective literacy instruction.
Long-Term Impacts of Black Students Who Do Not Receive Effective Literacy Instruction
This section of the literature review, will explore what current research suggest are the
long-term implications of Black students who do not receive early literacy intervention. There
has been a significant amount of research conducted that conveys that Black children are at an
increased risk for reading and overall school failure (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Garcia, 2002;
Washington, 2001). Research conveys that Black children who have not attained solid literacy
skills by the end of first grade are unlikely to become good readers by the end of fourth grade
(Washington, 2001). Garcia (2002) reported that by the eighth grade, 40% or more of Black
students are performing one grade or more below normal achievement levels. More recent data
conveys that the average Black twelfth grader was reading at the level of the average White
eighth grader (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Black males are caught between a school system that
holds low expectations and negative perceptions of abilities and a society that frequently mirrors
and distorts these images (Noguera, 2008). The inability to read is one factor that unfortunately
perpetuates the disproportionate representation of Black students in special education programs
(Eitle, 2002). Harry and Anderson (1994) report that Black males begin the special education
process on the first day of school. Black males who exhibit learning difficulties get harsher
labels of mentally retarded rather than learning disabled (Harry & Anderson, 1994). Eitle (2002)
PLAY, READ, LEARN 64

reports that the growth in number of Black students in special education could be viewed as a
means of racial segregation. Special education is used to protect racially segregated education
that keeps students of color at a disadvantage (Connor & Baglieri, 2009).
Another possible long-term impact on Black students who do not receive early literacy
intervention is the fact that they are at a greater risk to be diagnosed with dyslexia (Carroll et al.,
2011). Children with dyslexia generally have word recognition deficits, poor phonological
awareness, slow verbal processing and verbal short-term memory limitations (Carroll et al.,
2011). Children with dyslexia also have difficulties developing decoding skills (Carroll et al.,
2011). Hence as stated in the previous section, once a child enters special education there is a
higher possibility that they will not acquire adequate literacy skills to compete with their White
peers. More importantly, with a diagnosis of dyslexia, Black children will have a greater
difficulty overall mastering each of the critical components of the complex domain of literacy
described in the previous section.
Black children who show reading impairments are also at a higher risk to become poor
comprehenders (Carroll et al., 2011). Students who lack reading comprehension skills also have
difficulty with figurative language and have a poor knowledge of story structure and conventions
(Carroll et al., 2011). These children are unable to self-monitor their own comprehension of a
text, make inferences or integrate information at the level of the text to form a coherent
understanding of what they have read (Carroll et al., 2011). Reading comprehension also
contributes to overall reading success.
Black children who develop reading difficulties at a young age are often impacted during
their high school and post- secondary educational careers. Teachers systemically under refer
minority students for gifted education services and often use White students as the norm to
PLAY, READ, LEARN 65

compare diverse students (Ford & Grantham, 2003). At the collegiate level, Bensimon (2004)
reports that Black students fell below the average pass rate in almost every course. As a result,
Iverson (2007) notes that before entering the university people of color are typically described in
the diversity action plan as a deficit. Ford and Grantham (2003) describe this as ‘deficit
thinking’ in which Blacks are seen as intellectually inferior thus; educators uphold
counterproductive, negative views lowering expectations for students of color. Specifically, this
is seen as a sign of ‘fear’ according to Ford and Grantham (2003). This deficit way of thinking
and operating helps maintain a disempowered control over the oppressed and upholds the
dominant White upper class standards (Connor & Baglieri, 2009). Deficit ways of thinking also
help to contribute to the overall literacy achievement gap that currently exists and is another
factor that contributes to the low rates of literacy obtained by Black students.
Methods of Teaching & Learning Reading
The scores of American 12
th
-grade students on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress over the past 30 years have shown a steady decline in student performance outcomes
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2011; Snow, 2002). Educational leader’s efforts to
address the literacy demands of U.S. citizens are deeply rooted historically in the premise that
children who are successful in the early grades gain a strong foundation that helps build literacy
achievement that will carry them into their adult lives (Randall, Jennifer, & Silberg, 2006).
According to Randall et al., (2006) determining the best instructional approach to reading has
been debated for the last fifty-years specifically in the areas of “(a) mental processes inherent in
the reading process; (b) role of phonics and literature in the curriculum; (c) grouping children for
reading instruction; (d) emphasis, scope and sequence of skill instruction; the extent that
strategies and comprehension instruction should be emphasized; and (f) value of integrating
PLAY, READ, LEARN 66

reading and writing” (p. 1). Today, many competing reading instructional approaches exists
(Randall et al., 2006). Kaplan (2009) notes that:
Curriculum is an educational phenomenon that continually evokes and sustains a variety
of myths such as the belief that prescribed rather than flexibly structured curriculum
yields higher outcomes for all students and that a discipline specific curriculum is easier
to teach and learn for all students. Curriculum myths rise and fall based on contemporary
educational and societal contexts. (p. 1)
The next section of the literature review will discuss two reading instructional approaches that
continue to be debatable by current educational leaders and educators.
Direct- Instruction vs. Active Teaching
Direct instruction. Direct Instruction does not contradict the notion of constructivist
learning rather, from a constructivist perspective, direct instruction learners have a non-
participative student role in learning and receive guidance in developing meaning for themselves
(Gersten, Darch & Gleason, 1988). Learners are more likely to develop insightful
understandings about relatively "objective" topics if they receive expert guidance rather than
having the opportunity to be actively engaged in construct meaning for themselves with regard to
any topic building upon prior knowledge (Gersten et al., 1988). Specifically, in Direct
Instruction, the teacher explicitly tells children things or asks them to do things; the teacher is the
active agent, telling children what they need to know or illustrating new concepts with little or no
room for children's own efficacy (Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2013).
Direct Instruction methods originated in the 1960’s at the Carl-Bereiter-Seigfried
Engelmann Preschool at the University of Illinois (Englemann & Carnine, 1982). Englemann
and his colleagues developed Direct Instruction on the premise that disadvantaged children
needed instruction to occur at a faster-than-average rate to help below-average student’s catch up
PLAY, READ, LEARN 67

to their peers who performed on average or above-average (Englemann, Meyer, Carnine, Becker,
Eisele, Johnson, 1998). Following a Direct Instruction approach, the function of the teacher is to
maximize the learner's active thinking about the topic. Direct Instruction has been used by
educators in an attempt to increase academic skills amongst low income students (Rosenshine &
Stevens; 1984). When teachers use a Direct-Instructional approach in low income general
education classrooms following consistent practice of demonstration, guided practice, and
feedback, low-performing students show higher achievement (Rosenshine & Stevens; 1984).
Adding to this existing body of knowledge, in the 3-year longitudinal study of direct instruction
effects from first through third grades, researchers Randall et al., (2006) found that suburban
low-skilled readers significantly benefitted from the combination of direct instruction and
effective teaching. In addition, the study revealed that successful reading and writing programs
incorporate direct also referred to as explicit instruction into challenging, engaging, open-ended,
and purposeful literacy experiences that employ an array of materials (Randall et al., 2006).
However, after the 3-year study the research shows that no single approach works for all children
and there is no quick fix approach; teachers should seek out many effective strategies to use with
students at any given time (Randall et al., 2006). The study noted that the high emphasis placed
on phonics and the limited emphasis of direct instruction on vocabulary development,
comprehension strategies and culturally relevant literature that relates directly to urban children
living in poverty may not address the full range of instructional activities essential for adequate
progress in students’ overall reading achievement (Randall et al., 2006).
Direct Instruction is described as a technologically skill-based approach to remedying
and preventing skill deficiencies focusing on very specific principals (Gersten, Carnine, &
Woodward, 1987; Englemann et al, 1989; Englemann et al, 1998; & Randall et al., 2006).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 68

Engelmann (1980) explains that achieving unambiguous, clear and explicit communication is an
important feature of instruction. In order to ensure clarity and achieve unambiguous
communication between the teacher and student following the very specific principals are pivotal
(Englemann, Becker, Hanner & Johnson, 1989; Englemann et al, 1998; & Randall et al., 2006):
(a) Lessons should be scripted and contain exactly what the teacher should say in order to
assure that the teacher uses clear and concise directions.
(b) Lessons should be rapidly paced because more tasks per minute result in greater
student attention and performance outcomes.
(c) Children receive greater opportunities to learn when the lessons are presented in a
group where the children respond in unison.
(d) The teacher may use signals during group work to make sure the group is aware when
to respond.
(e) Students individual response turns should follow group tasks to provide absolute
information about the ability of students and when there is no support from the group
provided.
(f) Precise steps for error correction should be scripted for the use by the teacher because
there is no assumption that the learning is error free.
(g) As a means of reinforcing good performance and hard work, praise, challenges,
encouragement and expressions of amazement over student performance should be
verbalized by the teacher.
(h) voluntary operant behavior is learned
(i) learning is dependent on the environment;
(j) the teacher controls the environment and controls voluntary operant behavior
PLAY, READ, LEARN 69

(k) intelligent behavior is operant and therefore is learned and can be taught
(l) rate of learning is largely controlled by teaching system
(m) successfully taught students have greater gains
(n) thinking processes are first taught using overt and usually verbal processes
(o) the nature of the skill is the logical determinant of a program’s sequence rather than
differences in the individual student
(p) it is most efficient that the teacher sequence the skills so that only one interpretation
is learned when multiple interpretations might be learned
(q) unless the student is taught commonalities in the tasks, it cannot be assumed that
skills will transfer to related tasks
(r) quality of the instructional process is controlled by careful, systematic monitoring of
student responses and feedback to the student
(s) failure or lack of progress and mastery are functions of the instructional sequence, not
the student
(t) small-group instruction that incorporates wait time and response signal
(u) choral oral responding in unison
(v) brisk and rapid pacing with short breaks
(w) careful observations and listening to students verbal responses
(x) correcting and diagnosing student errors using 6 steps (i.e. praise, model, lead, test,
firm-up, delayed test)
(y) extrinsic and intrinsic motivation using (i.e. points, treats, contact, tickles, pats, or
handshakes)
PLAY, READ, LEARN 70

Overall, the key belief system of the Direct Instruction approach is that at-risk students will learn
to read when they receive instruction that is clear and well designed, when they are given
opportunities to participate, and when they are provided with clear feedback (Englemann et al,
1989; Englemann et al, 1998).
Following Engelmann’s research and assumptions about the principals of effective Direct
Instruction, Gersten, Woodward, and Darch (1986) proposed that the key principle of direct
instruction to be the idea that all students learn through the use of clear and explicit materials and
teacher presentation of the materials. In addition to unambiguous communication instructional
delivery must focus on systematic, explicit teaching of effective academic strategies (Engleman
et al., 1989; Gersten et al., 1987). The effective strategies consisted of six fundamental features
including: (a) teach an explicit step-by-step strategy; (b) develop mastery at each step in the
process; (c) develop a process for correction of student errors; (d) gradually fade from teacher-
directed activities toward independent work; (e) use adequate, systematic practice with a range of
examples; and (f) use cumulative review (Gersten et al., 1986). Years later Stein and Carnine
(1998), added to the body of research suggesting that there were five additional principles that
underlie all Direct Instruction programs. These principles included (a) the identification of major
ideas to organized content; (b) the teaching of explicit, generalizable strategies; (c) the
scaffolding of instruction; (d) the integration of skills and concepts; and (e) the provision of
adequate review.
Active teaching. Educational theorists and experts also recognized the inadequacy of the
term Direct Instruction. Terms such as active teaching and generative teaching were
recommended as broader terms that describe the ideal way to teach effectively (Good, 1983;
Wittrock, 1990; 1991). Both active teaching and generative teaching are aligned with
PLAY, READ, LEARN 71

Constructivist learning theory wherein social learning environments, the teacher serves as a
facilitator to aid students in generating knowledge through active engagement and personal
knowledge construction (Bruner, 1962; Piaget, 1962; Vygotsky, 1962; 1978; & Woolfolk, 2001).
When employing active teaching, students learn to effectively through presenting concepts,
providing opportunities for useful practice, and monitoring those activities carefully (see Table
2). Teachers help students become active and responsible for generating meaning from class
activities by building relations both (1) across subject-matter concepts and (2) between the
subject matter and students' existing knowledge (Uecker & Gess-Newsome, 2008; Cleveland,
2011). Table 2 highlights the eight significant principles of active learning for males who face
challenges in school.
Table 2
8 Key Principles of Active Learning for Boys Who Struggle In School (Cleveland, 2011)
Principle Outcome
 Active Involvement Learner creates a personal connection to the knowledge
or skill at hand and develops the ability to retrieve and
apply it in new situations

 Compelling Situations Enables the learner to respond to challenging, complex,
real-life situations that involve emotions as well as
problem-solving abilities; the learning is meaning and
personally relevant

 Direct Experience Activates and increases senses during learning and
improves the quality of the experience assisting with
attention and recall in the future

 Enjoyable Setting Fosters social interactions in a relaxed setting that
reduces anxiety

 Frequent Feedback Helps students feel safe while learning new concepts and
provides them with a sense of belief in the possibility of
success

 Informal Learning Authentic, unique reactions, observations, and
perceptions that result from a specific learning
experience that help with elaboration

PLAY, READ, LEARN 72

 Patterns and Connections Helps support comprehension and memory by merging
prior knowledge with new knowledge and combining
incongruent ideas into configurations that are useful and
make sense

 Reflections Provides insight and helps build self-awareness enabling
a student to understand how specific individual choices
affect outcomes of how one best learns

As seen in Table 3, constructivism combines the philosophical constructs posited by
various theorists, including Vygotsky, Piaget, Dewey, and Bruner. From a constructivist
perspective, learning occurs when individuals integrate new knowledge with existing knowledge
and the learner must be actively engaged in the learning process (Tracey & Morrow, 2006).
Learners derive meaning of knowledge by authentic problem solving (Dewey, 1938; Woolfolk,
2001). According to Zemelman et al., (1993), learning in all subjects involves inventing and
constructing new ideas and constructivist teaching fosters critical thinking and creates active and
motivated learners. Proponents of constructivist theory suggest that it be incorporated into the
curriculum, and advocate that teachers create environments in which children can construct their
own understandings (Zemelman et al, 1993). Thomas et al., (1999) reported that using a
constructivist approach in the classroom gives teachers the opportunity to encourage students to
use their abilities to investigate, reason, and ask questions. Constructivism emphasizes the active
construction of knowledge by individuals (Woolfolk, 2001).

Table 3
Major Theorists That Help Shape Conceptual Framework
Theorist Beliefs
Bruner
(1960;1962;1966;
1983;1991)
-Learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based
upon their current or prior knowledge
-Learners relies on cognitive structure in order to select and transform information,
construct hypotheses, and makes decisions
-Cognitive structure includes: schema, and mental models that provide meaning and
PLAY, READ, LEARN 73

organization to experiences and allows the individual to dig deeper and exceed the
information given.
-The instructor and student should engage in an active dialog.
-Curriculum should be organized in a spiral manner so that the student continually builds
upon prior knowledge.
Dewey (1910; 1916;
1938)
-Learning is an activity that arises from personal experiences with wrestling with a
problem
-Learning experiences are cumulative, unending acquisition and reordering of life
experiences
-Participating in a shared incident prepares students for democratic living.
-Educational activity helps students acquire the knowledge, information, and skills
necessary to succeed in the workforce, learn basic skills and, enrich their lives.
-Active class participation encourages each other to ask questions, explain and justify
their opinions, articulate their reasoning, and elaborate and reflect upon their knowledge.
Piaget
(1950;1959;1962;1969;
1970)
-Children learn step-by-step through experience and interaction with the world around
them.
-Children’s development precedes their learning capabilities
-Children learn inductively through experimentation and testing – through hands-on play.
-Stages of Development include the following stages:
Sensorimotor Stage: Birth- 2years- child uses senses and motor skills to assist with
figuring out the world
Preoperational Stage:2 to 6 years- child gains the ability to use symbols but still needs
physical props and concrete situations to solve problems
Concrete Operations: 6-11 years- child learns to conceptualize based on physical
experiences but relies on discovery and experiment to stimulate the brain
Formal Operational: 11-years+- child can use deductive and logical reasoning
Rosenblatt (1978;
1982; 1991; 1995;
2004)
-There is a mutual reciprocal relationship between the reader and the text
-The reader is at the center of the reading event
-Readers are encouraged to examine their emotions, associations, memories, images and
ideas as they engage in reading
-A learners experience is vital to the process of reading and learning overall
Vygotsky (1962;1978) - Learning takes place in the zone of proximal development; a child is stretched just
beyond their current level of understanding and proficiency
-Placed emphasis on the following elements that shape cognitive development: (a) culture
(b)social factors (c) role of language
-Community plays a central role in the process of "making meaning."
-Social learning precedes development
-Learning occurs through social interactions with a skillful tutor (i.e. teacher)
-The teacher role is to guide student responses in order to provide feedback, enable the
child to think, elaborate on student ideas, develop thoughts, and scaffold the learning and
gradually withdraw support as student becomes able to advance independently

Active teaching is oppositional to non-participative direct- instruction and recognizes that
individuals need to engage with the content and with others, activate prior knowledge, make
connections between ideas, and construct new meaning from experiences (Uecker & Gess-
Newsome, 2008). In active learning, students take responsibility for their own learning (Uecker
PLAY, READ, LEARN 74

& Gess-Newsome, 2008; Cleveland, 2011). Individuals create their own knowledge based on
the interplay between one’s experiences and ideas and build upon previous knowledge to
construct new meanings by active participation in social environments (Vygotsky, 1978). These
principles of active teaching and learning are aligned with theorists Louise M. Rosenblatt’s
Transactional Theory (1978; 1991; 1995; 2004) who proposed that the reader is fully engaged in
the meaning-making process of reading (see Figure 2). The term transaction emphasizes the
idea that meaning is constructed when the reading engages in a back-and-forth relationship with
the text. The experience is a critical to the process of learning (Anderson, 1992; Dewey, 1938;
Rosenblatt; 1995; Sameroff, 2003; 2009). According to Rosenblatt (1978; 1991; 1995; 2004)
reading occurs when the text is activated and decoded by the reader who links past experiences
to codes and symbols that are embedded in the language of a given text. The reader is important
because they have a heightened awareness of words and their attention is centered directly on
what they experience as they read a particular text. Rosenblatt (1995) asserts that children are
the center of the reading process and must have opportunities to exercise their voice in the
classroom. Children need opportunities to respond aesthetically to literature (Brown, Pressley,
Van Meter & Schuder, 1996; Pressley, El-Dinary, Gaskins, Schuder, Bergman & Almasi, 1992;
Rosenblatt 1978; 1991; 1995; 2004; Sameroff, 2003; 2009). Both reading and learning are
experiential and provide children with opportunities to enlarge the world (Brown et al., 1996;
Dewey, 1916; Pressley et al., 1992; Rosenblatt 1995). Teachers need to integrate more “active
learning” into their classrooms where children are engaged as learners and are owners of their
own knowledge and actively building their understanding during the process (Pressley et al.,
1992).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 75

Figure 2 illustrates a series of transactional processes at work in a classroom. This figure
suggests that not only do teachers impact students (and vice versa) but that other factors may
impact teachers and students at any point during the interaction sequence (Brown, 2008; Brown
et al., 1996). In the transactional model, a web of factors contributes to behavior above and
beyond the simple linear impact of teacher on student (or student on teacher), providing
opportunities for students to learn from one another by increased opportunities for student talk
(Anderson, 1992; Brown, 2008). Brown (2008) notes that it is important that teachers provide
students with the tools they need to think and talk meaningfully about text and to provide a way
for them to learn from one another during this transactional process.

Figure 2. Transactional Strategy Instruction (Brown, 2008)
Active Learning Through Play
Play is a component of active learning which is aligned with the constructivist approach.
According to Piaget, play and activity-based learning, are equated with intellectual growth
PLAY, READ, LEARN 76

(Seefledt & Barbour, 1994). Piaget validated the assertion that children learn through direct
experiences and social interaction with peers (Seefledt & Barbour, 1994). Like Piaget, Bruner
(1983) argued that “conceptions that children arrive at on their own are usually more meaningful
than those proposed by others and that students do not need to be rewarded when they seek to
make sense of things that puzzle them. The intrinsic satisfaction of simply knowing outweighs
any extrinsic reward like a sticker or token” (p. 310). Through social interactions and play,
activity- based methods of instruction allows student to engage in instructional strategies
including: (a) use of real, high-quality literature for literacy learning; (b) use of real, meaningful
contexts for literacy activities; (c) child-centered instruction based on children’s interests; (d)
heavy emphasis on student choice; (e) use of thematic instruction; (f) use of active, social
learning experiences; (g) use of a variety of grouping systems; (h) use of large blocks of time for
integrated literacy activities; (i) use of alternative systems of assessment; and (j) use of centers in
the classroom (Tracey & Morrow, 2006). These instructional strategies closely match the
components of literacy work stations (Diller, 2003; 2006; 2007) and are aligned with the
constructivist theory.
Constructivist Jerome Bruner (1966) believes that learning is demonstrated through a
change in knowledge and understanding. Bruner (1966) posited that student- centered learning
occurs through inquiry, or discovery learning, and is directly linked to problem solving. As
children age, they must develop ways to represent recurrent regularities in their environment and
become autonomous learners (Bruner, 1966). Language serves as a mediator between ones
environment stimuli and an individual’s response (Bruner, 1966). According to Bruner (1966)
there are three modes of representation (see Figure 3). These modes of representation illustrate
PLAY, READ, LEARN 77

the loosely sequential and integrated ways in which information is translated, stored and encoded
into memory according to Bruner (1966).

Figure 3. Bruner’s (1966) Three Modes of Representation

Social interactions are also a component of active and activity-based learning. Both
Bruner (1960), and Vygotsky (1962), suggested that the narrative of teaching is a conversation
that is appropriated by the learner who can subsequently use that narrative to teach
himself/herself. However, Bruner (1960) emphasized that opportunities for insight and
discovery help facilitate this process. Projects promote this process of learning and social
Mode 3: Symbolic-Learn Through Abstract Symbols
7 years +
-Information is stored in the form of
a symbol, code = language (words,
math symbols)
-Symbols are flexible and can be
manipulated
Mode 2: Iconic-Learn Through Image or Icons
1-6 years
-Information is stored visually
through images
Mode 1: Enactive-Learn Through Movement or Action
0-1 years
-Encoding information and storing it
in our memory
-Represents past events through
motor responses
PLAY, READ, LEARN 78

interactions. According to Dewey (1910), projects assist students in succeeding within the
classroom and beyond because they allow learners to apply multiple intelligences in completing
a project they can be proud of. Dewey (1910) also believed that it is the thinker who needs to be
actively engaged with the information to connect it to things that are to the thinker, surely known.
Thinkers or learners construct new understandings or accept new information only when it is
inferentially appraised as warranted because of the information they already know (Dewey,
1910). If learning through discovery is superior to other forms of instruction, then it might serve
educators and students alike to spend time learning the procedures of discovery (Alfieri, 2011;
Dewey, 1910; Karpov & Haywood, 1998).
Aligned with Bruner (1966) and other Constructivist theorists, research has been
conducted in the field of play and its correlation to literacy skill development and overall student
learning. The relationship between play and reading was first hypothesized by Wolfgang in the
year of 1974 (Roskos & Christie, 2011). Wolfgang (1974) argued that children make symbolic
connections to toys just as they must do to print when reading written words in a text. Piagetian
views underscored the value of social pretend play for practicing and consolidating cognitive
skills, such as symbolic thinking and print awareness (Roskos & Christie, 2011). Symbolic play
rather involves the use of symbols to represent experiences (Piaget, 1962). Piaget (1962) viewed
play as an imbalanced state of assimilation and accommodation. This process involves the child
incorporating new information into existing cognitive structures and while modifying existing
cognitive structures to match, imitate, or otherwise conform the reality of the physical world
(Piaget, 1962). During this process, children also do not learn new skills through play, but
practice and consolidate recently acquired skills (Piaget, 1962; Roskos & Christie, 2011).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 79

Play develops self-initiating autonomy, giving children a feeling of control and provides
opportunities for children to learn language and develop ideas naturally through play (Whitmore
& Crowell, 1994). Researchers, Johnson, Christie, & Yawkey (1987) defined play as
intrinsically motivated, freely chosen, process-oriented, nonliteral, and enjoyable. Sociodramatic
play is defined as providing children with opportunities to experience using language for
authentic reasons and opportunities for using more complex language (Stone, 2009). Isenberg
and Quisenberry (2002) suggest that play is essential for all children because the benefits of play
encompass the whole child including: (a) cognitive development; (b) social-emotional
development; (c) physical development; (d) moral development; and (d) aesthetics development
(Stone, 2009). Play also intrinsically motivates learners and provides personally relevant,
meaningful, and appropriate experiences for learners (Isenberg & Quisenberry, 2002; Frost,
Worthham & Reifel, 2005).
In a study that sought out teacher beliefs and classrooms practices around play,
researchers Bennett et al., (1998) reported that teachers described play as a fun, enjoyable,
natural, open-ended exploration that provides a context for developing skills and concepts,
including language development and social interaction. The study conveyed that there was a
shared discourse about the value of play and its relationship to learning, however teachers differ
in the ways they organize the curriculum which, in turn, is influenced by their intentions for and
assumptions about learning through play. The study also noted that play is not only children’s
unique way of learning about their world, but also their way of learning about themselves,
building on their knowledge and deepening their understanding through playful and enjoyable
moments (Bennett, Wood & Rogers, 1998) .
PLAY, READ, LEARN 80

Researchers Roskos and Neuman (1990) report that creative engagement with reading
and writing activities through play have implications for literacy development and help children
to authenticate events and transact with a given text. One, area of benefit for children is in
language and literacy development through sociodramatic play (Stone, 2009). Literacy in play
becomes interactive, situational and is a powerful influence on the extent to which literacy is
functional to the language user (Roskos & Neuman, 1990). A classrooms physical arrangement
impacts a learner’s success within it (Kunjufu, 2011; Cleveland, 2011). The physical
environment can have positive effects on children's play behaviors, however, should be
considered from a child’s point of view (Roskos and Neuman, 1990). The type, number, and
accessibility of play materials also seem to relate to the quality of play themes (Johnson et al.,
1987; 1999).
In the study conducted by Morrow and Rand (1990) the effectiveness of play-centers
were examined and found to be enriched in the functional uses of print and the frequency and
quality of literacy activities in the spontaneous play of 37 preschoolers. The results from this
study also indicated that teacher demonstration of literacy practices helps to extend and give
meaning to children’s reading and writing behaviors. A separate study conducted by Morrow
and Rand (1991) one year later reported that preschool and kindergarten children are likely to
engage in more voluntary literacy behaviors during free-play periods when literacy materials are
introduced and teachers guide children to use those materials. Children who engaged in literacy-
enriched play centers also participate in more literacy behaviors during free playtime than do
children in thematic centers without adult guidance. The research suggests that play creates a
comfortable environment for children to explore, grow and learn.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 81

While this section of the literature review does not provide empirical evidence that
enriched play centers automatically result in increased literacy learning, this section does suggest
that literacy-enriched play centers can make a difference in children's literacy behaviors through
play (Roskos & Neuman, 1990; Stone, 1993; 2009; Isenberg & Quisenberry, 2002). More
controlled empirical studies across varying groups of children in different settings need to be
conducted before such claims can be made.
Teacher’s role during play. Vygotskian theory calls attention to the role of adults and
peers in helping young children acquire social literacy practices (Roskos & Christie, 2011).
According to Bodrova and Leong (1996), Vygotsky theory suggests that play is a ‘leading
activity’ for children providing the potential optimal context for the emergence and continued
growth of the most important cognitive and social processes of young children. Vygotskian
theory also suggest that the active learning though play promotes the development within the
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which is the variance between what children can do by
themselves and what children can do with a more knowledgeable person and facilitates learning
(Bodrova, Leong & Paynter, 1999).
Teachers should express a noninterfering attitude toward play, allowing the children to
self-select among various activities during play time (Roskos & Neuman, 1990). According to
Saracho (2002) the teacher serves as the (a) director of instructions; (b) transition director; (c)
supporter of learning; (d) storyteller; and (e) instructional guide. The teacher's role is to provide
opportunities, time, and materials for play to unfold, but play must never be an assignment with
objectives (Stone, 2009). In addition, teachers demonstrating literacy practices helped to extend
and give meaning to children's reading and writing behaviors (Roskos and Neuman, 1990).
Specifically, during guided play, teachers scaffold learning by enriching children’s curricular
PLAY, READ, LEARN 82

content with providing exemplars and prompting exploration and discovery via dialogic inquiry
(Bruner, 1966; Montessori, 1917, 1995; Meckley, 2002). Teachers can also subtly structure play
activities (Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Berk, & Singer, 2008) as they co-play with children, guiding
them towards imaginary activities and games that match with outlined curricular goals (Weisberg
et al., 2013). Teachers also use a variety of strategies to draw children’s attention to critical
features of learning that may be otherwise overlooked. Teachers may take a proactive stance in
which they enrich the learning environment with curricular materials and engaging in co- play
with the child in a way that fosters discovery and learning (Docket & Fleer, 1999; Meckley,
2002). On the other hand, during free play, teachers’ commitment to playful learning may
translate into child centered permissiveness, with teachers adopting a predominantly non-
facilitative role and overseeing students’ play activities without engaging or interacting with
them.
The students’ role during play. Inherent in play is that the children are in charge (Stone,
2009). During play, children interact with each other, communicate meaning, and develop
narrative language and learn to use voice to interpret situations, and to express fear, joy, and
anger (Stone, 2009). Children are actively engaged in the learning process through physically
exploring and manipulating educational materials (Lillard & Else -Quest, 2006). During this
process, children deduce information about the physical nature of objects and begin forming
rudimentary concepts (Bonawitz, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978). Children symbolically transform
objects into something else which are precursors to emergent literacy and support the
development of representation and abstract thinking (Stone, 2009). The social nature of play
also employs opportunities for children to use new words that are tied with meaning and
experience (Stone, 1993).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 83

Play Techniques
Playful activities are enjoyable, flexible, and involve active engagement of the child
(Johnson, Christie, & Yawkey, 1999; Pellegrini, 2009; Weisberg et al., 2013). According to
Weisberg et al., (2013) two pedagogical approaches often compared in early education are Direct
Instruction and free play. Guided-play however, is the middle-ground instructional method that
sits between Direct Instruction and free-play (Weisberg et al., 2013). This section will discuss
the two different types of play techniques: guided and free play.
Guided play. There are clear distinctions between free and guided-play activities within
playful learning contexts (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2008; Weisberg, 2013). According to Weisberg et
al. (2013), guided play represents an emerging research area that is considered the median
between didactic or Direct Instruction and free play experiences. Direct Instruction is a
structured learning experience controlled by the teacher (Becker, 2001) whereas, under guided
play, a teacher structures a classroom environment around a general curricular goal that is
designed to stimulate children’s natural curiosity, exploration, and play with learning-oriented
objects and materials (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2008; Weisberg et al., 2013). Learning is child-
directed and not controlled by the adult. The teacher provides educational scaffolding populates
the environment with materials and toys that stimulate an array of developmentally appropriate
learning experiences (Weisberg et al., 2013). Teachers also enhance children’s self-discovery by
asking open-ended questions about their discoveries, which promotes higher order thinking
beyond their own self-initiated exploration (Weisberg et al., 2013).
Guided play and academic outcomes. Guided play offers a developmentally appropriate
pedagogy that provides children with a focused approach to learning (Hirsh-Pasek, 2008;
PLAY, READ, LEARN 84

Weisberg et al., 2013). Weisberg et al., (2013) notes that guided play has proven to boost young
children’s academic development in both reading and mathematics. Guided play sparks
enriched, meaningful learning experiences while still maintaining children’s sense of curiosity,
autonomy, choice, and challenge (Weisberg et al., 2013). Teachers can enrich learning through
children’s play by adding math- and literacy-related materials into school environments (Christie
& Enz, 1992; Roskos & Christie, 2004; Weisberg et al., 2013). For example, researchers Han,
Moore, Vukelich, and Buell (2010) conducted a study and found that guided play intervention
increased vocabulary scores in an at-risk population. During the study, two groups of
preschoolers participated in an interactive book reading activity that was designed to teach new
words. The study occurred twice a week over a two month period for 30 minutes per reading
activity. One group of children only received the teaching protocol for the entire 30 minutes.
The second group received the protocol for 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes in which they
engaged in guided play about the new words (Han, Moore, Vukelich & Buell, 2010). The results
from the study indicate that children in both groups made gains in their expressive vocabulary,
however the group who had received the guided play intervention gained significantly more than
children who did not engage in play during the intervention (Han et al., 2010; Weisberg et al.,
2013). The results from this study assert that guided play in preschool classrooms can have a
positive effect on academic outcomes (Han et al., 2010; Weisberg et al., 2013).
Free play. Yang (2000) states that free play allows children to freely select the activity,
materials and individuals with whom they are going to play, stopping and changing without any
restrictions. Free play includes a broad array of activities, such as object play, socio- dramatic
play, and imaginary play. Theorists commonly agree that free play activities are voluntary, fun,
flexible, have no extrinsic goals, may contain an element of make believe, and involves active
PLAY, READ, LEARN 85

engagement of the child (Johnson, et al., 1999; Pellegrini, 2009; Weisberg et al., 2013; Yang,
2000). In free play, the child determines what to explore and is actively engaged in their
learning environment (Slavin, 1983; 1990; 1996; Yang, 2000; Weisberg et al., 2013). According
to Yawkey and Pellegrini (1984), free play provides a natural medium for learning because
children are able to engage in activities that provide opportunities for them to acquire new
information, problem-solve, practice new skills, and gain confidence in their own abilities. Free
play also is pleasurable, spontaneous, flexible, and a natural product of cognitive and physical
development (Piaget, 1962). Yang (2000) suggests that free play is voluntary, creative,
nonliteral and is not goal-directed. Free play allows children to explore, imagine and develop
without any boundaries or limitations.
Free play and academic outcomes. Free play offers children a sense of power (Zeece &
Graul, 1990). Positive self-image also develops when children are provided the opportunity to
select the activity and learn through manipulating materials that are meaningful to them (Zeece
& Graul, 1990). From a Constructivist perspective, free play influences development in
education (Yang, 2000). Free play is associated with the development of language and literacy
development (Pellegrini & Galda, 1990; Weisberg et al., 2013). For example when students
engage in symbolic play, students develop skills of identifying characters, creating a coherent
storyline, and learning to use props to foster a story-related reality (Pellegrini & Galda, 1990).
Free play activities also provides opportunities for children to explore, practice, and refine early
math and science skills. Children participating in free play are engaged in activities that require
them to manipulate and investigate objects, building blocks and materials (Wolfgang, Stannard,
& Jones, 2003). Wolfgang et al., (2003) also notes that students who play with art materials do
PLAY, READ, LEARN 86

better in spatial visualization, visual-motor coordination, and creative use of visual materials
(Hirsch, 1996; Wolfgang et al., 2003).
Long-Term Effects of Playful Pedagogies

The literature suggests that playful learning, in the form of both free play and guided play
leads to strong academic and social outcomes for children (Chi, 2009; Weisberg et al., 2013).
Children learn best when they are in active, engaging, constructive and interactive environments
(Weisberg et al., 2013). According to the National Association for the Education of Young
Children the pedagogies consistent with the seven developmental principles (Hirsh-Pasek et al.,
2008) that summarize how young children best learn endorse a whole-child approach and
embrace playful learning rather than direct instruction (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; Hirsh-Pasek
& Golinkoff, 2003). The seven developmental principles include (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2008):
1. All polices, programs, and products directed toward young children should be
sensitive to children’s developmental age and ability as defined through research-
based developmental trajectories. Developmental trajectories and milestones are
better construed through ranges and patterns of growth rather than absolute ages.
2. Children are active, not passive, learners who acquire knowledge by examining and
exploring their environment
3. Children, as all humans, are fundamentally social beings who learn most effectively
in socially sensitive and responsive environments via their interactions with caring
adults and other children
PLAY, READ, LEARN 87

4. Children learn best when their social and emotional needs are met and when they
learn life skills necessary for success. Self-regulation, flexibility and compromise,
and the ability to take the perspective of the other, are skills to be nurtured.
5. Young children learn most effectively when information is embedded in meaningful
contexts that relate to their everyday lives rather than in artificial contexts that foster
rote learning.
6. The process of learning is as important as the outcome. Facilitating children’s
language, attentional skills, problem solving, flexible thinking, and self-regulation is
crucial to children’s academic success and to accountability. Settings that promote
these skills prepare confident, eager, engaged, and lifelong learners.
7. Recognizing that children have diverse skills and needs as well as different cultural
and socio-economical backgrounds encourages respect for individual differences and
allows children to optimize their learning.

These principles suggest that playful learning for children in pre-K to 3
rd
grade (Bogard &
Takanishi, 2005) will maximize children’s ability to learn and to transfer what they have learned
as they consider learning in a whole child. Copple and Bredekamp (2009) suggest that:
Education quality and outcomes would improve substantially if elementary teachers
incorporated the best of preschool’s emphases and practices (e.g., attention to the whole
child; integrated, meaningful learning; parent engagement) and if preschool teachers
made more use of those elementary-grade practices that are valuable for younger
children, as well (e.g., robust content, attention to learning progressions in curriculum
and teaching). (p. 2)

PLAY, READ, LEARN 88

Thus, playful pedagogy offers a model for how we can enhance student learning and better
prepare students to be lifelong learners who are able to enter a globally competitive society
(Pellegrini, 2009).
Children in elementary school are our future and it is essential that educational leaders
and teachers identify the best methods of support and pedagogical approaches. The literature
suggests that teachers must return play to educational experiences and ensure that as we adhere
to the Common Core Standards and add rigor into our curricula, we simultaneously commit to a
playful learning pedagogy. Research suggests that play will allow children to discover the
pleasure of learning and the importance of taking the perspective of the other, while maximizing
their problem solving, creative, social and emotional skills (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2008). In sum,
learning comes alive through play and allows children to experience learning in a fun, vibrant
and unrestricted manner.
Cognitive & Cultural Outcomes to Effective Reading Instruction
Self-Efficacy Outcomes
Self- efficacy has a direct correlation with motivation. As outlined by Clark and Estes
(2008), students who lack confidence often do not invest much mental effort in a given task.
Hence, they have low self-efficacy and often prefer not to work hard because they believe that
there is no chance for success. Social cognitive theorist, Albert Bandura (1982; 1986) defines
self- efficacy as an individual’s beliefs about their capabilities to produce effects. In fact,
Bandura (1982) notes that that students often fear that they will fail the task at hand. In order to
see a rise in student’s self- efficacy students must be confident and motivated to achieve high
levels of academic proficiency, specifically in the area of reading comprehension. The students
must believe that they are capable of interpreting a given text. Students will be motivated to
PLAY, READ, LEARN 89

engage and persist in a certain task when they believe that they will be successful (Bandura,
1982).
The second theorist that contributes to the discussion of self- efficacy is the original Identity
Development theorist Erickson (1968). He believed that a person’s identity development ranged
between synthesis and confusion; the more synthesized identity, the more predictable the person
should be. An individual’s unique identity was formed through the interaction between the
individual and social contexts in which one lives, the process of crisis, and the lessons learned
from those encounters (Erikson, 1968). The ideal location on the spectrum of identity consisted
of continuity of character with awareness of continued growth and evolution of identity
(Erickson, 1968).
Both identity development and self-efficacy development are similar. Erickson (1968)
described experiencing a crisis as a catalyst for growth and change while Bandura (1997)
described the need for inner strength to persevere in the face of a challenge. Similarly, one must
go through a process that requires internal effort and external conditions that help lay the
foundation for new skills and strength in order to deal with new challenges when cultivating
identity and the perception of self-efficacy (Erickson, 1968; Bandura, 1997).
On the contrary, Glasser (1992; 1997) believed that motivation to perform well should be an
intrinsic action, meaning that the student should carry out the task because they want to, not
because they have to. Glasser (1992; 1997) played a critical role in teaching about the intrinsic
motivation of learning through the development of what is referred to as the control theory. The
control theory emphasizes the idea that everything people think, do, and feel is generated by
what mentally happens inside of them. According to Glassers’ (1992; 1997) model, he advocates
PLAY, READ, LEARN 90

that students should be given the opportunity to take responsibility for making their own
behavioural choices. In fact, he suggested that if put into practice correctly, the choice theory
could help individuals maintain healthy relationships in a very important facet of both child and
adulthood life (Glasser, 1992; 1997). According to Glasser (1992; 1997), in order to maintain
these healthy relationships, humans have four psychological needs that we are individually
driven to satisfy including: (a) the need to belong (sense of community); (b) the need for power
(control over ourselves and our environment); (c) the need for freedom (lack of restrictions); and
(d) the need for fun, pleasure and enjoyment.
One possible solution to increase self- efficacy amongst students is guided practice with
rehearsal and scaffolding so that the students may experience success and gain confidence to
persist even when faced with challenging reading material. Guastello and Lenz (2005) note that
as a component of the balanced literacy (Pressley et. al, 2002; Heydon, Hibbert, & Iannacci,
2004; Frey, Lee, Tollefson, Pass & Massengill, 2005) approach mentioned above, students
benefit from teacher support and can develop effective literacy strategies for processing text at
increasingly challenging levels of difficulty with appropriate teacher assistance. The students
will experience less anxiety and are more accountable for their literacy activities (Guastello &
Lenz, 2005). Lyons and Thompson (2011) report that 80% of participant’s engagement,
confidence, and motivation were increased in their study that examined the effective use of
guided reading groups and a balanced literacy approach. Students could benefit from guided
practice to address persistence, motivation causes and increase their self-efficacy.
Creating a classroom culture that fosters literacy motivation serves as one of the Ten Best
Research Based Literacy Practices (Gambrell et al., 2007). The most basic goal of any literacy
program should be the development of readers who can read and who choose to read (Gambrell
PLAY, READ, LEARN 91

et al., 2007). According to Pressley (2006) teachers should be encouraging students to attribute
their successes to expending appropriate efforts and their failures to lack of effort or failing to
deploy effort appropriately while also reminding students that intelligence is not fixed. Self-
efficacy plays a vital role in determining what is learned and how and when it will be learned
(Gambrell, 1996). To ensure that students possess high levels of self- efficacy, teachers must
create classroom cultures that foster reading motivation, through providing a print-rich
environment, opportunities for choice, opportunities for discovery and opportunities to interact
socially with others (Gambrell et al., 2007).
Understanding Reading Attitudes & Behaviors
Although closely related, attitude towards reading and reading disposition are separate
constructs. Attitude is influenced by both past and current experiences and is generally inferred
through related behaviors (Rowell, 1972). Attitude is relatively passive, does not drive one into
action and can be conceptualized along a continuum with positive and negative extremes
(McKenna et al., 1995). This study focused on two types of reading attitudes: recreational and
academic reading attitudes. Recreational reading is the act of children engaging in reading by
choice instead of being directed by an adult. During recreational reading children have
opportunities to engage in self-selecting reading material based on interest rather than reading
assigned material. Academic reading is the act of engaging in reading for the sake of literacy
skill acquisition rather than reading for pleasure. Academic reading is often a teacher or parent
directive rather than the choice of a child. In school’s today, academic reading is mostly
associated with a given instructional practice or skill development (Ivey & Broaddus , 2001).
Reading attitudes are a system of feelings related to reading that can cause an individual
to approach or avoid a given reading situation (McKenna et al., 1995). McKenna et al. (1995)
PLAY, READ, LEARN 92

reports that reading attitudes may affect the level of ability and attained by an individual through
its influence on factors such as engagement and practice (McKenna et al., 1995). For example, a
poor reading attitude may result in a choice not to read (McKenna et al., 1995). To be a
successful reader, one needs a favorable attitude toward reading and sufficient motivation to
activate reading behavior. Active choice to pursue and engage in literacy activities, herein, is
referred to as the disposition to read.
The desire to read is an integral part of the reading experience. Researchers Allington
and Walmsley (1995) claimed that in order for children to have positive attitudes towards
reading they need to value the experience as being pleasurable and enriching. Children’s
attitudes are positively enhanced by addressing desires including but not limited to: (a) reading to
relax; (b) satisfying curiosity; and (c) learning new information (Allington & Walmsley, 1995).
Therefore, if children find some form of interest or enthusiasm towards books and other reading
materials, it can influence their literacy development overall (Allington & Walmsley, 1995). It is
essential to assess when children begin reading for pleasure by observing how they may handle
books, if they begin to volunteer to share what they read, or even begin asking for or borrowing
books from the school and public libraries (Allington & Walmsley, 1995). Additionally, if
students at an early age are able to develop recreational readings habits and learn to appreciate
the different genres the opportunity to develop lifelong learners may exist (Block & Mangieri,
2002).
Children’s positive attitude towards reading decreases significantly, as they progress
through elementary school (Block & Mangieri, 2002). Thus, the more positive an individual’s
attitude is towards reading, the more proficient one is likely to be as a reader (Greaney &
Hegarty, 1987; McKenna, 1994; McKenna & Kear, 1990; 1994; Walberg & Tsai, 1985). When
PLAY, READ, LEARN 93

competent readers have a positive reading disposition, they have a sense of feeling that they are
in control of either positive or negative outcomes and are able to self-regulate and control their
learning knowing when to apply specific learning strategies in various situations (Coiro, 2012).
Students with positive dispositions frequently seek out challenging reading tasks, and each
successful experience reinforces their initiation and use of the comprehension skills and
strategies applied (Coiro, 2012). Both Ryan (2005) and Worthy et al., (1998) suggest that
teachers not only provide classroom reading materials that are aligned with students reading
interests but also consider that boys purpose for reading is different from girls and find ways to
accommodate students reading needs. Allington and Walmsley (1995) claim that children will
have increased opportunities to have positive attitudes towards reading both in and out of school
through parents and teachers engaging them in: (a) read alouds; (b) modeling reading behaviors
while reading aloud; (c) introducing children to a wide variety of reading selections; (d) using
reading as an opportunity for discussion and teaching of reading strategies; and (e) making use of
class, school, home, and public libraries. Such modifications to traditional reading instructional
methods perhaps may engage students more during literacy instruction and ultimately may
experience greater reading success in and out of school.
Getzel (1956) defines the disposition of reading as an interest organized through
experiences, which impels an individual to seek out particular objects, activities, understandings,
skills, or goals for attention or acquisition. An individual’s interests develops as a pattern
evolving into a personal identity that is greatly driven by ego processes and both prior
experiential based and active solicitation of further experiences (Getzel, 1956). McDowell
(1993) defined the disposition to read as an active voluntary choice and ego pursuits of reading-
related activities based on prior experiences that are related to satisfaction and self-actualization.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 94

More recently, a positive reading disposition has been defined as attitudes, mindsets, and beliefs
that are key dimensions of effective learning, particularly for students growing up in a digital
information age (Guthrie et al., 2009).
Researchers Palmer, Codling, and Gambrell (1994) conducted a study about children’s
reading preferences, habits, and behaviors. The study found that four characteristics of literacy
learning are noteworthy factors in positive reading attitudes. Those four aspects include: (a)
prior experience with books; (b) social interactions with books; c) book access; and (d) book
choice. Palmer et al. (1994) noted that during the study, children described reading books that
had been previously read aloud to them by parents or teachers. The also described books that
they had seen on TV and in movies, or that were series books. The results showed that when
given autonomy in the classroom to read books of their own choosing, students were more highly
motivation and were more likely to have positive reading attitudes (Palmer et al., 1994). These
factors in positive reading attitudes can lead to gratifying reading experiences, reading
proficiency, and higher levels of academic achievement overall. Therefore, it is as equally
important to help children learn to value reading and develop positive attitudes towards reading,
as it is to teach them to read (Fractor, Woodruff, Martinez, and Teale, 1993). The next section
will examine the culture identity development as it relates to students self-efficacy and attitudes
towards reading.

Cultural Outcomes to Effective Reading Instruction
There are several definitions of culture. Culture is a lifestyle (Kunjufu, 2011). Culture is
a dynamic system of social values, cognitive codes, behavioral standards, worldviews, and
beliefs that are used to provide order and meaning to our own lives as well as the lives of others
PLAY, READ, LEARN 95

(Gay, 2010). According to theorist Vygotsky (1978), culture is handed down from human to
human in society; for example parent to child and is incorporated into an individual’s cognitive
processes as the psychological tool that humans use. Vygotsky (as cited in Snowman & Biehler,
2002) stated, “through others we become ourselves” (p. 370). Snowman and Biehler (2002),
discussed Vygotsky’s hidden curriculum and noted that humans cannot function on an adult level
without the culture of which humans are a part showing them what they need to know to become
successful in society. Thus, society, through adults, assists children in developing self-
regulation skills during the early stages of life until they have internalized the mediators needed
to regulate themselves without adult supervision (Vygotsky, 1978; Snowman & Biehler, 2002).
Culture essentially determines how we think, believe, behave, and affect how we learn and
interact with others (Gay, 2010). An individual’s culture helps to shape their educational
experience and how they receive given instruction in school.
The relationship between culture and literacy is bidirectional because literacy education
influences and molds an individual’s cultural identity, while diversity mediates the acquisition
and expression of literacy (Gay, 2010). Disregarding student’s culture in the classroom and
teaching reading to students of color without considering their culture can be viewed as a cultural
deficit (Boykin, 1994; Gay, 2010). Cultural deficit model is the belief that if you do not have
White middle-class values, and come from a middle-income home with two parents who are
college educated and speak Standard English, then you are culturally deprived (Kunjufu, 2011).
This deficit model of thinking is a problem because the assumption is that there is something
wrong with the student instead of considering other social contextual factors such as the
curriculum, teachers, pedagogy, or administration (Kunjufu, 2010). Gay (2010) suggests that, “
the cultural deficit paradigm still casts a long shadow on the American educational landscape, is
PLAY, READ, LEARN 96

internalized by many teachers, and results in low teacher expectations and uninspiring teaching
in many inner-city classrooms populated heavily by African American and Latino students” (p.
ix). Through this lens, Black males continue to be at a disadvantage in society and the current
educational conditions continue to be a direct reflection of the past (Gay, 2010).
This idea of culture evokes several implications for literacy instruction. In the realm of
education, culture is at the heart of everything that is done in the name of education including
curriculum, instruction, administration and performance assessments (Gay, 2010). In the K-12
educational system, reading and writing are social practices that vary both across and within
cultures and individuals are shaped by the cultures which influences the ways one participates in
literacy events (Gay, 2010). According to Judge and Scrimsher (as cited in Snowman & Biehler,
2002) “children are first introduced to a culture’s major psychological tools through social
interactions with their parents and later through more formal interactions with classroom
teachers. Eventually, these social interactions are internalized as cognitive processes that are
autonomously invoked” (p. 46). Literature novelist Tyree (2008) reported that, Black young men
and boys needed books that reflected their interests and lives. Researcher Diller (2007) proposes
that incorporating children’s culture into instructional practices is a viable teaching tool, even if
the culture is unfamiliar to the teacher because, spoken language is the venue through which
most teaching and demonstration of learning occur and students’ literacy encounters are expected
to be aligned with their own cultural identity. Oral storytelling, remains a vital component of
most cultures, may help to develop literacy skills, and is an excellent source of cultural
information (Palmer, Leiste, James, & Ellis, 2000). Culturally-responsive educational settings
encourage students to develop “… a deeper appreciation and respect for others and for
themselves” (Conrad, Gong, Sipp, & Wright, 2004, p. 190). Culturally-responsive classrooms
PLAY, READ, LEARN 97

provide visual examples of the various cultures represented by the students (Conrad et al., 2004).
It is important for teachers to be willing to make needed adjustments in order to meet the needs
of all students, and use a variety of instructional methods and tools in a flexible learning
structure in order to assist in the development of cultural identity (Schulz & Bravi, 1986).
Kunjufu (2010) asserted that teachers who develop stimulating and culturally relevant learning
environments will achieve academic success with the Black male.
One adjustment that teachers can make is working to ensure the classroom environment
that promotes the feeling of family as well as the development of a personal relationship between
the teacher and each student (Delpit, 1995; Delpit & Dowdy, 2002). This is a vital step to
providing individualized reading instruction for students (Delpit, 1995). In a publication
produced by the National Education Association (NEA), the organization encouraged teachers to
incorporate culturally responsive curriculum and instruction that acknowledge the students’
cultural backgrounds, home life, and the impact of student experiences on the teaching and
learning process (National Education Association, 2011). Delpit (1995) proposes that Black
children from low socio-economic environments are motivated more by the need for association
than by achievement. Researcher Sims-Bishop (1997) suggests “that children need to be
involved with literature which not only allows them to see through the window to the world
around them, but also to see themselves mirrored in the texts with which they come into contact”
(p. 632). This method of teaching promotes teaching strategies that build upon the strengths that
students bring from their home cultures, thus allowing them to make connections to their home
environment (National Education Association, 2011). In order to incorporate the home culture in
the educational setting and for schooling to appeal to an ethnically diverse student population,
teachers can obtain specific factual information about a variety of ethnic groups (Gay, 2010).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 98

Student outcomes may improve when cultural differences are identified (Conrad et al., 2004).
Facilitating the development of teachers who view cultural responsive literacy as a tool for
understanding and building student diversity in the classroom is important because through this
strategy, teachers can better support and ensure the academic development of disfranchised
students (Ball, 2006; Gay, 2010). However, more research needs to be conducted to further
substantiate this assertion. Thus, this study seeks to add further insight into this body of research
as it relates to children’s reading behaviors and attitudes towards reading.
Conclusion
Kunjufu (1989; 2000; 2011) stated that Black males can become engaged in the reading
process if teachers differentiate instruction according to the student’s learning style. Those
categories of learners included: (a) Visual Learners; (b) Oral/Auditory Learners; and (c)
Tactile/Kinesthetic Learners. In an interview with the Journal of Advanced Academics
(Rubenstein, 2011), researcher Sandra N. Kaplan indicated that curriculum has been relegated to
a commercial sense as a result of educational leaders trying to close the existing achievement gap
and attempting to reach higher levels of academic outcomes for students. Educational leaders
have reduced the opportunity for teachers to modify and redesign curriculum to meet the needs
of their students (Rubenstein, 2011). With the knowledge that there is a positive correlation
between Black males and activity-based instructional approaches, this study sought to identify
how the implementation of an activity-based intervention will affect second-grade Black male
student’s attitudes towards reading, reading behaviors and self-efficacy. Reading behaviors for
the purposes of this study included: (a) the types of books that children choose to read; (b) the
amount of time they spend reading; and (c) children’s level of engagement in reading activities
(Worthy et al., 1998). This section of the literature review outlined two different types of
PLAY, READ, LEARN 99

instructional approaches to reading. However, it is important to note that more research is
needed in order to make a case for which approach(s) is best for educating primary-aged Black
makes in order to increase their reading achievement in school.
Completing this literature review confirms that literacy is a very complex domain and
requires early efforts to ensure that all students have access to school success. Thus, prevention
of reading difficulties in high risk populations should be a national research and education priority
(Washington, 2001) because many children in the United States struggle to read (Sonnenschein et
al., 2010). Recent research shows that over 30% of fourth graders do not read well enough to
understand grade level text (Sonnenschein et al., 2010). More specifically, 40% of U.S. fourth-
grade students are non-fluent readers (Begeny, 2011). Thus, illiteracy is not just a Black and
White issue. Rather the notion of a growing illiterate population is an issue that should be at the
forefront of educational reform.
Chapter two also conveyed the importance of teachers seeking innovative instructional
approaches such as active learning and playful pedagogies to help ensure that Black males have
access to an educational experience that allows them to construct their own understandings while
developing positive self-efficacy. The literature presented in this chapter helps to understand how
active learning through play activity-based pedagogy promotes the understanding of literacy
development, attitudes towards reading and reading self-efficacy for second- grade Black male
students. Insufficient literature and empirical evidence in the area of activity-based interventions
as it relates to Black male students’ positive reading self-efficacy and attitudes towards reading
makes research challenging. This literature review highlights the idea that educators must offer
males access to skill-building literacy learning through participation in relevant activities that
PLAY, READ, LEARN 100

make sense, appear achievable, and offer the elusive success that will help motivate him to persist
(Cleveland, 2011).
This study is significant because of its potential to add to the body of research that
currently exists on primary-aged students in general and second grade Black males in particular.
It also helps to clarify widely held assumptions about instructional approaches to reading to Black
males. The data generated about Black male students’ reading attitudes, self-efficacy and reading
behaviors through their participation in activity-based learning through play can potentially be
used to improve literacy achievement outcomes for primary-aged Black males.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 101

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
We cannot have equity without quality. And we cannot have true quality without real equity. All
children, regardless of skin color, ethnicity or socioeconomic status, deserve access to high-
quality education and a fair and substantive Opportunity to Learn… As a nation, we must
recognize that the strength or our public schools is directly and unbreakably bound to our social,
civic and economic strength. Access to a high-quality public education should be a guaranteed
right that every American enjoys, regardless of his or her race, ethnicity socioeconomic status, or
zip code.
-The Scott Foundation for Public Education (2009).

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between an activity-based
intervention and Black male second-grade students’ attitudes towards reading, self-efficacy,
reading behaviors and their literacy skills acquisition. For the purposes of this study, the reading
behaviors included participant’s selection of reading materials and their level of engagement in
literacy activities (Worthy et al., 1998). Since little research has been conducted on primary-
aged Black male’s response to an activity-based intervention and how it affects their self-
perceptions and reading dispositions, more research was necessary in this area. A review of the
literature revealed problems confronting Blacks male’s ability to excel in the area of literacy and
more importantly to approach the issues related to improving their reading skills. It was
anticipated that this study would yield necessary information regarding the self-efficacy, reading
behaviors, and reading behaviors of young Black males. The study addressed the literacy needs
of males during their early stages of development. Interviews, document analysis, observations,
and analysis of attitudinal scale ratings provided teachers and educational leaders with
information to change the pedagogy, how learning takes place, while simultaneously positively
changing student learning and performance outcomes in the area of literacy.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 102

Chapter one addressed the research questions relating to the effect of an activity-based
intervention on the development of literacy skills of Black children in second-grade. Chapter two
presented a review of the literature providing a historical background of the existing achievement
gap and addressed the problem of poor reading proficiency performance in Black males.
Chapter two continued with a discussion of current debatable instructional approaches to
teaching reading. Chapter two also presented literature on the long-term effects of parental and
early-literacy intervention and reading comprehension skills, self-efficacy and cultural-identity
development in young Black males. This chapter presents the research questions which guides
the study and discusses the research methodology utilized to determine the effect of an activity-
based intervention on second-grade Black males reading attitudes and reading behaviors.
Chapter three also provides information supporting the appropriateness of the research design,
the sample and population selection procedure, instruments, reliability and validity of
instruments and, procedures for data collection methods.
Overview of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to determine if the implementation of an activity-based
intervention can positively affect the development of literacy skills. This study sought to
understand how activity-based learning can help to improve the development of second grade
Black male students’ literacy skills, reading behaviors, reading attitudes and reading self-
efficacy. Furthermore, this study aimed to inform the educational community of a research
based practice that helps at-risk Black male students who struggle in reading. The results from
this study can be utilized to bring about social change, educational equality and impact the
pedagogy used in urban school districts by ensuring that all students have a solid foundation of
early literacy instruction, academic success and achievements that extend throughout their
PLAY, READ, LEARN 103

academic and professional careers. Furthermore, this study added to the body of scholarly
literature by identifying effective instructional practices to improve teacher pedagogy in the
literacy domain. In addition, this study contributed to educational leaders responding to the
demands to improve the development of literacy skills of Black male students classified as
struggling readers. It provided guidance to veteran, novice and aspiring educators who face the
challenge of educating struggling readers in their classrooms. Additionally, school board
members and curriculum specialists can use this information in seeking strategies to improve the
academic performance of struggling readers. The findings have the potential to provide guidance
to educational leaders and teachers so that they may be better equipped to meet the challenges of
increasing overall student achievement for all students.
The study was guided by the following three questions:
1. What reading attitudes are enhanced through second-grade Black males
participation in an activity-based intervention?
2. What are the perceived relationships between Black male second grade
students attitudes towards reading and their reading behaviors after they
engage in an activity-based intervention?
3. What is the relationship between self-efficacy and reading behaviors of
second grade Black male students who engage in an activity-based
intervention?

This study explored the enhancement of reading attitudes, reading behaviors, and self-
efficacy of primary-aged Black males in an urban setting. The specific reading behaviors for the
purposes of this study included participants selection of reading materials as well as their level of
PLAY, READ, LEARN 104

engagement in various literacy activities (Worthy et al., 1998). The following section of this
chapter provides the research design, which outlines the study based on the problem under
investigation as well as the population and sample, instrumentation, data collection and analysis,
limitations, and summary.
Nature of the Study

This study utilized a mixed-method research approach. Both qualitative and quantitative
data was collected and analyzed to explore the effects of implementing an activity-based
intervention on young Black males who attend Bears Elementary School, in South Los Angeles,
California. A mixed methods approach was selected in an effort to learn more about what
second grade Black males deem as important to their sense of self as it relates to their reading
attitudes, reading behaviors and self-efficacy of reading. Patton (2002) suggests that one method
of data collection does not truly capture the essence of rich data and a mixed methods approach
will sustain methodological triangulation by validating the results with multiple methods
including interviews, surveys, observations and document analysis. Creswell (2009) asserts that
a mixed methods approach is a means for seeking convergence across quantitative and
qualitative methods. Ultimately, through a mixed methods approach, the qualitative and
quantitative data was merged in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research
problem; the qualitative approach addressed the process while the quantitative approach
addressed the outcomes (Creswell, 2009). The following section conveys the importance of each
method of data collection.
Rating scale survey. A quantitative data collection and analysis provided descriptive
information regarding the values, attitudes and behaviors of primary-aged Black males, through
the results of the survey. The survey served to validate or refute evidence gathered through
PLAY, READ, LEARN 105

qualitative methods of data collection (Creswell, 2009; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Third,
critical issues that relate to the research questions of this study were identified because surveys
are a form of data collection that are used to describe, compare, or explain individual and societal
knowledge, feelings, values, preferences, and behavior, directly conveying information from
people about what they believe, know, and think (Fink, 2013). Fink (2013) notes that the data
provided from surveys are descriptions of feelings and perceptions, values, habits, and personal
backgrounds or demographic characteristics. One form of a survey that was used during this
study is an ordinal rating scale which is also referred to as a Likert-type scale (Fink, 2013).
According to Fink (2013) rating scales require respondents to place the item being rated in any
one of an ordered series of categories or at some point along a continuum that have been
assigned a numerical value. A rating scale was used to tell how closely primary-aged Black
males agreed or disagreed with a statement in regards to their reading behaviors, reading
attitudes and, self-efficacy (Appendix C).
Interview, observations & document analysis. A qualitative emphasis elicited greater
details from primary-aged Black males regarding their reading disposition, actions and experiences
around the different factors for the problems being investigated (Maxwell, 2013). According to
Maxwell (2013) qualitative research allows the researcher to focus on questions that help to create
meaning about the participants. In addition, qualitative research helps the researcher understand
how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they
attribute to their experiences (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative method provides a holistic approach
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003) that allows that researcher to study people and things in their natural
settings, attempting to make sense of and interpret phenomena in terms of the meanings people
bring to them (Merriam, 2009). Thus, qualitative methods were selected for this study to provide
PLAY, READ, LEARN 106

opportunities to collect rich descriptive data that captured the social context, activities of interests
and meaning that primary-aged Black males have constructed in the world (Merriam, 2009).
(Appendix A)
Sample & Participants

Purposeful sampling. Decisions about where to conduct research and whom to include
in the study were an essential part of the research methods (Maxwell, 2013). To adequately
address the aforementioned research questions that guided this study, the unit of analysis for the
problem was second-grade Black male students (see Table 4) who attended the urban public
school, Bears Elementary, located in South Los Angeles, California. Making informed decisions
about sampling was critical to improving the quality of research synthesis (Merriam, 2009).
According to Maxwell (2013) the two major goals of a purposeful sampling approach are to a)
achieve representativeness of the population, when drawing conclusions about the findings after
collecting sufficient data and (b) to be able to make comparisons to illuminate the similarities
and differences in the data collected throughout the study. Purposeful-sampling allows the
researcher to understand the phenomenon better while extracting rich, descriptive, informative
and evaluative data that can be used to learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the
purpose of the inquiry (Merriam, 2009).
Table 4
Basic Demographics for Children in the Play, Read, Learn After-School Intervention Group
Subjects Age Gender Grade Racial Identity
Andre 7 years Male 2
nd
Black
Brandon 7 years Male 2
nd
Black
Charles 7 years Male 2
nd
Black
Dwayne 7 years Male 2
nd
Black
Elijah 8 years Male 2
nd
Black

PLAY, READ, LEARN 107

Moreover, purposeful-sampling yields insights and in-depth understanding rather than
empirical generalizations of the participants (Merriam, 2009). Purposeful sampling is used to
select information rich cases regarding the phenomena or problem being studied (Patton, 2002).
For this study it was important to use the research questions to help identify the specific criteria
and variables that are related to the questions that guide the study. First, a list of attributes
essential to the study which is also referred to as the criteria (Merriam, 2009) was compiled. The
research questions specified that the sample participants were 2
nd
grade Black male students.
The study was also interested in focusing on primary-aged Black males in an urban community
located in South Los Angeles, California.
Patton (2002) suggests that there are no guiding principles when it comes to selecting
sample size; rather “The validity, meaningfulness, and insights generated from qualitative
inquiry have more to do with the information richness of the cases selected and the
observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher than with sample size” (p. 245). Thus, the
researcher chose to focus on five subjects selected from two second grade classrooms. For
confidentiality purposes, the participants were assigned pseudo names (e.g. Andre, Brandon,
Charles, Dwayne and Elijah). A small group of five participants allowed the researcher to
closely examine the thinking involved in the construction of the individual interview responses
in a personalized way and to look deeply at their reading behaviors and reading attitudes during
the ongoing observations throughout the data collection process. The pre and post interview
discourses yielded very thick descriptive responses that augmented the information provided by
the data from the surveys and document analysis. In addition, due to the correlational design of
the study, it was important that in the process of drawing a relationship between both the
quantitative and qualitative data that the analysis and findings were grounded on the same set of
PLAY, READ, LEARN 108

data sources and subjects. Purposeful-sampling also allowed the researcher to understand the
phenomenon better while extracting informative and evaluative data that was used to learn a
great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry and yields insights and
in-depth understanding rather than empirical generalizations of the participants.
Criteria & process for selection. The unit of analysis for this study was second-grade
Black males. The criteria for selecting participants in this study was: (a) students who attend
urban public school Bears Elementary, located in South Los Angeles, California; (b) the student
were in the second grade; (c) the student identified as Black American; (d) the student had to be
able to participate in after school activities because this study did not interrupt normal school day
curriculum; and (e) parents of the each participant voluntarily consented for their child to
participate in all elements of the study. Each parent signed a consent form and the students
signed an assent form (Appendices D and E).
It is important to note that the participants had varying levels of reading ability. At the
beginning of the study, individual Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
middle of the year fluency assessment score reports were reviewed by the researcher. The
second grade classroom teachers administered the DIBELS assessment to help identify students
who might be at-risk or require specific support in developing reading skills (Good & Kaminski,
2002). Middle of the year fluency assessment benchmark was accurately reading at least
seventy-two words per minute. At the time of the study, Andre, Dwayne and Elijah met grade
level fluency benchmarks. Brandon and Charles did not meet grade level fluency benchmarks at
the time of the study.
School site. For the purpose of anonymity, the school site was given the pseudo name
Bears Elementary School. Bears Elementary School was one of 40 schools in an urban school
PLAY, READ, LEARN 109

district located in South Los Angeles, California. Identified as a Title I school, it served 389
students in grades K-5. Eighty-one percent of the schools population was eligible for free or
reduced lunch. In grades K-3, there were two classes per grade level. In grades 4-5, there were
three classrooms per grade level. In terms of ethnicity, about 51% of the population was African-
American/Black, 40% was Latino or Hispanic, 8% was Dual Race, 1% was Asian, and 0% was
White (“Great Schools Report,” n.d.). This school site was selected because of its high African-
American/Black student enrollment. In addition, this school was selected because the district’s
elementary school superintendent granted permission for research to be conducted at this site.
Process of gaining entry. Entry into a site must be authorized and began with gaining
the confidence and permission of those who can approve the activity (Merriam, 2009). The
initial step in the process of gaining entry consisted of providing the school principal with the
purpose and significance of the study, because as Bogdan and Biklen (2003) pointed out, most
groups want to know specific information about the study, how the data will be used and how
they will benefit from the study. After sharing the information with the school principal, the
second step was to hold a parent meeting for all parents interested in their child participating in
the study. During the parent information session, expectations of the study including the reading
intervention, interviews, attitudinal survey and observations were discussed. This process was
important because as Merriam (2009) wrote, it is important for the researcher to establish a
rapport by establishing some common ground and being friendly prior to collecting data.
Instruments

As a part of the rigorous data collection, this section will provide detailed information
about the actual instruments that was used in the study. The following instruments (see Table 5)
were used to collect data for this study to ensure a consistent and reliable approach to data
PLAY, READ, LEARN 110

collection: (a) interviews; (b) observations (c) document analysis (student’s written work); (d)
specific curriculum for reading intervention; and (e) attitudinal- rating survey.
Table 5
Research Questions and Data Matrix
Research Question Instrument Reference
1. What reading attitudes are
enhanced through second-
grade Black males
participation in an activity-
based intervention?
 Elementary Reading
Attitude Survey
 Observation Protocol
 Interview Protocol
 Document Analysis
(Outcomes from lessons
during study)
 Curriculum Developed
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003); (Merriam,
2009); (Maxwell, 2013); (Vygotsky,
1962; 1978); (Bruner, 1966);
(Dewey, 1916); (Piaget, 1959)
2. What are the perceived
relationships between Black
male second grade students
attitudes towards reading
and their reading behaviors
after they engage in an
activity-based intervention?
 Elementary Reading
Attitude Survey
 Interview Protocol
 Observation Protocol
(Henk & Melnick, 1992); (McKenna
& Kear, 1990); (McKenna et al.,
1995); (Kazelskis Thames, Reeves,
Flynn, Taylor, Beard & Turnbo,
2005), (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003);
(Merriam, 2009); (Maxwell, 2013)
3. What is the relationship
between self-efficacy and
reading behaviors of second
grade Black male students
who engage in an activity-
based intervention?
 Elementary Reading
Attitude Survey
 Interview Protocol
 Observation Protocol
(Henk & Melnick, 1992); (McKenna
& Kear, 1990); (McKenna et al.,
1995); (Kazelskis et al., 2005);
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003); (Merriam,
2009); (Maxwell, 2013)

Qualitative Instrumentation
Interviews. The purpose of conducting interviews was to obtain information from the
sample participants in order to gain an understanding of their feelings and attitude towards
reading, reading behaviors and self-efficacy. In order to capture this information a semi-
structured interview approach was used (Merriam, 2009). This approach was selected mainly
because it provided flexibility during the interview while still using a list of questions to guide
each interview. While each participant was asked the same list of guiding questions, using the
semi-structured format allowed the researcher to ask follow-up questions that were specific to
PLAY, READ, LEARN 111

each participant’s responses to the original guiding questions. This approach also gave the
participants the opportunity for open-ended responses that were unique to their own reading
experiences and self-efficacy. Each question included in the interview was intentional. The
guiding questions were asked in a specific order to allow the participants to focus on one topic at
a time. This was done to ensure that the interview was developmentally appropriate for second
grade students and they could clearly understand each question because good questions lead to
quality data (Merriam, 2009).
Qualitative Instrumentation
Observations. Due to the fact that most qualitative studies rely on a variety of data
sources to ground researchers in the empirical world and link qualitative research to other forms
of science (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003), it was important to ensure that the observation protocol was
carefully and intentionally designed to capture authentic evidence and clues that would help to
answer the above research questions that guided the study. The observations served as an
opportunity to witness firsthand the participants reading attitudes, overall reading behaviors and
self-efficacy. As noted by Merriam (2009), there are several elements that help to determine
what should be observed and considered while devising the observation protocol. However, the
most important factors include the researcher’s purpose, theoretical framework, problem, and
research questions (Merriam, 2009).
Maxwell (2013) also notes that research questions formulate what the researcher wants to
understand and the development of good observational strategies requires creativity and insight,
rather than mechanical conversions of the research questions. Thus, using the research questions
as a guide, the purpose of the observation was to capture the: (a) students individual reading
PLAY, READ, LEARN 112

behaviors outside the formal academic classroom setting; (b) how they received and responded
to feedback about their reading performance; (c) what instructional approaches aided in
producing positive student and learning outcomes in the area of literacy; (d) how students
responded to an activity-based intervention; (f) authentic reactions to books they read
independently; and (g) students perceptions of self-efficacy during reading (what behaviors are
displayed to help convey their personal beliefs about themselves as a reader and student). The
observations were also an effective technique to use in case the second-grade students were
unable to effectively communicate the topic under study (Merriam, 2009).
Qualitative Instrumentation
Document analysis of student’s written works. The third instrument for this study was
document analysis. Student’s written work samples (documents) were forms of objective data
sources. Generated during the study, the student’s work samples was used to learn more about
the individual students being investigated (Merriam, 2009). The collection of documents also
provided the opportunity to assist with analyzing reading behaviors, reading attitudes, and self-
efficacy of the second-grade Black males participating in the study (Bogdan & Bilken, 2003).
The documents also served as actual evidence that was used to confirm or refute findings
obtained from the other methods of data collection used throughout the study (Bogdan & Bilken,
2003).
Quantitative Instrumentation
Attitudinal scale. The fourth instrument for this study was the Elementary Reading
Attitude Survey {ERAS} (McKenna & Kear, 1990). The ERAS was created to measure two
aspects of reading attitude including recreational reading and academic reading (McKenna &
PLAY, READ, LEARN 113

Kear, 1990; Kazelskis et al, 2005). The ERAS is an instrument that is frequently used by
teachers and school leaders in order to (a) make an initial conjecture about the attitudes of
individual students or profile and entire class or group and (b) to monitor the attitudinal impact
of instructional programs (McKenna & Kear, 1990; Kazelskis et al., 2005). The ERAS is a 20-
item Likert-type rating scale with four nodes which are represented by the Garfield cartoon facial
expressions. The four different Garfield expressions ranged from very happy to very sad (see
Figure 4).

Figure 4. Garfield Facial Expressions on ERAS (McKenna & Kear, 1990)
McKenna and Kear (1990) elected to use a pictorial format to naturally appeal to young
children and to ensure that young children could comprehend the survey. The steps for
administering the survey included (McKenna & Kear, 1990):
1. Step 1: Familiarize students with the instrument and inform students with the
purpose of the survey.
2. Step 2: The teacher reads the item aloud twice as the students mark their
responses.
3. Step 3: Using a Likert scale, each item is then assigned a numerical score of 1, 2,
3, or 4 points. A score of “4” indicates the happiest (leftmost Garfield). The four
Very Happy Slightly Happy Mildly Happy Very Sad
PLAY, READ, LEARN 114

Garfield illustrations represent the following moods: very happy, a little happy, a
little upset, and very upset (Kazelskis et al., 2005).
4. Step 4: Use the score sheet provided to organize, record and total both
recreational and academic reading scores. The total composite score ranges from
40 to 80 points (McKenna & Kear, 1990; Kazelskis et al., 2005).
5. Use the Percentile Rank sheet provided to analyze students results.
The 20-items on the survey are divided into two sub-categories including recreational
reading and academic reading. Ten recreational reading items focused on feelings around
engaging in the act of reading by choice and self-selecting reading materials based on interests.
The other ten items focused on academic reading and examined children’s feelings about reading
for the purposes of literacy skill acquisition or engaging in a reading activity only after receiving
a directive from an adult (McKenna & Kear, 1990; Kush & Watkins, 1996; Kazelskis et al.,
2005). The recreational and academic sub scores are totaled for each student. The possible
scores on the ERAS range from 10 to 40 and a composite score range is from 20 to 80.
Scoring the ERAS. To determine the reading attitudes of each participant, the raw scores
were converted to qualitative data grouped into one of three categories: (1) high reading attitude;
(2) average reading attitude; or (3) low reading attitude. Subjects with a subscale score between
31 and 40 were categorized as having high reading attitudes towards either recreational or
academic reading. Subjects with a subscale score between 20 and 30 were categorized as having
average reading attitudes towards either recreational or academic reading. Subjects categorized
as having a low recreational or academic reading attitude had a subscale score between 10 and
19. Subjects with a combined score between 20 and 39 were categorized as having an overall
low reading attitude. Subjects with a combined score between 40 and 60 were categorized as
PLAY, READ, LEARN 115

having an overall average reading attitude. Subjects with a combined score between 61 and 80
were categorized as having an overall high reading attitude (McKenna & Kear, 1990).
Validity & reliability of the ERAS. The ERAS was originally administered to a large
national sample of over 18,000 first through sixth grade students throughout 229 schools across
the United States (McKenna & Kear, 1990). Using the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, reliability
coefficients were found for each grade level on both the total and subscales. McKenna and Kear
(1990) report that except for the students in the first and second grades, responses on the
recreational subscale coefficients were all .80 or higher. There were several measures used to
test the construct validity of the ERAS instrument (McKenna & Kear, 1990). To test the
construct validity of recreational reading, data compared students who possessed library cards to
those who did not. The comparison showed that students who had library cards had statistically
higher recreational subscores (M=30) and those students who did not have library cards (M=
28.9). Researchers, also compared students who currently had books checked out from the
school library (M= 29.2) compared to students who did not (M= 27.3). The last construct
validity of recreational reading was measured by comparing the amount of time students spent
watching television. The results indicated that students who reported watching less than one
hour of television per evening statistically had higher recreational reading subscores (M=31.5)
compared with students who reported watching two or more hours of television each evening
(M=28.6) (McKenna & Kear, 1990).
To test the construct validity of academic reading, McKenna & Kear (1990), compared
the results of the academic reading scores on the ERAS with students’ reading ability which was
reported by their teachers. Students were then placed into three different categories: high,
average, or low overall reading ability. The subscale ranges consisted of (M= 27.7) for high-
PLAY, READ, LEARN 116

ability readers to which was statistically higher than those students who were identified as low-
ability readers (M= 27.0) (McKenna & Kear, 1990). The correlation coefficient for both
subscales was .64. Thus, the reliability and validity measurements reported by researchers
McKenna and Kear, (1990), the ERAS appeared to have both validity and reliability evidence to
measure elementary students’ attitudes towards both recreational and academic reading. The
ERAS can also be used to assist teachers with instructional planning as well as to monitor any
attitudinal changes of the class as a whole throughout the academic year (McKenna & Kear,
1990). Kazelskis et al. (2005) also notes that the evaluation of elementary students’ reading
attitudes is an essential component of an effective reading program because student’s attitude
plays a central role in determining whether or not they will be a competent reader.
Research Procedure

Reading intervention program. The independent variable was identified as the fidelity
of the reading intervention titled Play, Read, Learn (PRL), in an attempt to increase reading skills
for students in the second grade. The purpose of the PRL reading intervention program was to
provide students with a select activity-based approach to reading to determine the effects on
Black males reading attitudes, reading behaviors and self-efficacy. The subjects participated in
constructive play which involved manipulating objects in order to construct and create something
and drawing pictures (Piaget, 1962). The PRL reading intervention included a series of activity-
based lessons over a six-week time period that were aimed to help students become confident
skilled readers; improving their overall literacy skill development. The five components of
literacy that the PRL reading intervention program focused on included phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary. The reading intervention program took take
place at Bears Elementary School, located in South Los Angeles, California.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 117

Data collection. Data collection for this study was divided into five distinct components.
The first component of the study involved the initial meeting with the students and parents. At
this meeting, parents received information sheets that outlined the purpose and goals of the study
and parental consent forms for their children. During the initial phase, the researcher also
engaged the students in the PRL activity-based reading intervention program over a six-week
period. The second component of data collection consisted of the researcher administering the
attitudinal scale that measured the participants reading attitudes. The attitudinal scale was
presented to parents and students along with the purpose of the scale. The third phase of data
collection included the researcher conducting qualitative interviews with participants who met
the aforementioned sampling criteria. In accordance with the provisions of the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California (USC), applications were
submitted to ensure that the research subjects were protected during the course of the study and
all identifiable data was protected from access beyond this study and the participant’s identities
remained confidential. Participation in the study was voluntary and based on parental consent.
The fourth component of data collection for this study included conducting on-site field
observations. The final component of data collection was an analysis of internal and external
documents that detailed aspects of the students reading dispositions and performance outcomes
in the literacy domain.
Qualitative data analysis. Data analysis was an ongoing process involving continual
reflection about the data and began after the first collection of data including field notes and
memos gathered through interviews, observations and document analysis (Creswell, 2009,
Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). This study followed the six steps of qualitative data analysis
and interpretation suggested by Creswell (2009) which are:
PLAY, READ, LEARN 118

1. Step 1- Organize and prepare the data for analysis which includes transcribing
interviews, arranging data and tying up field notes.
2. Step 2- Read through all the data and obtain a general sense of the information
reflecting on its overall meaning.
3. Step 3- Organize data to identify relevant common themes, chunks or segments of
text prior to bringing meaning to the information
4. Step 4- Use the coding process to create themes or categories of the major findings in
the study.
5. Step 5- Use a narrative passage to convey the findings of the analysis and to provide
descriptive information about each participant in the study.
6. Step 6- Make an interpretation or meaning of the data outlining the understanding and
new questions that the inquirer brings to the study based on the researchers
experiences, culture, perspective and history.
Following this technique of data analysis provided the opportunity to facilitate thinking about the
interviews and stimulate ideas regarding potential categories for the data collected (Bogdan &
Bilken, 2003; Maxwell, 2013). This technique also allows for flexibility and creates an
interactive practice with the stages being interrelated and not always visited in the order
presented (Creswell, 2009).
Quantitative data analysis. Descriptive data about the attitudes, beliefs and practices of
the primary-aged second grade Black male participants were generated through statistical
measures developed by the attitudinal rating scale and used to ascertain the trends of the
participants. This portion of the study also followed the steps of quantitative data analysis and
interpretation suggested by Creswell (2009) which are:
PLAY, READ, LEARN 119

1. Step 1- Create a table with numbers or percentages that reports and describes
information about the number of respondents and nonrespondents who returned the
survey.
2. Step 2- Discuss the method by which bias will be determined and note the procedures
used to check for response bias.
3. Step 3- Discuss a plan to provide a descriptive analysis of data for all independent
and dependent variables in the study.
4. Step 4- Present the results in tables and figures and interpret the results from through
drawing conclusions from the results for the research questions, and the larger
meaning of the results. Provide a discussion of the implications of the results for the
practice or for future research on the topic.
Following this technique of data analysis provided the opportunity to facilitate thinking about
the attitudinal rating scale which was used to measure the participants reading attitudes.
Through coding data into categories to find common segments of data that indicated certain
trends or beliefs among the responses given (Fink, 2013) detailed information was provided
about the survey research (Creswell, 2009).
Triangulation. According to Patton (2002) the purpose of triangulation is to find aspects
of the data that converge, to display common themes, as well aspects of the data that deviate
from the findings. To ensure validity and accuracy of the findings the method of triangulation
will be employed. Through the various different types of data sources, insights about coherent
themes, events or relationships can be justified (Creswell, 2009). The findings from the
attitudinal rating scale were compared to the interview transcripts, observation field notes and
document analysis to codify and identify themes.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 120

Ethical considerations. Both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods
required the researcher to make ethical decisions (Creswell, 2009). According to Merriam
(2009) a primary concern with the collection and analysis of data will be to identify, reduce and
eliminate any bias while considering any evidence that disconfirms the conclusions, to further
ensure the validity of the findings. Using a member check to determine the accuracy of the
qualitative findings (Creswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009) helped determine the accuracy of the
qualitative findings including the interviews, observations and document analysis. The member
check procedure was also conducted to ensure that the descriptions and quotes were accurate and
to help determine whether the participants felt that they were accurate.
Conclusion
This chapter outlined the purpose of the study, research questions that guided the study,
the research design, instrumentation, data collection, and analysis of data that were collected
through individual interviews of the second grade Black males, observations, document analysis
as well as the ratings from the attitudinal scale. The sampling method, criteria and population
were also described. The next chapter describes and analyzes the findings of the study which
can be used to help inform literature on the effectiveness of the activity-based intervention on
second-grade Black males reading behaviors, reading attitudes and self-efficacy.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 121

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
I have a passion for teaching kids to become readers. To become comfortable with a book, not
daunted. Books shouldn't be daunting, they should be funny, exciting and wonderful; and learning
to be a reader gives a terrific advantage.
-Roald Dahl
Introduction
The purpose of this mixed method study was to observe and examine the relationships
among the activity-based intervention, second-grade Black male students’ attitudes towards
reading, reading behaviors, and their reading self-efficacy. Tracey and Morrow (2006) noted
that activity-based pedagogy enables children to engage in social interactions that include
instructional strategies such as but not limited to: (a) child-centered instruction based on
children’s interests; (b) heavy emphasis on student choice; (c) use of real, high-quality literature
for literacy learning; (d) use of real, meaningful contexts for literacy activities; (e) use of
thematic instruction; (f) use of alternative systems of assessment; (g) use of a variety of
grouping systems; (h) use of large blocks of time for integrated literacy activities; (i) use of
active, social learning experiences; and; (j) use of centers in the classroom.
The literature in Chapter two, disclosed academic problems that pose a challenge to
Black male’s ability to succeed in the area of literacy skill development. The most significant
factor in student achievement for this population of students is that they are systematically taught
by teachers with the least content knowledge in the area of literacy (Haycock, 1998). Black
males negative influences related to social identity, cognitive ability, emotional capacity, and
social competence also pose a challenge to their ability to succeed in developing adequate
literacy skills (Davis, 2003). Black children who speak a “nonstandard” variety of Standard
American English potentially are at a disadvantage when compared to their majority peers
PLAY, READ, LEARN 122

because they lack the ability from a young age to dialect shift. Dialect shift is the ability to
switch between speaking Standard American English across all literacy context and speaking
African-American English which is a predominant linguistic system used in many urban
communities outside of the education setting (Craig et al., 2004). Researchers suggest that the
reason Black children and children of poverty have limited language and literacy skills is due to
the fact that there is incongruity between the expectations of home and school (Bond et al.,
2006). However, there is not one specific reason that signifies why Black children of poverty
continue to develop inadequate literacy skills and this problem continues to be an educational
crisis and civil rights issue. Therefore, this study aimed to yield information regarding the
reading self-efficacy, reading behaviors, and reading attitudes of second grade Black male
students in hopes of gaining insight on the aforementioned academic challenges and focused on
analyzing an effective pedagogical approach as it relates to achievement in the area of reading.
This chapter provides (1) a profile of study participants; (2) a description of how data was
collected; and (3) findings and emerging themes derived from participants’ observations,
document analysis, interview responses, and reading attitudinal scale ratings. The results are
presented according to each of the three research questions. The results are further classified into
salient themes. The chapter concludes with a summary of the overall results and a discussion of
how these major findings connected to the significance of the study and problems of the research
study. This study utilized multiple data points in an attempt to curtail the limitations and
capitalize on the strengths of the data collected to provide a comprehensive response to the three
guiding research questions.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 123

Research Questions
The data analysis of this study was guided by the following three research questions:
1. What reading attitudes are enhanced through second-grade Black males
participation in an activity-based intervention?
2. What are the perceived relationships between Black male second grade students
attitudes towards reading and their reading behaviors after they engage in an
activity-based reading intervention?
3. What is the relationship between self-efficacy and reading behaviors of second
grade Black male students who engage in an activity-based intervention?
Participants
The five participants in this study were all selected using a purposeful sampling
approach. Purposeful sampling allowed the researcher to get rich descriptive data from
participants who could provide insight to the purpose of the inquiry (Merriam, 2009). Second
grade Black males was the unit of analysis for this study. For the purpose of anonymity,
participants were identified using pseudo names (e.g., Andre, Brandon, Charles, Dwayne, and
Elijah). Each of the participants attended the urban public school Bears Elementary School,
located in South Los Angeles, California. Each of the subjects participated in the free lunch
program. The parents of each participant voluntarily consented for their child to take part in all
elements of the study including remaining after school so that this study did not interrupt normal
school day curriculum and activities. The participants in this study had varying reading abilities
(see Table 6).

PLAY, READ, LEARN 124

Table 6
Population Demographic Information

Subject

Age

Gender

Grade

Racial
Identity

Economic
Status
DIBELS
ORF
(MOY)

# of
Interactions
Andre 7 years Male 2
nd
Black Free Lunch 104 words 6
Brandon 7 years Male 2
nd
Black Free Lunch 59 words 6
Charles 7 years Male 2
nd
Black Free Lunch 37 words 6
Dwayne 7 years Male 2
nd
Black Free Lunch 78 words 5
Elijah 8 years Male 2
nd
Black Free Lunch 104 words 6
Note: The students economic status was self-reported and determined based on their qualification for the free or
reduced lunch program at their public school. The Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) is a set of
assessment procedures that measures fluency in order to assess reading progress of elementary students. The
assessment is used to assess and monitor elementary student’s development of literacy skills in emergent readers.
The middle of the year (MOY) oral reading fluency (ORF) benchmark for second grade students is at least 72 words
per minute. By the end of the second grade second grade the benchmark for ORF is at least 87 words per minute.
(Goffreda, Diperna & Pedersen, 2009)

At the beginning of the study, the researcher was provided with each participant’s middle
of the year DIBELS fluency assessment score reports. Middle of the year fluency assessment
benchmark was accurately reading at least seventy-two words in one minute. The DIBELS
assessment tool was used for early diagnosis of reading problems in the second grade classroom
(Good & Kaminski, 2002). The DIBELS assessment consisted of a series of subtests measuring
the foundational reading skills in phonological and phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle and
oral reading fluency (Good & Kaminski, 2002). Table 6 indicates that Andre, Dwayne and
Elijah were meeting grade level benchmarks at the time of the study. Both Brandon’s and
Charles’ fluency scores indicated that they were not meeting grade level standards at the time of
the study.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 125

Methodology
Combining multiple methods strengthens a research design (Patton, 2002). Data
triangulation encompasses the use of a variety of data sources and includes both quantitative and
qualitative data. The researcher collected data from multiple measures, including one
quantitative method: reading attitude survey and three qualitative methods: student interviews,
observations of students reading behaviors, reading intervention, and document analysis. The
use of multiple measures was employed to provide a comprehensive and triangulated depiction
of students’ reading attitudes, reading behaviors and reading self-efficacy. There were five
distinct components of the data collection process (see Table 7). The provisions of the IRB
ensured that the research participants were protected during the course of the study and that all
identifiable data collected was protected from access beyond this study. All the participants’
identities shall remain confidential.

Table 7
Components of the Data Collection Process
Component Instrument Inquiry Design Research Question

Component 1 Host Parent Informational
Meeting at Site

Collect Parent Consent Form

Collect Child Assent Form

Implement Read, Play, Learn
After-School Intervention (six
weeks)

Qualitative

Descriptive
Statistics using
content analysis

Q1, Q2, Q3
Component 2 Administer Elementary Reading
Attitude Survey (pre & post)
Quantitative

Descriptive
Statistics using
chi square
analysis

Q1, Q2,Q3

Component 3 Conduct Interview using
protocol (pre & post)

Qualitative

Descriptive
Statistics using
content analysis
Q3
PLAY, READ, LEARN 126

Component 4 Conduct initial observations
using protocol (ongoing)

Qualitative Descriptive
Statistics using
trend analysis

Q1, Q2, Q3
Component 5 Document Analysis Qualitative Descriptive
Statistics using
trend and content
analysis
Q2

Research questions one and two examined distinct dependent and independent variables.
For the first research question, the study examined whether the independent variable,
participation in the activity-based intervention, influenced the dependent variable, second-grade
Black males reading attitudes. For the second research question the study investigated whether
the independent variable, participating in the activity-based intervention, influenced the
dependent variable, second-grade Black males reading behaviors. Specifically, these reading
behaviors included selection of reading materials, and levels of engagement during literacy
activities (Worthy et al., 1998). For the third research question, the study explored the
correlation between self-efficacy for reading and the practices second-grade Black males employ
during the activity-based intervention sessions. Finally, the study examined the observable
behaviors of second-grade Black males during the after-school activity-based intervention.
The first component of the data collection process consisted of meeting with the school’s
principal, classroom teacher and parents to share information about the purpose and goals of the
study. During this meeting, the parents and students also signed the parental consent and assent
forms that were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). During the first phase of the
study, the students engaged in the PRL activity-based after-school intervention program. The
after-school intervention was implemented over a six-week period. Each after-school session was
75-minutes. Each week, the lesson had a specific focus that was aligned to both the research
questions as well as the survey and interview instruments.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 127

Using quantitative, Likert style questions, the students were administered the ERAS
(McKenna & Kear, 1990). A pre and post survey was administered to the sample population
during the data collection process. The survey was implemented for two main purposes: (a) to
establish a baseline for the students reading attitudes and (b) to provide a point of comparison
between the reading attitudes and reading behaviors. Data gathered from ERAS directly
addressed and provided an additional means of support to the findings generated for all research
questions.
The third component of the data collection process consisted of conducting qualitative
interviews before and after the six week intervention. The interview questions sought to address
and support findings generated for all three research questions. Through this qualitative research
method, the questions provided an in-depth meaning of the study participants (Maxwell, 2013) in
an activity-based intervention: their reading attitudes and their reading self-efficacy were
discovered.
Conducting observations of the participants during the after-school intervention was the
fourth component of the data collection period. The observations took place on-site in a second
grade classroom at Bears Elementary School, located in South Los Angeles, California. The
observation protocol generated for this study was used to collect field notes. The students
reading behaviors, attitudes towards reading, and their reading self-efficacy was documented
during the six-week intervention period. Thus, observations strived to address and support
findings generated for all three research questions.
The fifth and final component of the data collection period consisted of conducting an
analysis documents which detailed aspects of the participants reading behaviors and reading
PLAY, READ, LEARN 128

performance outcomes in the area of reading. In particular, those documents included their
participant’s written work and completed projects created during the data collection period.

Instruments
The following instruments were used during the study to warrant a consistent and reliable
approach to data collection: (a) interviews; (b) observations (c) document analysis (student’s
written work); (d) specific curriculum for reading intervention; and (e) Likert survey. This
section will explain each instrument in detail.
Qualitative Instrumentation
Interviews. Each of the five participants was interviewed using the same interview
protocol (Appendix A). The interview protocol created for this study was used to acquire
specific information about each participant’s feelings about themselves as a reader and to gain an
understanding of their attitudes towards reading and their reading behaviors. A semi-structured
interview approach was used to provide flexibility during each pre and post interview while still
adhering to the pre-created list of guiding interview questions (Merriam, 2009). The interview
guide contained specific questions that the researcher asked each participant as well as open-
ended questions that could be followed up with probes and topics that required more information
(Merriam, 2009). In addition, this flexibility also permitted the ability to ask follow-up questions
that were specific to each participant’s responses to the original guiding questions. To ensure that
the interviews were developmentally appropriate for second-grade students, the questions
included on the interview protocol were asked in a unique order that allowed each participant to
concentrate on one topic at a time. Factual and relatively neutral, descriptive information was
asked at the beginning of each interview to lay the foundation for questions that accessed the
PLAY, READ, LEARN 129

interviewee’s perceptions, opinion and emotions (Merriam, 2009). Each participant’s interviews
were held individually with each participant in order to attain background information, and
interviewees’ perceptions of their reading self-efficacy, reading behaviors as well as attitudes
towards reading. Each interview was personally recorded with the permission of each participant
and their parents.
Qualitative Instrumentation
Observations. The observation protocol (Appendix B) was intentionally designed for
this study to capture authentic evidence and clues that would support all the guiding research
questions for the study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The observations provided opportunities to
document participants’ authentic reading dispositions and reading behaviors to yield
understanding regarding each participants reading self-efficacy. The observation protocol
attempted to capture the (a) individual reading behaviors during the after-school intervention; (b)
how they receive and respond to feedback about their reading performance during the after-
school reading intervention; (c) what instructional approaches aid in producing positive student
and learning outcomes in reading; (d) how students responded to the activity-based intervention;
(e) authentic reactions to self-selected text read independently during the intervention; and (f)
students personal beliefs about themselves as a reader and student during the intervention. The
observations were vital in capturing each second grade participant’s feelings and beliefs due to
the fact that they might have been unable to effectively verbally communicate the topic under
study (Merriam, 2009).
Document analysis (student’s written works). Document analysis was the third
instrument. Each participant’s written work (documents) are forms of objective data sources that
PLAY, READ, LEARN 130

were created during the after-school intervention. The subject’s written work seeks to support
the research questions and to provide insight about each participant’s reading attitudes and
perceptions of reading behaviors. The participant’s written work also aids in providing evidence
that confirms or refutes findings obtained from the interviews, observations, and survey data
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2003).
Quantitative Instrumentation
Attitudinal scale. The Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (ERAS) created by
researches McKenna and Kear (1990) was the fourth and final instrument used in this study
(Appendix C). The ERAS measures two features of reading including recreational reading and
academic reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990; Kazelskis et al., 2005). Kazelskis et al. (2005) note
that the assessment of elementary students’ reading attitudes is a critical component of an
effective reading program because a student’s attitude plays a fundamental role in determining
whether or not they will be a competent reader. The five-step (see Figure 5) reading survey
consists of a 20-item Likert-type rating scale with four nodes represented by the distinct facial
expressions of cartoon character Garfield. The range of the four Garfield facial expressions
ranged from very happy to very unhappy. The creators of the survey elected to use a pictorial
format to appeal to young children and to help ensure that the survey was comprehendible and
developmentally appropriate. Two sub-categories including recreational reading and academic
reading made up the 20-item survey. Both sub-categories contained 10-items. Recreational
reading attitudes measured feelings around engaging in the act of reading based on choice or
interests. Academic reading attitude measured feelings around reading for the purposes of
literacy skill development or to fulfill an assignment or adult directive (McKenna & Kear, 1990;
Kush & Watkins, 1996; Kazelskis et al., 2005). The total sub score on the ERAS for each
PLAY, READ, LEARN 131

category ranges from 10 to 40 and a composite score ranges from 20 to 80 (McKenna & Kear,
1990; Kush & Watkins, 1996; Kazelskis et al., 2005).

Figure. 5. Administering the Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (McKenna & Kear, 1990)
Validity of recreational reading and academic reading scores. A large sample of over
18, 000 students in grades first through sixth throughout 229 schools across the United States
were originally administered the ERAS (McKenna & Kear, 1990). Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
was used to identify reliability coefficients for each grade level on both the composite and
subscale totals. The responses on the recreational subscale coefficients were all .80 or higher
except for the students total scores in the first and second grades. To assess the construct validity
of recreational reading, researchers McKenna & Kear (1990) compared data of student
participants who possessed library cards to those who did not. The assessment showed that
students who had library cards had statistically greater recreational subscores (M=30). Students
who did not have library cards had subscores of M=28.9. Students who currently had books
Step 1
•Familarize students with the instrument explaining the pictures of each cartoon
facial expression and informing the students about the purpose of the survey.
Step 2
•Read item aloud twice as students circle responses.
Step 3
•Assign each item a numerical score (1, 2, 3, or 4 points).
Step 4
•Total both the recreational reading and academic reading attitude sub-category
scores. Record the total composite ranging from 40 to 80 points.
Step 5
•Use the percentile rank provided to analyze student composite score results
PLAY, READ, LEARN 132

checked out from the school library were also compared to students who did not have books
checked out of the school library. The comparison indicated that students with books checked
out had higher subscores of M=29.2 compared to students who did not (M=27.3). The amount of
time students spend watching television was the final construct validity of recreational reading
measured. The results determined that students who reported watching less than one hour of
television per evening statistically had higher recreational reading subscores (M=31.5) compared
with students who reported watching two or more hours of television every evening (M=28.6)
(McKenna & Kear, 1990).
McKenna and Kear (1990) compared the results of the academic reading scores on the
ERAS with sample participants reading ability which was reported by their respective teachers in
order to test the construct validity. Based on the reports, the students were then placed into three
different categories including: high, average, or low overall reading ability. The subscale ranges
for the three different groups consisted of M= 27.7 for high-ability readers to which was
statistically higher than those students who were identified as low-ability readers (M= 27.0)
(McKenna & Kear, 1990).
The reliability of the recreational reading and academic scores. The reliability and
validity measurements reported by researchers McKenna and Kear, (1990) indicate that the
correlation coefficients for both subscales was .64. Thus, the ERAS ensure both validity and
reliability evidence to measure elementary students’ attitudes towards both recreational and
academic reading. Researchers McKenna and Kear (1990) suggest that their survey tool can also
be used to assist teachers with instructional planning as well as to monitor any attitudinal
changes of the class as a whole throughout the academic year.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 133

Research Procedure

Reading Intervention
Implementing the PRL activity-based reading intervention with fidelity was the
independent variable of the study. The intervention sought to measure the impact of the activity-
based instructional methods on second-grade Black males reading attitudes, reading behaviors
and self-efficacy of reading. Granted permission by the district elementary school
superintendent and the local school principal, the implementation of the reading intervention
program took place after normal school hours at Bears Elementary School, which was one of 40
Title I schools in an urban school district located in South Los Angeles, California. Bears
Elementary School’s enrollment was 389 students in grades K-5 (“Great Schools,” n.d.). Eighty-
one percent of the schools population was eligible for free or reduced lunch. There were two
classes per grade level for grades K-3 and three classrooms per grade level for grades four and
five. The demographics of the school was about 51% African-American/Black, 40% Latino or
Hispanic, 8% Dual Race, and 1% Asian (“Great Schools,” n.d.). There were no White students
enrolled at this school site. Due to the large African-American/Black student enrollment, this
school site was selected. The students in this study were selected out of both second grade
classrooms as the researcher was specifically looking for Black male participants who had
parental consent to remain after school for participation in the PRL reading intervention. The
PRL reading intervention programs’ primary purpose was to provide students with a unique and
intentional activity-based approach to reading to determine the effects on the development of
their reading attitudes and reading behaviors. The subjects participated in constructive play over
a six-week period which followed a distinct pattern (see Figure 6). The participants engaged in
PLAY, READ, LEARN 134

manipulating materials in order to construct and create an object of their choice and drawing
pictures that reflect self-selected literature (Piaget, 1962).

Figure 6. Play, Read, Learn Curriculum Instructional Patterns
The PRL reading intervention included a sequence of activity-based lessons throughout
the six-week time period (see Table 8). The lessons were designed to help students become
confident readers who exhibited positive attitudes towards reading. The five components of
literacy that the PRL reading intervention program focused on included phonemic awareness,
phonics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary.

Table 8
Play, Read, Learn Six Week Intervention Curriculum
Time Period Curriculum (Lesson Topic and Activity)
Week 1: 75 minutes Getting to Know You

 Administer Pre- Survey: Elementary Reading Attitude Survey
 Conduct Pre- Interviews using Interview Protocol
 Conduct initial observations of participants using Observation Protocol
Pre-Interview + Pre-Survey
Activity-Based Activities (Building Objects & Manipulating Materials)
Self- Select Independent Text Based on Interests
Reader's Response: Illustrate & Write About Text
Complete Literacy Skill-Based Worksheet
Post-Interview + Post- Survey
PLAY, READ, LEARN 135

 Students will self-select a text from the classroom library
 Students will reading the text independently
 Students will complete draw a picture about the text
 Students will construct at least 2 sentences about their favorite part of the story.
 Students will share their favorite part of the story with the rest of the play group
Week 2: 75 minutes Building and Labeling Objects: Collecting Play to Reading and Vocabulary Development

 Students will engage in play constructing an object using tactile materials (sugar
cubes, toothpicks, licorice, marshmallows, graham crackers, glue, goobers)
 Students will use the dictionary to find vocabulary words related to object to
create a word list
 Students will read words from reference text: dictionary
 Students will engage in dialogue with peers about the object they create and the
vocabulary words they relate to object
 Students will discuss experience of using reference text to find new vocabulary
words
 Research will observe participants during activity
Week 3: 75 minutes Types of Text: Non-Fiction vs. Fiction Text

 Students will engage in play making additions to their existing object using new
tactile material including (jelly beans, M&M’s and graham crackers)
 Students will engage in dialogue about their object created during play
 Students will self-select a non-fiction or fiction text to read that is related to the
object they created in during the play session.
 Students will read the selected text
 Students will make comparisons to their object with the text
 Students will discuss the text read with their peers
 Students will share their comparisons with the play group
 Observations will occur during the activity
PLAY, READ, LEARN 136

Table 8 (Continued)
Week 4: 75 minutes Places I Like To Read

 Students will discuss places they like to read (beach, bedroom, park, classroom,
library, living room, kitchen table, etc.) (Researcher will show several pictures
during this time)
 Students will discuss time they like to read (at night, during the school day)
 Students will discuss whom they like to read with (mom, dad, sister, brother,
friend, classmate, teacher, tutor, alone, etc.)
 Students will describe places they would take their object OR find their object
they created during Weeks 2 and 3
 Students will draw a picture including the scenery for their object constructed
during Weeks 2 and 3
 Students will create and write at least 4 sentences about the object and place
(descriptive sentences).
 Students will read aloud their descriptive sentences developed
 Observations will occur during the activity
Week 5: 75 minutes Types of Reading Activities

 Students will discuss the steps needed to complete reading comprehension
questions after reading a text or short passage
 Students will engage in completing reading worksheets answering multiple
choice questions about the object they created during Weeks 2 and 3
 Students will discuss their experience with reading independently and answering
questions
 Students will discuss preferences about reading activities
 Students will discuss preferences about reading silent or aloud
 Observations will occur during the activity
Week 6: 75 minutes Wrapping-Up the Intervention: How was your play experience?

 Administer Post- Survey: Elementary Reading Attitude Survey
 Conduct Post- Interviews using Interview Protocol
 Conduct final observations of participants using Observation Protocol
 Students will reflect on their experience in the after-school intervention
 Students will share highlights from the after-school intervention experience
 Students will write at least 4 sentences about their experience as a participant in
the after-school intervention
 Students will draw a picture about their experience in the intervention
 Observations will occur during the activity
Note: The researcher and dissertation chair Dr. Sandra Kaplan developed the curriculum.
Descriptive Statistics
This study seeks to understand how activity-based learning impacts participants reading
behaviors, reading attitudes and reading self-efficacy. The first research question defined
reading attitudes; the second research question described the relationship between reading
attitudes and reading behaviors while the third research question analyzed the participants
PLAY, READ, LEARN 137

reading self-efficacy. Participants in this study include five second grade Black male students in
an urban public elementary school. The survey used to collect data was based on the ERAS
(McKenna & Kear, 1990). For the items on the survey, total scores for each subcategory were
computed for each item. Each question was asked on a four-point developmentally appropriate
Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very upset), 2 (mildly upset), 3 (slightly happy), to 4 (very happy).
Subscales were computed for each of the two constructs: recreational reading attitude and
academic reading attitude. Each of these constructs included 10 items from the 20-item survey,
and subscale scores were computed by adding the total sum of the 10 items. Recreational and
academic reading attitudes were measured at the start and end of the activity-based intervention
using the ERAS (McKenna & Kear, 1990). Using a Likert pictorial survey, each participant was
asked 10 survey questions to measure their recreational reading attitude and 10 survey questions
to measure their academic reading attitude. Recreational reading for the purposes of this study
was defined as the act of voluntary reading self-selected materials, either for information or
pleasure (Spiegel, 1981). Academic reading for the purposes of this study was defined as
engaging in reading activities that did not necessarily match their interest or active choice (Ivey
& Broaddus, 2001).
Subscale Results
To determine the subscale reading attitudes of each participant, the raw scores were
converted to qualitative data grouped into one of three categories: (1) high reading attitude; (2)
average reading attitude; or (3) low reading attitude. Participants categorized as having a low
recreational or academic reading attitude had a subscale score between 10 and 19. Participants
with a subscale score between 20 and 30 were categorized as having average reading attitudes
towards either recreational or academic reading (see Figures 7-8). Participants with a subscale
PLAY, READ, LEARN 138

score between 31 and 40 were categorized as having high reading attitudes towards either
recreational or academic reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990).
Composite Results
To determine the composite reading attitudes of each subject as seen in Table 6, the total
raw scores from each subscale was combined and converted to qualitative data grouped into one
of three categories: (1) high reading attitude; (2) average reading attitude; or (3) low reading
attitude. Participants with a composite score between 20 and 39 were categorized as having an
overall low reading attitude. Participants with a composite score between 40 and 60 were
categorized as having an overall average reading attitude (see Figure 9). Participants with a
composite score between 61 and 80 were categorized as having an overall high reading attitude.
(McKenna & Kear, 1990). The following tables display the participant’s pre and post survey
data for recreational and academic reading attitudes (see Tables 9-13).

PLAY, READ, LEARN 139

Table 9
ERAS Recreational Reading Attitude Responses (Pre)
Questionnaire Items
(How Do You Feel...)
Andre

Brandon Charles Dwayne Elijah
1. Reading on Rainy Day 4 4 4 3 2
2. Read During Free Time 4 4 3 4 1
3.Reading For Fun at Home 4 4 4 2 4
4.Book as a Present
5. Free Time Reading
6. Starting a New Book
7. Read During Vacation
8. Read Instead of Playing
9. Visit A Bookstore
10. Read Different Books
Total
Category
4
4
3
4
1
4
3
35
High Attitude
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
37
High Attitude
3
3
4
4
1
4
4
34
High Attitude
4
1
3
2
1
4
4
25
Average Attitude
1
1
4
2
1
4
1
23
Average Attitude
Note: Recreational reading refers to the act of voluntary reading self-selected materials, either for information or
pleasure (Spiegel, 1981). The ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards recreational reading (McKenna
& Kear, 1990).

PLAY, READ, LEARN 140

Figure 7. Participants’ recreational reading total subscale scores. Recreational reading refers to the act of voluntary
reading self-selected materials, either for information or pleasure (Spiegel, 1981). The ERAS was used to measure
student’s attitudes towards recreational reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990). The total sub score on the ERAS for
each subcategory ranges from 10 to 40 to determine the overall reading attitude (McKenna & Kear, 1990; Kush &
Watkins, 1996; Kazelskis et al., 2005).

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 2 3 4 5
Recreational Reading Subscale Scores
Subects
Pre-Subscale
Post-Subscale
PLAY, READ, LEARN 141

Table 10
ERAS Recreational Reading Attitude Responses (Post)
Questionnaire Items
(How Do You Feel...)
Andre

Brandon Charles Dwayne Elijah
1. Reading on Rainy Day 4 1 1 3 1
2. Read During Free Time 4 4 3 4 4
3.Reading For Fun at Home 2 4 4 2 3
4.Book as a Present
5. Free Time Reading
6. Starting a New Book
7. Read During Vacation
8. Read Instead of Playing
9. Visit A Bookstore
10. Read Different Books
Total
Category
1
1
3
1
1
4
2
20
Average Attitude
4
4
4
4
1
4
3
33
High Attitude
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
35
High Attitude
3
3
2
1
3
4
2
27
Average Attitude
1
2
4
3
3
4
3
28
Average Attitude
Note: Recreational reading refers to the act of voluntary reading self-selected materials, either for information or
pleasure (Spiegel, 1981). The ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards recreational reading (McKenna
& Kear, 1990).

PLAY, READ, LEARN 142

Table 11
ERAS Academic Reading Attitude Responses (Pre)
Questionnaire Items
(How Do You Feel…)
Andre

Brandon Charles Dwayne Elijah
1. Teacher Ask Questions 2 4 4 2 2
2. Reading Workbooks 4 1 4 1 1
3. Reading in School 3 4 4 4 4
4. Reading School Books
5. Learning from a Book
6. Time for Reading Class
7. Stories Read in Class
8. Reading Aloud in Class
9. Using a Dictionary
10. Taking a Reading Test
Total
Category
4
2
3
4
1
1
3
27
Average Attitude
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
34
High Attitude
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
40
High Attitude
4
4
3
3
1
1
2
25
Average Attitude
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
23
Average Attitude
Note: Academic reading refers to the act of engaging in reading activities that do not necessarily match interest or active choice
(Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). The ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards academic reading (McKenna & Kear,
1990).

PLAY, READ, LEARN 143

Figure 8. Participants’ academic reading total subscale scores. Academic reading refers to the act of engaging in
reading activities that do not necessarily match interest or active choice (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). The ERAS was
used to measure student’s attitudes towards academic reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990). The total sub score on the
ERAS for each subcategory ranges from 10 to 40 to determine the reading attitude in each subcategory (McKenna &
Kear, 1990; Kush & Watkins, 1996; Kazelskis et al., 2005).

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 2 3 4 5
Academic Reading Subscores
Subjects
Pre-Subscale
Post-Subscale
PLAY, READ, LEARN 144

Table 12
ERAS Academic Reading Attitude Responses (Post)
Questionnaire Item
(How Do You Feel…)
Andre

Brandon Charles Dwayne Elijah
1. Teacher Ask Questions 2 1 1 3 4
2. Reading Workbooks 3 4 4 3 3
3. Reading in School 4 4 4 4 4
4. Reading School Books
5. Learning from a Book
6. Time for Reading Class
7. Stories Read in Class
8. Reading Aloud in Class
9. Using a Dictionary
10. Taking a Reading Test
Total
Category
2
3
4
3
2
1
4
28
Average Attitude
4
1
1
2
4
4
4
29
Average Attitude
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
37
High Attitude
4
4
4
3
1
4
4
34
High Attitude
2
4
3
4
4
3
3
34
High Attitude
Note: Academic reading refers to the act of engaging in reading activities that do not necessarily match interest or active choice
(Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). The ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards academic reading (McKenna & Kear,
1990).

PLAY, READ, LEARN 145

Table 13
ERAS Overall Reading Attitude
Pre

Category Post Category
Andre 62 High Attitude 48 Average Attitude
Brandon 71 High Attitude 62 High Attitude
Charles 74 High Attitude 72 High Attitude
Dwayne
Elijah
50
46
Average Attitude
Average Attitude
61
62
High Attitude
High Attitude
Note: Overall reading attitude refers to the combined raw scores of both the recreational and academic totals. The
ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards recreational and academic reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990).
This table denotes the combined raw scores of the participant’s recreational and academic reading attitudes and their
category rankings. A composite score ranges from 20 to 80 to determine the overall reading attitude (McKenna &
Kear, 1990; Kush & Watkins, 1996; Kazelskis et al., 2005).

Figure 9. Overall reading attitude refers to the combined raw scores of both the recreational and academic totals.
The ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards recreational and academic reading (McKenna & Kear,
1990). This table denotes the combined raw scores of the participant’s recreational and academic reading attitudes
and their percentile ranks against the normed referenced group of subjects. A composite score ranges from 20 to 80
to determine the overall reading attitude (McKenna & Kear, 1990; Kush & Watkins, 1996; Kazelskis et al., 2005).

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5
Composite Scores
Subjects
Pre-Composite Score
Post-Composte Score
PLAY, READ, LEARN 146

Discussion of Descriptive Statistics: Profile Summaries
Andre
Andre’s overall reading attitude significantly declined over the course of the six-week
intervention period. His overall reading attitude changed from a high reading attitude to an
average reading attitude (see Table 6). In particular, there was a decline in his recreational
reading raw score. The major areas that Andre’s feelings about reading changed include: (a)
reading for fun at home; (b) getting a book for a present; (c) spending free time reading a book;
(d) reading during summer vacation; (e) reading different kinds of books; and (f) reading
workbook pages. Despite his decline in recreational reading, Andre did show improved feelings
towards five academic reading areas including: (a) reading in school; (b) reading school books;
(c) learning from books in school over; (d) reading aloud in class; and (e) taking reading test
over during the course of the PRL after-school reading intervention (see Figures 10-11).

Figure 10. Andre’s recreational reading attitude survey results. Recreational reading refers to the act of reading for
fun, pleasure, or outside of the school setting. The survey scores range is 0 to 4 points. The ERAS was used to
measure student’s attitudes towards recreational reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990).

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Survey Scores
Recreational Reading Survey Questions
Pre-Survey
Post-Survey
PLAY, READ, LEARN 147

Figure 11. Andre’s academic reading attitude survey results. Academic reading refers to the act of engaging in
reading activities that do not necessarily match interest or active choice (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). The survey scores
range is 0 to 4 points. The ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards academic reading (McKenna &
Kear, 1990).

Although, the ERAS indicated that Andre’s reading attitude declined he displayed
behaviors that projected excitement for the activities and was actively engaged during the
lessons. Andre was observed during each lesson for a total of six observations. Andre was
observed jumping up and down excitedly rejoicing “YES! We got all our answers correct about
the story!” (Andre, personal communication, November 19, 2103). This statement was made at
the end of the reading comprehension activity. Andre also created a dump truck during Week 2
and was eager to share his final product with his peers in the group and his grandmother upon
dismissal. Andre was observed running to his grandmother with his dump truck in hand shouting
“Look grandma, look what I made today… it is my dump truck! I used marshmallows and
toothpicks to make my dump truck and then we had to write about it and draw a picture! I did my
best drawing my picture!” (Andre, personal communication, October 29, 2103). During Week 6
of the intervention each participant was asked to write and verbally share what he learned and
enjoyed about the after-school intervention program with the researcher. Andre shared that,
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Survy Scores
Academic Reading Survey Questions
Pre-Survey
Post-Survey
PLAY, READ, LEARN 148

The after-school program with Ms. Shenora was giving us our project so we can keep it
and she gave us books that matched with our projects. And she gave us a Garfield test to
circle it about what we like and don’t like about reading. I wish that we could have done
math too!

Andre was able to discuss his most memorable experiences as a participant in the intervention
program both through oral and written communication as well as one thing he wished he could
change about the intervention program.
Brandon
Brandon is one of two participates who maintained an overall high reading attitude over
the course of the six-week intervention. However, Brandon did indicate a change in four areas
that contributed to his recreational reading attitude including: (a) reading a book on a rainy day;
(b) reading instead of playing; (c) going to a bookstore; and (d) reading different kinds of books.
The pre and post survey results also indicates a change in six areas that contributed to his
academic reading attitude including how he feels: (a) when teacher asks questions about what he
reads; (b) reading workbook pages and worksheets; (c) learning from a book; (d) when it is time
for reading class; (e) reading stories in class; and (f) reading aloud in class. It is important to
note that Brandon’s feelings about reading aloud in class significantly changed from very sad to
very happy over the course of the six-week intervention (see Figures 12-13).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 149

Figure 12. Brandon’s recreational reading attitude survey results. Recreational reading refers to the act of voluntary
reading self-selected materials, either for information or pleasure (Spiegel, 1981). The ERAS was used to measure
student’s attitudes towards recreational reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990).. The survey scores range is 0 to 4 points.

Figure 13. Brandon’s academic reading attitude survey results. Academic reading refers to the act of engaging in
reading activities that do not necessarily match interest or active choice (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). The survey scores
range is 0 to 4 points. The ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards academic reading (McKenna &
Kear, 1990).

Although, the ERAS indicated that Brandon had a high reading attitude, the researcher
observed his reading behaviors change over the course of the intervention. Brandon was
observed during each lesson for a total of six observations. During the initial observation, the
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Survy Scores
Recreational Reading Survey Qestions
Pre-Survey
Post-Survey
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Suvy Scores
Academic Reading Survey Questions
Pre Survey
Post-Survey
PLAY, READ, LEARN 150

researcher observed Brandon cry during the independent reading activity. Brandon was
observed switching his book three times in the classroom library before selecting a book that he
wanted to read. Brandon was observed lying on the carpet instead of reading. The researcher
also observed Brandon state “I don’t feel like reading or coloring and I don’t want to write
sentences now!” (personal communication, October 22, 2013). During Week 2 Brandon cried
and stated “I don’t know how to make anything. Will I get in trouble if I don’t make an object?”
personal communication, October 22, 2013). After sitting for a minute in silence and watching
the other participants engage in creating their objects, Brandon was observed using gingerbread
crackers, Dots, toothpicks and marshmallows to create gingerbread men. When the participants
had to self-select a text that mirrored the objects they created during the second week of the
program, Brandon revealed his excitement for the activity by stating “Ohh YES... I am going to
read The Gingerbread Man book because these men are just like the men that I made last week!”
(personal communication, November 5, 2013). During Week 6 of the intervention each
participant was asked to write and verbally share what they learned and enjoyed about the after-
school intervention program with the researcher. Brandon shared that,
The after-school program with Ms. Shenora was learning to do writing and learn to do the
Garfield. And do the answers. I liked it. It was fun. I wish we can do finger-painting too!

Brandon was able to share his most memorable experiences as a participant in the intervention
program both through oral and written communication, as well as one thing he wished he could
change about the intervention program.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 151

Charles
Charles is one of two participants who sustained an overall high reading attitude during
the course of the six-week PRL after-school intervention. In particular, all of Charles’s survey
responses remained the same on both the pre and post surveys except on questions one, eleven,
and eighteen. These questions measured the participant’s feelings about reading a book on a
rainy day, being asked questions during reading by their teacher and, reading instead of playing.
Charles’s feelings about reading instead of playing significantly improved from very sad to very
happy. However, Charles is the only participant whose survey results largely differ from the
reading behaviors and attitudes displayed and recorded by the researcher during the PRL after-
school intervention (see Figures 14-15). It is important to note that during the pre-survey
Charles was observed circling the happy Garfield prior to the researcher reading the item on the
questionnaire. Thus, this might explain the negative correlation and significant difference
between qualitative and quantitative findings.

Figure 14. Charles’ recreational reading attitude survey results. Recreational reading refers to the act of voluntary
reading self-selected materials, either for information or pleasure (Spiegel, 1981). The ERAS was used to measure
student’s attitudes towards recreational reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990). The survey scores range is 0 to 4 points.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Survey Scores
Recreational Survey Questions
Pre-Survey
Post-Survey
PLAY, READ, LEARN 152

Figure 15. Charles’ academic reading attitude survey results. Academic reading refers to the act of engaging in
reading activities that do not necessarily match interest or active choice (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). The survey scores
range is 0 to 4 points. The ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards academic reading (McKenna &
Kear, 1990).

During the six-week activity-based intervention Charles was observed during each lesson
for a total of six observations. Throughout the intervention, the researcher observed that
initially, Charles experienced difficulty when tasked with self- selecting books to read
independently, creating objects using various materials and reading short passages to answer
given comprehension questions. Charles was off task frequently in the beginning of the
intervention. During Week 1 the researcher observed Charles rocking back and forth in his chair
resulting in him falling on the floor. Charles remained on the floor and played with his pencil
instead of reading independently. Charles also requested to use the restroom although he was
permitted to use the restroom 20 minutes prior to the start of the lesson. Prior to requesting to
use the restroom Charles held his independent reading material up in the air and yelled “I need
help… I don’t want to do this… I can’t do this cuz there are a lot of words up in here! This is just
too much!” (personal communication, October 22, 2013). Charles also threw his book on the
floor. During Week 2 Charles could not decide what object he was going to create using the
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Survey Scores
Academic Survey Questions
Pre-Survey
Post-Survey
PLAY, READ, LEARN 153

various materials provided. Charles stated, “I don’t know what to make… I guess I can make a
truck too!” (personal communication, November 15, 2013). By Week 5, Charles was observed
on task and engaged in the activities. For example, Charles read his short passage and answered
his comprehension questions independently. He yelled aloud, “YES!” when the group reviewed
the correct answers on his paper (personal communication, November 19, 2013). During Week
6 of the intervention each participant was asked to write and verbally share what they learned
and enjoyed about the after-school intervention program with the researcher. Charles shared,
Do we have after-school tutoring with you on Saturday’s? I want tutoring with you on
Saturday’s! I wish you could come tomorrow Ms. Shenora!” The after-school program
with Ms. Shenora was… hmm…I like doing the projects. I like doing exciting things! I
liked doing the Garfield. I like doing the reading. I like doing the writing. I like doing the
answers to the reading questions! I wanted to get prizes from Ms. Shenora.

Charles was able to communicate his most memorable experiences as a participant in the
intervention program both through oral and written communication as well as one thing he
wished he could change about the intervention program.
Dwayne
The ERAS survey results indicates that Dwayne’s reading attitude improved from an
average reading attitude to a high reading attitude over the course of the PRL six-week after-
school intervention. His composite scored increased by 11-points. There were notable changes
in both the recreational reading and academic reading attitudinal subscales. In particular,
Dwayne showed improved feelings in the following recreational areas including: (a) spending
free time reading a book; (b) starting a new book; (c) reading during summer vacation; and (d)
reading instead of playing. Dwayne academic reading attitude was also enhanced over the
course of the intervention in the following areas including feelings about: (a) when his teacher
PLAY, READ, LEARN 154

asks questions about what he reads; (b) reading workbook pages and worksheets; (c) time for
reading class; (d) reading a dictionary; and (e) taking a reading test (see Figures 16-17).

Figure 16 : Dwayne’s recreational reading attitude survey results. Recreational reading refers to the act of voluntary
reading self-selected materials, either for information or pleasure (Spiegel, 1981). The ERAS was used to measure
student’s attitudes towards recreational reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990). The survey scores range is 0 to 4 points.

Figure 17: Dwayne’s academic reading attitude survey results. Academic reading refers to the act of engaging in
reading activities that do not necessarily match interest or active choice (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). The survey scores
range is 0 to 4 points. The ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards academic reading (McKenna &
Kear, 1990).
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Survy Score
Recreational Survey Question
Pre-Survey
Post-Survey
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Survey Scores
Academic Reading Survey Questions
Pre-Survey
Post-Survey
PLAY, READ, LEARN 155

In the course of the six-week activity-based intervention Dwayne was present for a total
of five observations. Dwayne was not present during Week 4 as he was ill. During the
intervention program, Dwayne displayed behaviors of a confident reader who remained actively
engaged during all the literacy activities. Dwayne was observed reading independently and
shared with the group that his favorite part of his story was “when the mean teacher in the story
made the kids do a lot of homework…that was funny!” (personal communication, October 22,
2013). Dwayne created a car during Week 2. While engaged in constructing his object he stated
“Yea I know what I am going to make…yea I’m making a fly car using lots of marshmallows!”
(personal communication, October 29, 2013). Dwayne shared with the researcher that “I made a
car because I like cars and one day I will get a Mercedes. I will have a cool car when I grow
up!” (personal communication, November 5, 2013). When other participants in the group
experienced difficulty with completing a task, Dwayne volunteered to assist his peers. Dwayne
also requested extra reading comprehension worksheets from the researcher after completing his
assignment. During Week 6 of the intervention each participant was asked to write and verbally
share what they learned and enjoyed about the after-school intervention program with the
researcher. Dwayne shared that,
The after-school program with Ms. Shenora was fun and nice! And I learned rules like
first I read the story then I answer the questions and I get them right about the story. And
I did a project and I got to pick and play with marshmallows, toothpicks and gummies!
And I read a book and put details and I copy my details from the book about my car that I
made. I wish I could do math problems on the board too!

Dwayne was able to convey his most memorable experiences as a participant in the intervention
program both through oral and written communication as well as one thing he wished he could
change about the intervention program.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 156

Elijah
The survey results indicate that Elijah’s reading attitude changed from average to high
over the course of the six-week PRL intervention. He had the highest composite increase of 16-
points. Of all the participants, Elijah showed the greatest overall improvement in both the
recreational and academic reading attitudes subscales. In particular, Elijah’s feelings changed in
the following recreational attitude areas including feelings about: (a) reading a book in school
during free time; (b) getting a book as a present; (c) spending free time reading a book; (d)
reading during summer vacation; (e) reading instead of playing; and f) reading different kinds of
books. Elijah’s academic reading attitude was also enhanced in the following areas including
feelings about: (a) his teacher asking questions about what he read; (b) reading workbook pages
and worksheets; (c) reading school books; (d) time for reading class; (e) reading aloud in class;
and (f) taking a reading test (see Figures 18-19).

Figure 18: Elijah’s recreational reading attitude survey results. Recreational reading refers to the act of voluntary
reading self-selected materials, either for information or pleasure (Spiegel, 1981). The ERAS was used to measure
student’s attitudes towards recreational reading (McKenna & Kear, 1990). The survey scores range is 0 to 4 points.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Survy Scores
Recreational Survey Questions
Pre-Survey
Post Survey
PLAY, READ, LEARN 157

Figure 19: Elijah’s academic reading attitude survey results. Academic reading refers to the act of engaging in
reading activities that do not necessarily match interest or active choice (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001). The survey scores
range is 0 to 4 points. The ERAS was used to measure student’s attitudes towards academic reading (McKenna &
Kear, 1990).

During the six-week activity-based intervention Elijah was observed during each lesson
for a total of six observations. The researcher observed that Elijah projected behaviors of a
reader who had low levels of self-efficacy in reading. Elijah was quiet and mostly worked alone
in silence during the literacy activities. Elijah sat alone while he created his volcano during
Week 2. Elijah used Twizzlers, toothpicks and, marshmallows to craft his volcano. He stated
that, “The Twizzlers are hot fire…yea that stuff be coming up out of the volcano!” (personal
communication, October 29, 2013). Although, Elijah shared that he thought his volcano was
cool and he made it because it has fire and fire is dangerous, he did not want to take his project
home. In fact, Elijah mentioned to the researcher that, “I don’t want my work, I don’t want to
take it home, Mine was ugly” (personal communication, November 19, 2013). During Week 6
of the intervention each participant was asked to write and verbally share what they learned and
liked about the after-school intervention program with the researcher. Elijah shared that,
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Survey Scores
Academic Reading Survey Questions
Pre-Survey
Post-Survey
PLAY, READ, LEARN 158

We was doing projects and we learned about what we make and we did our project with
candy and we talked about our project! We talked about our projects and we did different
subject. And we learned to look for words in the book…we was looking for words in the
book (dictionary). And Ms. Shenora teached us a lot. I wish we can stay here forever and
I wish that we did more learning a lot of learning and we read a lot. I wish we can paint
with Ms. Shenora.

Elijah was able to express his most memorable experiences as a participant in the intervention
program, both through oral and written communication, as well as one thing he wished he could
change about the intervention program. The next section presents a summary of the overall
findings of the study.
Summary of Findings
The ERAS survey instrument consisted of a 20-item Likert pictorial questionnaire. The
observations occurred over the course of the six-week after-school activity-based intervention.
The interview instrument included 15 questions. The questions on both the survey and interview
protocols focused on how student’s felt about reading, what types of books they enjoy reading,
perceptions of their reading performance, and their level of interests in the act of reading. The
process of making notations next to data that prevailed as potentially relevant for answering the
guiding research questions was called coding (Merriam, 2009). From the 15 developmentally
appropriate interview questions that addressed behaviors, opinions, dispositions, feelings, and
knowledge, 65 initial codes were established from the transcribed text. It was important to
construct categories or themes that capture recurring patterns that cut across the collected data
(Merriam, 2009). Thus, the initial codes were analyzed and condensed into 13 discernable
categories. From the remaining categories, frequent patterns were coalesced into three themes:
(1) factors that impact reading attitudes; (2) reading dispositions; and (3) impact of reading self-
efficacy. Each theme also had sub-themes: (a) meaningful learning experiences; (b) family
PLAY, READ, LEARN 159

literacy; (c) recreational independent reading experiences; (d) impact of literacy assessments; (e)
reading avoidance behaviors; (f) behaviors of fluent readers; (g) behaviors of non-fluent readers;
(h) reading material preferences; (i) motivation; (j) level of engagement; and (k) positive
reinforcement.
Research Question One: What Reading Attitudes are Enhanced Through Second-Grade
Black Males Participation in an Activity-Based Intervention?

Factors that Impact Reading Attitudes

Attitudes are formed directly from the outcome of experiences or through observations
(McLeod, 2007). Reading attitudes refer to an individual’s overall feelings, emotions or
thoughts about reading, the positive or negative which makes participation more or less
plausible. For the purposes of this study reading attitude was comprised of both recreational and
academic reading attitudes (McKenna & Kear, 1990). It is important to note that academic and
recreational reading occurred in both home and school. Four themes surfaced to capture
participants reading attitudes including: (a) meaningful learning experiences; (b) family literacy;
(c) recreational independent reading experiences; and (d) impact of literacy assessments.

Meaningful learning experiences. The theme of meaningful learning experiences
emerged from data collected during the interviews and after-school intervention sessions.
Meaningful learning experiences was the act of students actively engaged in the process of
learning through play, discovery, touching, smelling, assembling and creativity. During the
activity-based six-week intervention, the participants had the opportunity to create objects using
materials such as toothpicks, gummy bears, marshmallows, Dots, Twizzlers, graham crackers
and Skittles. The students had the autonomy to construct various objects that reflected their
personal interests and build off of prior knowledge. For example, the participants created cars,
PLAY, READ, LEARN 160

volcanos, dump trucks and Gingerbread army men during the activities. Dwayne stated that he
created a car because “one day I am going to have a fast cool Mercedes” (personal
communication, October 29, 2013). Through meaningful learning the students were able to
explore, build and observe each other during the learning process. The purpose for engaging in
constructing and manipulating various materials was to promote interest in reading comparison
texts at the end of each lesson. This type of learning was necessary because the participants had
the ability to make an "organic connection between education and personal experience" resulting
in the "growing as developing" in a positive direction (Dewey, 1938, p. 25-26). The students
also were eager to engage in discourse about their objects during play at the end of the session.
Discourse at the end of each activity-based lesson was essential because there must be
opportunities for children to make conscious articulation of facts and ideas about new objects,
events and, experiences (Dewey, 1938).
From a constructivist perspective, meaningful learning included the practice of inquiry,
experience, and interaction to construct new knowledge (Thomas et al., 1999; Zemelman et al.,
1993). Through the various sensorimotor experiences the concept of meaningful learning
experiences became evident (Piaget, 1950). The goal of the PRL activity-based intervention was
to encourage active participation in a variety of literate activities. This goal was based on the
belief that children need opportunities to engage in literate activities that require them to use
internal cognitive processes. In this study, meaningful learning was found to be more powerful
than traditional school learning (Brown, Collins, & Duiguid, 1989; Langer, 1987; Lave &
Wenger, 1991; Neuman & Roskos, 1997). Play was a way for the second grade Black males to
go beyond surface understanding and engage in meaningful interpretations of different texts and
their reality.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 161

Activity-based learning and play created a natural place for learning in school (Bruner,
1962; Piaget, 1962; Vygotsky, 1962; 1978) and was used for second grade Black male
participants to practice or acquire new literacy skills and positive attitudes towards reading
(Christie, 1991; Sutton-Smith, 1997). Play also served as a medium for developing both reading
and writing skills (Neuman & Roskos, 1992, 1997). This learning process enabled the second
grade Black male participants to acquire knowledge through interactions with others and
discovery of knowledge by oneself because they actively constructed what was learned and how
it was learned (Alfieri et al., 2011; Dewey, 1916; Rogoff, 1994). Participants were more likely
to have positive attitudes because they were vested in their learning process. Thus, access to
books, positive attitudes about reading, and engaging in meaningful learning experiences were
all major factors to their literacy skill development and overall reading success.
Reading at home. The theme of reading at home surfaced from data collected during the
interviews, survey, and after-school intervention sessions. This study highlighted that both
recreational and academic reading occurred in the home and school. For the purposes of this
study reading at home described how participants and their parents, (family) engaged in reading
and writing together to support early literacy learning (Rodriguez-Brown, 2011). The
participants shared during their interviews that they read both at school and at home.
Specifically, 3 of 5 participants’ indicated on their survey that they are minimally slightly happy
about reading at home for fun. During the interview three of five participants mentioned that
they engaged in recreational reading at home with their mothers. Andre shared that he reads at
home with his grandmother while Elijah mentioned that he reads at home with his little brother.
Participants also shared that they have opportunities to visit library and bookstores with family
members. All five participants indicated that they are very happy to go to the bookstore. Charles
PLAY, READ, LEARN 162

also indicated during his interview “I like to buy books from the store. My daddy gives me
money to buy books from the store!” (personal communication, October 22, 2013). The
significance of reading at home with family members became apparent over the course of the
study.
Recreational independent reading. The theme of independent reading emerged from
data collected during the interviews, survey and after-school intervention sessions. Recreational
independent reading was defined as the act of voluntarily reading for pleasure, fun, enjoyment or
informational purposes (Spiegel, 1981). After engaging in play during each activity-based
lesson, the participants had the opportunity to actively choose to engage in reading or literacy
activities. The use of literacy activities in the classroom correlated with success in reading and
positive reading attitudes and engagement in recreational reading activities. The participants had
opportunities to select text that were related to their objects that were created during two
intervention sessions. The students had full responsibility and autonomy over their reading
experience. During the study, the students were observed reading on the classroom carpet, at
their desk and at the large horse-shoe shaped table. They were able to make text to self-
connections and articulate why they selected their book. At the end of lesson three Dwayne
stated, “I chose this book because it is red and has sweet wheels like my car gonna have one day”
(personal communication, November 5, 2013). The survey results also indicated that 3 out of 5
participants’ attitudes about reading a book during free time were positively enhanced over the
course of the six-week intervention.

Impact of literacy assessments. This theme developed from the interviews, survey and
after-school intervention sessions. For the purposes of this study the literacy assessment that the
participants frequently referenced was the DIBELS fluency assessment. The fluency assessment
PLAY, READ, LEARN 163

measured how many words an individual can accurately read per minute. For the purposes of
this study fluency was an element of reading that occurs when readers can read with sufficient
accuracy and rate to allow for understanding a given text and mirror its prosodic features
(Rasinski et al., 2011). During the interviews the idea of taking a reading test or performance
outcomes on a reading test was mentioned fourteen times. Both Andre and Brandon shared that
they read books to answer the questions and get a high number on a test. Four out of five
participants also shared that their teacher informs them of their reading performance using test
scores. All five participants indicated at minimum feeling slightly happy about taking a reading
test (see Table 4.24). Three out of five participants’ attitudes about taking reading test were
positively enhanced over the course of the six-week intervention changing from slightly happy to
very happy or very sad to slightly happy. Over the course of the study it became evident that the
notion of reading assessments in school played a vital role in shaping the participants overall
academic reading attitudes.

Research Question Two: What are the Perceived Relationships Between Black Male
Second-Grade Students Attitudes Towards Reading and Their Reading Behaviors
After They Engage in an Activity-Based Intervention?

Impact of Reading Dispositions
Reading dispositions refer to an individual’s personal usual habits, mood, character,
actions or behaviors taken in relationships to the act of reading (Getzel, 1956; McDowell, 1993).
Five themes emerged to capture the participants’ dispositions: (a) reading avoidance behaviors;
(b) fluent readers; (c) non-fluent readers; (d) types of reading materials; and (e) reading anxiety.
Reading avoidance behaviors. The theme of reading avoidance behaviors became
apparent from the data collected from the after-school activity-based intervention sessions. For
PLAY, READ, LEARN 164

the purposes of this study, reading avoidance behaviors referred to the act of engaging in
oppositional behaviors in relationship to reading-related activities including but not limited to
defiance or withdrawal tactics to avoid or manage feelings of anxiety or failure. During the
after-school activity-based intervention sessions, all the students were observed at some point
displaying reading avoidance behaviors. For example, Andre was observed laying his head
down on the desk instead of reading during Week 3. He also snatched a book from Brandon
because he wanted to read The Gingerbread Man book instead of writing descriptive sentences
about his dump truck that he constructed. Brandon was observed crying twice during the after-
school intervention both times because he did not want to engage in a component of a lesson.
The researcher also observed Brandon switching his book three times and laying on the rug with
his arms folded instead of reading independently. During the first lesson, he stated, “I don’t feel
like doing this right now . . . do I have to color my picture?” (Brandon, personal communication,
October 22, 2013). Charles was observed displaying avoidance behaviors when he threw his
book on the floor and yelled “this is just too much” (personal communication, October 22, 2013).
Both Charles and Dwayne would request to use the restroom at the beginning of each reading
activity. The researcher also observed that Dwayne would request to sharpen his pencil at least
two times at the start of an activity, which delayed completing a task. During the third week of
the intervention, Elijah was observed off task walking around laughing at his peers’ objects
instead of drawing and writing about his volcano. The researcher also observed Elijah playing
with his pencil in the air instead of engaging in an activity. Throughout the six-weeks the theme
of reading avoidance behaviors became noticeable.
Fluent readers. Based on the DIBELS fluency assessment scores reported by the
classroom teachers, Andre, Dwayne and Elijah were meeting grade level benchmarks at the time
PLAY, READ, LEARN 165

of the study. Their fluency scores indicated that they were reading at or above second grade
expectations. Research suggests that fluent readers have the ability to simultaneously decode
and comprehend a text and accurately and effortlessly process words as holistic units instead of
letter-by-letter (Samuels, 2006). The behaviors of each identified fluent reader were recorded by
the researcher during the interviews and six-week PRL intervention (see Table 14).
Table 14.
Observations of Fluent Readers
Participant Observations Recorded By the Researcher
Andre  Look yall, I see one of our vocabulary words FOND in my book!
 I do not help Elijah. I can read it by myself. [When he stumbles on a word]
 Ms. Shenora, from the story I learned that we should not be rude or disrespectful.
 A dictionary will help you find words that you don’t know and never seen before.
 I am going to draw a picture the best I can!
 This worksheet is easy yall! [Holds worksheet in the air]
 YES! I got all my answers right.
Dwayne  Too many people and I have stage freight... I am afraid to read in front of people!
 Charles you are not finished cuz you need to be doing this like me. [Points to his own
paper] Stop yelling that you are done cuz you are not…you only have your name on your
paper!
 I can’t finish it...it’s too hard! I can’t write my sentences!
 You use a dictionary for homework or details when your teacher tells you to use it.
 Man this worksheet is easy. Can I have another one since I got all these questions right?
 Look Elijah, I got all my questions right!
Elijah  Is your hair a weave Ms. Shenora? [Unrelated topic]
 Aye Dwayne do you like Sariah?
 I don’t feel like reading this worksheet!
 I like to read at the beach and at home and the class.
 I like to read with my friend and my brother and sister and my mother!
 I don’t need your help anymore cuz I got this now.
 I love this class Ms. Shenora. I wish I can stay in here forever!

The participants’ observations helped convey distinctive characteristics of fluent readers’
behaviors during the PRL intervention. Andre’s observable behaviors remained consistent
throughout the entire intervention while his reading attitude declined over time. Roettger (1980)
noted that students with low reading attitude, but high performance regarded reading as a skill to
use when needed, but did not incorporate reading into life beyond reading related to schoolwork.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 166

Research suggests that an individual’s attitude toward reading can drop over time as the result of
three significant and interrelated factors: (a) beliefs about one’s desires to meet reading
expectations; (b) beliefs about the outcomes of reading; and (c) specific reading experiences one
has had in the past (McKenna, 1994). Perhaps these factors provide insight into why Andre’s
reading behaviors and responses to the interview questions did not reflect that he was a fluent
reader.
The observations also helped to convey Dwayne and Elijah’s change in behavior over the
course of the six-weeks. At the beginning of the intervention, both Dwayne and Elijah were
easily distracted and were not confident in their ability to complete the assigned tasks. However,
by the end of the intervention their reading behaviors and attitudes improved. According to
research, fluent readers require little internal attention to decode words which gives them the
ability to decode the majority of words they encounter easily and thus are able to focus their
attention on comprehension (Laberge & Samuels, 1974). Dwayne and Elijah displayed high
levels of engagement and enthusiasm during the literacy activities. Dwayne and Elijah also
volunteered to assist other students who sought help with the activities and were able to complete
the literacy activities with minimal to no assistance. Since the participants were able to select
their own reading materials, this increase could mean that academic reading and its
corresponding activities may have had an effect on how the second grade Black male participants
viewed reading overall. When the students were able to interact with their peers during the
activities, they also viewed the act of reading more favorably, and in turn, their reading attitudes
were enhanced overtime (McKenna 1994).
Non-fluent readers. Based on the DIBELS fluency assessment scores reported by the
classroom teachers, both Brandon and Charles were not meeting grade level benchmarks at the
PLAY, READ, LEARN 167

time of the study. Brandon and Charles’ fluency scores were equivalent to a first grader.
According to research, non-fluent readers (a) decode more slowly than those students who are
able to read fluently; (b) read significantly less text daily than their classmates who are able to
read fluently; (c) require more exposures to individual words and word families than children
who are able to read fluently; (d) read choppy short fragments; and (e) have average or above
average word recognition skills but skills are not automatic (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974;
Samuels, 2006). The behaviors of each non-fluent reader became apparent as the researcher
conducted interviews and observations over the course of the six-week PRL intervention (see
Table 15).
Table 15.
Observations of Non-Fluent Readers
Participant Observations Recorded By the Researcher
Brandon  Do we really have to write sentences?
 I don’t feel like it. I don’t feel like coloring.
 I don’t want to write sentences now! [Crying]
 Ms. Shenora, can I just write 1 sentence then be done?
 I can’t write 4 sentences I only have 3 Ms. Shenora!
 I don’t know the answer to question number 5 Ms. Shenora!
 I don’t want to color my picture… I am done with this!
Charles  Why do people always check to see if I am doing my work right…I mean reading
correctly?
 There are a lot of words up in here in this book! [Holds book up in the air]
 This is just too much! [Threw book on the floor]
 I need to sharpen my pencil.
 I can’t do my work cuz I need an eraser and I need crayons!
 I do not want to do this! I don’t want to do this!
 I can’t read cuz my tooth just came out Ms. Shenora!
 I gotta go to the bathroom!
 I need some help Ms. Shenora.

Both of the participants’ observations illustrated how non-fluent readers in this study
engaged in the independent reading activities during of the PRL intervention. Although, they
were observed actively engaged during play, they did not often display appropriate behaviors
PLAY, READ, LEARN 168

during independent reading time. When help was not received immediately, both Brandon and
Charles often instituted strategies to avoid working on the assigned tasks. These strategies
included finding excuses to switch books and making trips to the restroom or pencil sharpener.
The researcher also encouraged the participants to work with other students at times. However,
both Charles and Brandon were not as willing to partner with students in the small group.
Reading material preferences. The theme reading material preferences manifested from
the interviews, survey and after-school intervention sessions. During each interview, the
researcher asked each participant what kind of materials they like to read. There was a
consistent motif of books with superhero characters, animals, and animation characters from
movies. When the researcher asked participants what they enjoyed about those types of reading
materials, participants indicated that the characters were fun and exciting. Andre shared he liked
to read about “Tom & Jerry” because he watches the show on television (personal
communication, November 26, 2013). Dwayne indicated that he likes to read about Ninja
Turtles because “they are funny smart and just crazy” (personal communication, November 26,
2013). Two participants enjoy reading about characters from their favorite movies; Charles likes
characters from the movie Toy Story and Elijah likes characters from the movie Peter Pan
(personal communication, November 26, 2013). It is also important to note that during the
intervention all the participants’ self-selected fiction or non-fiction text when provided with the
option to choose one genre after engaging in play. This selection of text was aligned with
student interests and reading material preferences.
Participants also made it very clear what they did not like about reading. Both Charles
and Dwayne both shared that they do not like to read books that are too long or have too many
words (personal communication, November 26, 2013). Dwayne also stated that he like reading
PLAY, READ, LEARN 169

chapter books (personal communication, November 26, 2013). Elijah informed the researcher
during his interview that he liked pictured books and “I don’t like when books don’t have
pictures because I like to see what’s happening in the story” (personal communication,
November 26, 2013). The survey data also conveyed that only one participant is mildly unhappy
with reading different kinds of books. The remaining four participants are at minimum slightly
happy to read different kinds of books. The reading material preference for each of the
participants was made clear over the course of the study.
Reading anxiety. The theme of reading anxiety surfaced from the interviews, survey and
after-school activity-based intervention sessions. Reading anxiety was referred to as the extent
to which reading-related activities elicited an emotional reaction from a participant (Wallbrown
& Cowger, 1982). There were two independent dimensions of anxiety including worry-
disruption of mental activity and emotionality-physiological distress (Dembo & Seli, 2013). The
fear of reading aloud emerged. Three out of five participants mentioned during their initial
interview that they disliked reading a loud for various reasons while two participants’ felt
comfortable reading aloud.
Andre: “I feel nervous and scared because everybody is looking at me like I am crazy and
people laugh and giggle!” (personal communication, October 22, 2013)

Brandon: “I have to pay attention… I feel good because I can get my reading score
higher!” (personal communication, October 22, 2013)

Charles: “It makes me feel sad and makes me cry and I be scared because everybody is
going to laugh at me because when I read wrong they are going to laugh at me and it
makes me cry when they laugh at me.” (personal communication, October 22, 2013)

Dwayne: “Scared and nervous because it be a lot of people looking at me when I read
and sometimes they laugh at me.” (personal communication, October 22, 2013)

Elijah: “Happy and good and comfortable because you can know what you are reading.”
(personal communication, October 22, 2013)

PLAY, READ, LEARN 170

The survey results semi-correlated with their interview data because in the pre-survey 4 out of 5
participants felt very sad about reading aloud in school. However, at the conclusion of the
intervention the post-survey results indicated that reading attitudes were positively enhanced and
3 out of 5 participants felt very happy to read aloud at school. The fear of reading aloud became
evident early on in the study.

Research Question Three: What is the Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Reading
Behaviors of Second-Grade Black Male Students After They Engage in an Activity-Based
Intervention?

Impact of Reading Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy referred to the evaluation a participant had about their ability to successfully
complete a task (Bandura, 1982; Dembo & Seli, 2013) during the activity- based PRL
intervention. A participant’s level of self-efficacy regarding a specific task predicted behaviors,
choice to engage in an activity, levels of persistence, attention and concentration (Bandura, 1982;
Dembo & Seli, 2013). The three themes that surfaced to capture the participants reading self-
efficacy include: (a) motivation; (b) level of engagement; and (c) positive reinforcement.
Motivation. The theme of motivation and engagement materialized from the interviews
and after-school intervention sessions. Motivation and engagement were critical to skillful
reading (Paratore, Cassano & Schickedanz, 2011). Specific goals, the purpose for reading,
interest in the topic, choices about what to read, how to respond to reading, and the text’s ease of
readability were all factors that contributed to a participant’s motivation and level of engagement
(Paratore et al., 2011). During the interviews and observations conducted throughout the
intervention period, there was a consistent motif of performance goal orientation as the
participant’s source of motivation and level of engagement in reading activities. Performance
PLAY, READ, LEARN 171

goal orientation referred to a participant’s who focused on social comparison and competition,
with the main purpose of outperforming others on a given task rather than having a mastery goal
orientation that focused on learning as much as possible for the purposes of self-improvement
(Dembo & Seli, 2013). Three out of five participants informed the researcher that their purpose
for reading books was solely for performance outcome purposes.
Andre: “I read so I can answer the questions right and know about the book and know
the answers in the book. I don’t like not being able to answer the questions cuz it’s a little
hard. Sometimes they give you hard questions.” (personal communication, November 26,
2013)

Brandon: “I read to get the highest number like 114. I have to take a test to get the
number… I don’t really know what that number means. My teacher says that the butterfly
never lies and our teacher puts the butterflies up with our scores so we can see if we are
going high or low. When my butterfly goes down I don’t feel good because that means I
am not reading good.” (personal communication, November 26, 2013)

Elijah: “If I don’t get 90% or more on a reading test I am not happy that’s what I don’t
like about reading. My teacher looks at the paper to tell us if we are reading good or not.”
(personal communication, November 26, 2013)

Both Charles and Dwayne had different purposes for reading and engaging in reading activities
in school.
Charles: “I read books because they are fun and so I can read my library books.”
(personal communication, November 26, 2013)

Dwayne: “I read books cuz you can be smart and it makes you smarter.” (personal
communication, November 26, 2013)

Level of engagement. The researcher also observed various levels of engagement
amongst the small group of participants over the course of the intervention sessions. Student
interest was used during the intervention instruction during each lesson as a strategy to keep
them engaged.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 172

Andre: “I like to color! Can I color my worksheet after I read the story?” (personal
communication, October 29, 2013)
Brandon: “I made men using gingerbread crackers. Look at my men that I made, my men
are strong just like the man in the book!” (personal communication, October 29, 2013)
Charles: “I like to read on airplanes. I like to read with classmates. I want to take the
truck that I made to the beach because I like the beach!” (personal communication,
October 29, 2013)
Dwayne: “Cool I like cars cuz cars are cool and go fast! I want to play with the
toothpicks and stick them in the marshmallows on my car!” (personal communication,
October 29, 2013)
Elijah: “We can make any object we want too? Yay! I am going to make a volcano!”
(personal communication, October 29, 2013)

The participant’s motivation and levels of engagement for reading different reading activities
became evident during both the interviews and throughout the six-week intervention period.

Positive reinforcement. The theme of positive reinforcement emerged from data
collected during the interviews and after-school intervention sessions. For the purposes of this
study, positive reinforcement was the act of providing affirmative support and constructive
feedback to encourage a repeated behavior. During the interviews, each participant was asked
have they ever been told they were a good reader and each Elijah expressed that they have been
told they were good readers by teachers and family members.
Andre: “Yep my teacher and my grandma. They give me a thumbs up and say are a good
reader!” (personal communication, November 26, 2013)
Brandon: “My mom says good job!” (personal communication, October 29, 2013)
Charles: “Yep, my teacher and my mom and dad tell me! My daddy tells me that I am
reading better.” (personal communication, October 22, 2013)
Dwayne: “NO! Wait YES! My mom says you are doing good you just need to work hard
and just read a lot more! ” (personal communication, October 29, 2013)
Elijah: “Yeah, my daycare provider…it’s a girl… she says that I am a good reader and I
say thank you! And my mom she says you are a good reader and I always want you to be
a good reader so keep it up!” (personal communication, November 26, 2013)
PLAY, READ, LEARN 173

This section conveyed significant responses from the interviews and observations conducted
over the six-week period with each participant and the major themes that emerged through the
qualitative data. The next section will provide a summary of the information presented
throughout chapter four.
Summary
Chapter four highlighted both the quantitative and qualitative findings resulting from the
data collected through student interviews, observations during the activity-based intervention,
and ERAS. Content analysis provided frequencies of the pre-determined codes for the
participant’s recreational and academic reading attitudes. Strengths and weaknesses of the
participants were further explored through interviews, providing invariant constituents and
themes related to the three research questions and descriptions correlated to each participant.
Finally, the ERAS measured the participants reading attitudes. Key findings captured in the
survey indicated that 4 out of 5 of the participants in the study had a slightly happy or very happy
attitude towards reading after the six-week intervention. The findings from the survey also
indicated that 2 out of 5 of the participants reading attitudes improved over the six-week
intervention. Chapter five addresses an analysis of the research questions based on these results.
Recommendations and implications for future research are also provided.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 174

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
It is not enough to simply teach children to read; we have to give them something worth reading.
Something that will stretch their imaginations- something that will help them make sense of their
own lives and encourage them to reach out towards people whose lives are quite different from
their own.
-Katherine Patterson

Introduction
This study examined the relationship between an activity-based intervention and the
reading attitudes, reading behaviors and reading self-efficacy of five second-grade Black male
students. This chapter will provide (1) an overview of the problem the study addressed; (2)
research questions; (3) overview of the methodology; (4) discussion of findings; (5) limitations
of study; (6) recommendations for future studies; (7) implications for professional practice; and
(8) conclusions.
Brief Overview of Problem
The persisting deficiency in the education of Blacks continues to be a struggle
(Gadsden, 1991) in America. Black males in America are in endangered today and face
adversities in education, health, employment, income, and the criminal justice system (Noguera,
2008). Nearly 60% of Black males in urban cities across the country drop out of high school and
80% of Black students placed in special education are male (Kunjufu, 2011; Noguera, 2008;
Schott Foundation, 2004; 2010). If current trends continue to prevail, millions of children are at
risk from being unable to meet NAEP’s proficient reading level by the end of third grade
(Feister, 2010). Policy makers and educational leaders are tasked with the challenge to eliminate
the growing illiteracy rate in America but struggle with determining best reading pedagogical
practices to implement. As educators move beyond direct instruction to a more student centered
PLAY, READ, LEARN 175

hands-on approach to developing literacy skills, there is a debate that has given rise to both
opponents and proponents of activity-based instructional methods (Alfieri Brooks, 2011; Tobias
& Duffy, 2009). Even though, play has not been recognized as the exclusive pedagogical
approach to teaching reading, research suggests that it is needed to balance children’s
development and their readiness for school (Kagan & Lowenstein, 2004). Thus, this study
provided new insights on the role of play as an activity-based pedagogical practice and literacy
learning as it related to second grade Black males. This study also advocated for children to
have educational experiences to engage in reading activities that create the opportunity to acquire
knowledge through play, discovery, touching, smelling, assembling and creativity. Three
research questions were used to guide this study.
Research Questions
The following questions were used to guide this study:
1. What reading attitudes are enhanced through second-grade Black males
participation in an activity-based intervention?
2. What are the perceived relationships between Black male second grade students
attitudes towards reading and their reading behaviors after they engage in an
activity-based reading intervention?
3. What is the relationship between self-efficacy and reading behaviors of second
grade Black male students who engage in an activity-based intervention?
Methodology
The mixed method study design included the use of interviews, observations, a survey,
and document analysis to examine the relationships between an activity-based intervention and
PLAY, READ, LEARN 176

second-grade Black male students’ attitudes towards reading, reading behaviors and their reading
self-efficacy. Purposeful sampling was used to gain insight from subjects that directly reflected
the purpose of the study and provided a great deal of information-rich data (Merriam, 2009).
The five Black male second graders participation was voluntary and based on parental consent.
Over the course of six-weeks, the participants engaged in the PRL after-school activity-based
intervention. They each were also interviewed before and after the intervention period. During
interviews, subjects provided their perceptions of their own attitudes toward reading and how
they felt about their ability to read. Observations were conducted over the course of the data
collection period during independent reading and play times. The researcher also administered
the Elementary Reading Attitudinal Scale (McKenna & Kear, 1990) which measured the
participants reading attitudes. Questions on the survey instrument addressed both recreational
and academic reading, and a separate attitude score was obtained for each sub-category. The
final component of data collection included an analysis of internal and external documents that
outlined characteristics of the students’ reading attitudes, behaviors and reading self-efficacy.
Discussion of Findings
Research Question One: What Reading Attitudes are Enhanced Through Second-Grade
Black Males Participation in an Activity-Based Intervention?

Findings. Research question one found that both elements of recreational and academic
reading attitudes were enhanced through participation in the activity-based intervention. The
participants positively responded to opportunities to engage in reading activities for pleasure as
well as reading activities that were academic related in school and home. Responses of very
happy and slightly happy were regarded as positive recreational reading attitudes on the ERAS.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 177

Responses of mildly happy and very sad were considered negative recreational reading attitudes.
The total sub score on the ERAS for recreational reading attitude ranged from 10 to 40
(McKenna & Kear, 1990; Kush & Watkins, 1996; Kazelskis et al., 2005). Three of the five
overall recreational reading attitudes indicated an average recreational reading attitude ( < 30
points). Two of five participants overall recreational reading attitudes indicated high recreational
reading attitudes ( >30 points). Over the course of the six-week PRL after-school intervention
both Dwayne and Elijah showed an increase on their total recreational reading score. Dwayne
subscale score increased two-points and Elijah showed a five-point subscale increase. Overall,
all five participants’ recreational reading attitudes were enhanced in the following areas: (a)
reading books during free time at home; (b) going to the bookstore; and (c) receiving a book as a
present.
Participant’s academic reading attitudes were also enhanced through participating in the
PRL activity-based intervention. Questionnaire item responses of very happy and slightly happy
were considered as positive academic reading attitudes on the ERAS. Responses of mildly happy
and very sad were regarded negative academic reading attitudes. The total sub score on the
ERAS for academic reading attitude ranged from 10 to 40 (McKenna & Kear, 1990; Kush &
Watkins, 1996; Kazelskis et al., 2005). Three of the five participants overall academic attitudes
indicated a high attitude ( >30 points). Two of the five participants overall academic attitudes
indicated an average attitude ( < 30 points). During the course of the six-week PRL after-school
activity-based intervention, Dwayne showed a 9-point subscale total score increase and overall
his academic reading attitude changed from mildly unhappy to slightly happy. Elijah showed an
11-point subscale total score increase and overall, his academic reading attitude changed from
very sad to slightly happy over the course of the six-week activity-based intervention. Overall,
PLAY, READ, LEARN 178

the participant’s academic reading attitudes include enhanced feelings about: a) taking reading
tests; b) reading aloud in school; c) reading and completing reading worksheets; d) learning from
a book and; e) reading a book during free time at school.
The results from this study highlighted a positive correlation between home and school
reading experiences and the impact these experiences have on an individual’s overall reading
attitude. The results also indicated that participants reading attitudes were positively enhanced
when they had opportunities to engage in meaningful learning experiences at school. The PRL
activity-based after-school intervention followed a distinct pattern that created opportunities for
participants to engage in play through manipulating materials and constructing objects using an
array of supplies. In particular, second grade Black males engaged in manipulating materials,
constructed and created objects of their choice and, illustrated pictures that reflected self-selected
literature that were aligned with their personal interests and reading preferences (Piaget, 1962).
At the conclusion of the activity-based intervention, the post survey was administered and the
recreational reading total subscale score was added with the academic reading total subscale
score to get a total composite score for each participant. The total composite score ranged from
20 to 80 points (McKenna & Kear, 1990; Kush & Watkins, 1996; Kazelskis et al., 2005). The
findings from the ERAS indicated that 4 of 5 participants overall reading attitude is a high
attitude (> 60 points). One of five participants overall attitude indicated an average reading
attitude ( < 60 points). Dwayne showed an 11-point composite total score increase and his
overall reading attitude changed from average to high over the course of the six-week activity-
based intervention. Elijah showed a 16-point total score increase and his overall reading attitude
changed from average to high.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 179

In this study, meaningful learning was found to be more powerful than traditional school
learning (Brown, Collins, & Duiguid, 1989; Langer, 1987; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Neuman &
Roskos, 1997). The five Black males were engaged in doing things in which their ongoing
activities were interdependent; learning became part of their changing practices and involvement
(Lave, 1996). Play was a way for them to go beyond surface understanding and engage in
meaningful interpretations of different texts and their reality.
Discussion. Researcher Leonhardt (1993) reported that it is imperative that children
develop positive attitudes toward books and reading because this attitude will eventually be
permanently assigned to reading in a person’s life. Researchers Smith and Wilhelm (2002) noted
in their study that many boys are more likely to engage in social literacy activities especially
outside of school, including reading the newspaper, sports pages, video game manuals and other
types of non-fiction materials that are relevant to their personal lives oppose to engaging in
academic reading. However, this study conveyed that when boys participated in activity-based
literacy activities they were equally as likely to engage in both recreational and academic reading
and had positive attitudes towards reading both in recreational and academic settings. In
addition, literacy activities and positive reading attitudes promoted voluntary reading as well as
created opportunities to further development additional reading skills.
The findings from this study indicated a relationship between access to reading material
and attitudes toward reading. Specifically, participants with access to books at home and at
school, and had time for both recreational and academic reading, read more, leading to higher
reading proficiency, positive attitudes towards reading and greater reading self-efficacy. During
the interviews, participants indicated that they enjoyed reading at home with their parents,
grandmother or, siblings. Students who had pleasurable experiences both in and outside of
PLAY, READ, LEARN 180

school had with reading had more positive attitudes towards both recreational and academic
reading.
The findings from research question one also highlighted the fact that parents and the
home environment played a role in children’s perceptions of reading and their reading attitudes.
Trelease (1995) noted that good reading habits and a love of books begins for children in the
home and access to books in the home plays such a large part in helping children become avid
readers. Researchers also suggest that the connection between home and school should be
bidirectional because parents who embody positive attitudes towards reading help foster an
appreciation and zest for literacy, learning and engaging in reading related activities (Bissett,
1969; Elley, 1992; Krashen, 1993; LeMoine et al., 1997; Trelease, 1995; Heywood & Stagg-
Peterson, 2007; Washington, 2001; Weigel et al., 2006). This study suggests that children who
have access to books at home and at school are more inclined to engage in reading activities and
as a result they will have a positive reading attitude which leads to increased reading proficiency
(Bissett, 1969; Elley, 1992; Krashen, 1993; LeMoine et al., 1997; Trelease, 1995).

Research Question Two: What are the Perceived Relationships Between Black Male
Second-Grade Students Attitudes Towards Reading and Their Reading Behaviors
After They Engage in an Activity-Based Intervention?

Findings. Research question two highlighted the importance of children being allowed to
recreate their reality through play (Vygotsky, 1978). Results from the study showed that all five
second grade Black male students reading behaviors and reading attitudes were positively
enhanced when they had autonomy during the literate activities. All five participants overall
reading attitudes were either average or high by the end of the six-week intervention. Two of the
five participants reading attitudes were enhanced from average to high over the course of the
PRL activity-based intervention. During play, participants created their various objects and
PLAY, READ, LEARN 181

discussed the places they would like to take their objects. Second grade Black male students
were observed constructing cars, volcanos, dump trucks and, gingerbread men. Dwayne shared
with the intervention group “My car is cool because it is red and looks like the Mercedes that I
am gonna get when I grow up!” (personal communication, November 5, 2013). Through play,
the participants had the opportunity to experiment with how one might act in a real situation and
children transform unconscious actions to the realm of conscious thought (Vygotsky, 1962). The
participants also had opportunities over the course of the six weeks to self-select preferred
reading material after engaging in play. Participants were observed selecting both fiction and
non-fiction text after engaging in play that were related to objects they constructed or topics
discussed during play. Through these opportunities the subjects engaged in self-regulating their
reading behaviors (Hilden & Pressley, 2007). According to Rosenblatt (1978) aesthetic readers,
are attuned to the lived experience of reading welcoming multiple meanings through "sensations,
images, feelings and ideas that are the residue of past psychological events" (p.5). The
participants in this study had the opportunity to experience the text while reading and engaged in
dialogue with their peers and the researcher at the end of each PRL activity sharing their reading
experiences.
Results from question two also found a positive correlation between participants reading
attitudes and reading behaviors when engaged in academic reading and activity-based learning.
Three of five second grade Black male students shared during their initial interview that they had
a fear of reading aloud during school. Participants used words such as ‘nervous’, ‘scared’ and
‘stage-freight’ to describe how their feelings about reading aloud in reading class. These
participants experienced reading anxiety and an emotional reaction was elicited from the
participants (Wallbrown & Cowger, 1982). Results from the pre-survey validated the interview
PLAY, READ, LEARN 182

data because 4 of 5 participants indicated that felt very sad about reading aloud in school.
Palacios (1998) noted that the classroom atmosphere and the teacher’s manner can be anxiety
provoking. When participants in this study expressed where anxiety came from there was a
consistent motif of teacher comments and the classroom environment that aided in moments of
anxiety. During an interview Brandon shared that “My teacher says that the butterfly never lies
and our teacher puts the butterflies up with our scores so we can see if we are going high or low
on the test!” (personal communication, October 22, 2013). Elijah also shared that “My teacher
looks at the paper and then tells me if I am a good reader! (personal communication, October 22,
2013).
The correlation between reading behaviors and reading attitudes also helped to
distinguish the non-fluent readers from the fluent readers in this study. Laberge and Samuels
(1974) reported that fluent readers require very little internal attention to decode words and thus
are able to focus their attention on comprehension. The three components of fluency include
automaticity, accuracy in word recognition, and prosody in oral textual reading (Rasinski et al.,
2011; Rasinski, 2012). The profiles of each participant conveyed unique characteristics of second
grade Black males who were identified as fluent and non-fluent readers based on their DIBELS
fluency assessment scores.
Andre. Andre’s reading behavior and reading self-efficacy reflected his reading ability.
Brandon’s actions during the six-week PRL intervention indicated that he was able to complete
assigned literacy activities with ease. The researcher observed Brandon (a) pointing to each
word as he read; (b) raising his hand to share and answer questions about his independent text;
(c) reading with voice inflection and intonation; (d) staying on task during activities; and (e)
volunteering to help his peers when they requested assistance.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 183

Brandon. Brandon’s reading behavior and reading self-efficacy mirrored his reading
abilities. The participants were asked to self-select a book after engaging in play and writing
about the text at the end of each session. Brandon’s behaviors indicated that he had difficulty
with this task. The researcher observed Brandon (a) staring around the classroom and looking at
his peers; (b) crying because he did not want to write about his object constructed during play;
(c) slamming his pencil on the desk; (d) switching his book at least three times before reading
independently; and (e) loudly passing gas and laughing at himself.
Charles. Charles’ DIBLES fluency score report indicated that he was not meeting grade
level expectations and was not a fluent second-grade reader. His reading behavior and reading
self-efficacy reflected his reading ability. However, his results from the ERAS indicated that he
had an overall high reading attitude which did not reflect his reading behaviors observed by the
researcher. The researcher observed Charles (a) biting his pencil; (b) rocking in his chair; (c)
falling out of his chair; (d) requesting to use the restroom multiple times during the independent
reading activity; (e) giving up when he was unsure of how to complete a task; and (f) requesting
help from peers and the researcher prior to attempting the task on his own.
Dwayne. While Dwayne’s DIBELS fluency scores indicated that he was meeting grade
level standards, his reading behavior, reading attitude and reading self-efficacy did not always
reflect his reading ability. Throughout the six-week PRL intervention Dwayne’s reading
behavior and reading attitude changed. At the start of the intervention, Dwayne was observed
laughing and talking about unrelated topics on the carpet instead of reading independently. By
the end of the study, Dwayne’s reading attitude improved and he displayed behaviors of a
confident reader who was able to successfully complete the literacy activities. The researcher
observed Dwayne: (a) using his index finger to indicate appropriate sweeps when reading; (b)
PLAY, READ, LEARN 184

reading with inflection and changing his voice changes to imitate the characters in the book; (c)
raising his hand to share his favorite part of the story during the small group discussion; and (d)
requesting additional literacy-skill worksheets.
Elijah. Elijah’s reading behavior and reading self-efficacy changed over the six-week
PRL intervention. At the start of the intervention, the researcher observed Elijah (a) guess the
answers on the worksheets; (b) look at Dwayne’s worksheet for the answers; and (c) interrupt
other students and talk over his peers during the small group discussion. Elijah’s reading attitude
and reading behaviors were positively enhanced over the course of the six-weeks. By the end of
the intervention, Elijah displayed behaviors of a fluent reader including: (a) raising his hand
excitedly to share his work with his peers; (b) recalling information from his independent text;
and (c) independently answering questions on the literacy skills-based worksheets.
Active learning during the PRL intervention fostered social interactions in a relaxed
setting that reduced anxiety and enabled the learner to respond to challenging, complex, real-life
situations that involve emotions as well as problem-solving abilities; the learning was
meaningful and personally relevant (Cleveland, 2011). When participants were not interested in
the reading material or were not confident in their reading abilities, they also displayed off-task
avoidance behaviors. Those behaviors included falling out the chair, lying on the carpet, playing
with the pencil or laughing with peers instead of reading. However, when participants were
interested and engaged in the literate activity or had opportunities to read material that had their
favorite characters they were more likely to remain on task and have less anxiety about reading.
By the end of the activity-based intervention, the post-survey results showed that reading
attitudes were positively enhanced and 3 of 5 participants felt very happy to read aloud at school.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 185

Discussion. Researchers reported that children with positive reading attitudes read more
frequently and have greater reading achievement than children with less positive attitudes
(Greaney & Hegarty, 1987; McKenna, 1994; McKenna & Kear, 1990; 1994; Walberg & Tsai,
1985). Attitude can be conceptualized along a continuum with positive and negative extremes
and is influenced by both past and current experiences and is generally inferred through related
behaviors (McKenna, et al., 1995; Roettger, 1980; Rowell, 1972). Adults, assist children in
developing self- regulation skills during the early stages of life until they have internalized the
mediators needed to regulate themselves without adult supervision (Vygotsky, 1978; Snowman
& Biehler, 2006). This research provides insight into the decline and acceleration of the reading
attitudes of each participant in the study. McKenna (1994) suggests that an individual’s attitude
toward reading level drops over time as the result of three primary and interrelated factors: (a)
beliefs about one’s desires to meet reading expectations; (b) beliefs about the outcomes of
reading; and (c) specific reading experiences one has had in the past.
Literacy is comprised of five interconnected components including phonological
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (Shriver, 2006). Each of the
participants had varying levels of reading ability. Thus, the complexity of literacy might have
impacted the students reading attitudes, reading behaviors and self-efficacy. Fluent readers
require little internal attention to decode words and have the ability to focus their attention on
comprehension (Laberge & Samuels, 1974). Non-fluent readers read slower than their
classmates which impacts their ability to comprehend a given text (Samuels, 2006). This might
add insight to why Brandon and Charles experienced difficulty during the independent reading
activities and completing the literacy skill-based worksheets. In addition, this might explain why
PLAY, READ, LEARN 186

Brandon and Charles displayed avoidance behaviors and low-levels of self-efficacy when they
found a text challenging to read.
The findings from this study also suggest that the rigid classroom environment in
comparison to the after-school environment with play as a stimulus could have also influenced
participants’ reading attitudes and reading behaviors. Due to high stakes testing during the
normal school day, much of the second grade Black males’ academic reading experiences
influenced their overall reading attitudes and behaviors. During the interviews the participants
mentioned that their “butterfly” on the data wall was an indication of their reading performance.
Brandon and Andre explicitly expressed the importance of scoring well on reading test so that
their butterflies would fly high. McKenna (1994) reported that if this becomes the focus of
reading in school, over time negative attitudes on the continuum of reading attitude will begin to
develop and deepen as reading experiences continue to hold little value for the students.
Furthermore, these negative reading attitudes coincide with the corresponding outlook to avoid
reading activities, which is what students do when reading attitudes become negative (McKenna,
1994). The decline in their ERAS scores could indicate that if instruction in classrooms
continues with teachers at the center of all decisions that are made, then students’ engagement
could gradually decrease, which may be a contributing factor to the nation’s continuous decline
in reading proficiency (Guthrie et al., 2004).
One way that teachers can help promote positive reading attitudes and behaviors is by
working to ensure the classroom environment is comfortable and promotes the feeling of family
(Delpit, 1995; Delpit & Dowdy, 2002). A personal relationship between the teacher and their
students is critical to students overall learning experience in school (Delpit, 1995). It is essential
for reading teachers to be familiar with their students’ attitudes and expectations of classroom
PLAY, READ, LEARN 187

environment. Researchers Ganschow, Javorsky, Miller, Sparks, Phillips, Evers, Schneider and
Turner (2000) argued that reading anxiety does not cause poor achievement but, rather, is the
consequence of it and classrooms play an important role in student’s cognitive growth and
development. Findings from this study suggested that second grade Black males are more likely
to have positive reading behaviors and attitudes when the classroom environment is comfortable,
fun and engaging. This type of classroom environment can help prevent anxiety. Thus, it seems
plausible to expect that if a classroom environment is an anxiety producing one, reading
development will be delayed and negatively impacted. For future studies, it might be valuable to
compare the effects of “comfortable” play-based classroom environments to those of a more
traditional learning classroom on second grade Black males reading behaviors and reading
attitudes.
In addition to a positive classroom environment, findings for research question two
advocates that children need ample time to read books of their own choosing and access to
various reading materials especially those they enjoyed reading the most. During the
intervention all the participants’ had opportunities to self-select fiction or non-fiction text after
engaging in play. This selection of text was aligned with each participants interests and reading
material preferences. The reading material preference for each of the participants was made
clear over the course of the six-week PRL activity-based intervention. Survey responses
conveyed that only one participant was mildly unhappy with reading different kinds of books
while the remaining four participants were at minimum slightly happy to read different kinds of
books. Specifically, when second grade Black male participants had access to books in their
classroom they were more likely to engage in reading during the intervention and have a positive
attitude towards reading in school. Findings from the data collected indicated that the second
PLAY, READ, LEARN 188

grade Black males preferred to read books that contained superhero characters, animals, and
animation characters from movies.
Second grade Black males expressed they enjoyed those types of reading materials
because the characters were fun and exciting. Andre shared he liked to read about “Tom &
Jerry” because he watched the show on television (personal communication, November 26,
2013). Dwayne indicated that he likes to read about Ninja Turtles because the turtles are “funny
smart and just crazy!” (personal communication, November 26, 2013). Both Charles and Elijah
enjoyed reading about characters from their favorite movies which included Toy Story and Peter
Pan (personal communication, November 26, 2013). Participants also expressed during the
small group and interviews what they mostly disliked about reading. The second grade Black
males who participated in this study indicated that they do not like to read books that are too
long, have too many words, chapter books or books that do not contain pictures (personal
communication, November 26, 2013).
The findings from this study propose that second grade Black males who have
opportunities to frequently read in their free time, teachers who allow self-selected reading, time
to practice reading skills, have access to an established attractive and accessible library centers,
and engage in activity-based learning are more likely to have positive reading attitudes and to
display positive reading behaviors (Fractor et al., 1993). Researcher Bissett (1969) reported that
children in classrooms containing an array of literature read 50% more books than did children in
classrooms with limited reading materials. This study also suggests that it is important for
teachers to provide classroom reading materials that are aligned with students reading interests
but also consider that boy’s purpose for reading could be different from girls and find ways to
accommodate their students reading needs (Worthy et al., 1998). Such modifications to
PLAY, READ, LEARN 189

traditional reading instructional methods perhaps could engage students more during literacy
instruction and ultimately may experience greater reading success in school.

Research Question Three: What is the Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Reading
Behaviors of Second Grade Black Male Students Who Engage in an Activity-Based
Intervention?

Findings. Research question three found a positive correlation between Black male
second graders self-efficacy and reading behaviors after engaging in the activity-based
intervention. Participants experienced greater levels of self-efficacy when they felt comfortable
with the reading material and activities. Participant’s motivation, level of engagement and
persistence impacted their reading self- efficacy. During separate interviews, 3 of 5 participants
expressed that their purpose for reading books in school was solely for performance outcome
purposes. Specifically, they shared that they read to: (a) get the answers right answers to reading
questions or workbook pages; (b) answer reading questions asked by the teacher; or (c) get a
high score on the reading test to make their butterfly on the data wall fly higher. Findings from
the observations also indicated that participants showed more confidence in their reading abilities
and engagement in the activities when they were interested in with the reading material and
activities. Over the course of the six-week PRL intervention all five second grade Black males
were observed at some point showing excitement through: (a) smiles; (b) jumping up in the air
with laughing; (c) eagerly volunteering to share their object constructed during play with peers,
the researcher or parents; (d) spontaneous actions; volunteering to assist peers with the activity;
or (e) requesting more time to engage in play.
The five second grade Black males’ self-efficacy was increased when they had mastery
experiences and receive positive reinforcement from family members at home and their teacher’s
PLAY, READ, LEARN 190

in school. Results from the survey and interviews indicated that 3 of 5 participants displayed
extrinsically motivated behaviors out of a desired outcome from outside the self, including a
reward, teacher praise, praise from family members, the avoidance of punishment, or to score
high on a reading assessment so that their teacher could move their butterfly higher on the
classroom data wall. The remaining two participants reading behaviors were intrinsically
motivated because they engaged in reading activities for the sake of enjoyment, fun and pleasure
(Deci, 1992). Overall, when second grade Black males participated in activity-based learning,
they were engaged, showed confidence, excitement and, positive self-efficacy.
Discussion. This study validated that reading attitudes can cause an individual to
approach or avoid a given reading situation and may affect the level of ability, engagement and
practice (McKenna et al., 1995). Researchers Henk and Melnick (1992) reported that children
with a high sense of self-efficacy in reading were more likely to read for enjoyment and fun and
are more likely to have greater success on reading achievement assessments than children with a
lower sense of efficacy. To be a successful reader, one needs a positive attitude toward reading
and adequate motivation to activate reading behaviors. The results also conveyed that when
children are motivated by control or pressure, they experience reading anxiety and learning is
undermined. However, when children have a purpose reason for reading and do not feel stressed
or pressured, they tend to find the material more interesting and learn it more fully (Deci, 1992).
Deci (1992) also noted that children who are intrinsically motivated spend more time on tasks
and demonstrate more positive attitudes during those tasks. On the other hand, children in
control-oriented classrooms that have limited autonomy perceive themselves as less competent
and had lower self- efficacy (Deci, 1992). According to Glasser (1992; 1997), people have needs
PLAY, READ, LEARN 191

including (a) the need to belong; (b) the need for control over ourselves and our environment; (c)
the need for; and (d) the need for pleasure and enjoyment.
Motivation to perform well should be an intrinsic action, and students should carry out a
given task because they want to, not because they have to. Children’s self-efficacy is increased
when they feel confident and motivated to achieve high levels of academic proficiency. Bandura
(1977) noted that children must believe that they are capable of completing a specific task. When
they are motivated to engage and persist in a certain task they will be successful (Bandura,
1977). During this study, interest was an important indicator of motivation, level of engagement,
success in learning and affected second grade Black males’ self-efficacy and reading behaviors.
Summary
Findings from this study suggest that the activity-based intervention had positive effects
on second grade Black males reading attitudes, reading behaviors and reading self-efficacy. It
also validated the assertion that cognitive development needs to be supported with proper and
effective developmentally appropriate pedagogical practices and a classroom environment that
gives students opportunities to engage in autonomous meaningful learning experiences. This
study suggests that when second grade Black male students feel more efficacious about their
reading; they are more likely to succeed in the classroom. Therefore, it is as equally important to
help children learn to value reading and develop positive attitudes towards reading, as it is to
teach them to read (Fractor et al., 1993).
Limitations
There were limitations that emerged over the course of this study that should be
considered in describing this research study. Measuring individual’s self-efficacy including their
beliefs, attitudes and perceptions was difficult because many factors may impact children’s
PLAY, READ, LEARN 192

perceptions. What is measured as a good reader is independent of a child’s attitude about
reading and the two concepts are not necessarily aligned. Some of the participant’s beliefs about
their reading self-efficacy were not apparent thus inferences were made regarding how
participants felt about an activity or selected reading material during the intervention based on
the observable behaviors and triangulation of data collected during the study.
The types of instruments used in the study and current context also presented limitations
to the study. The pictorial Likert-scale used could have presented limitations to the study
because the participants’ interpretations of the facial expressions could have been bias.
Limitations to the study also included the researcher’s biases about the curriculum and
instruments used during data collection. The data collection period consisted of six-weeks which
presented a limitation to the length of the study. The ways in which the activity-based lessons
were defined, constructed, delivered, understood and utilized presented additional limitations to
the study. The researcher purchased materials for the study and the limited resources for the
activity-based lessons presented a limitation to lessons delivered and the intervention. The
classroom environment and school culture were also limitations to the study because there was a
deviance from the normal classroom culture and routine in which the researcher created an
autonomous student-centered environment during the after-school intervention. The school
culture and classroom climate were not authorized to be included in the study. However, both
influenced the students’ perceptions, reading behaviors, reading attitudes and self-efficacy. In
particular, the different classroom environments presented limitations to the study because the
students received reading instruction from different teachers. The participants expressed
different reading experiences in school that impact their reading behaviors, reading attitudes and
self-efficacy.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 193

Data was collected from one school site and two different classrooms. The small size of
the population (n=5) also prohibited the study’s results from being generalizable. The population
was generally lower-socioeconomic class and all Black males. The subjects in the study
represented various levels of reading abilities and had distinct perceptions about their reading
abilities, self- efficacy and may have had their own biases. Their reading behaviors and reading
attitudes were very different. In addition, though the participants volunteered to participate and
received parental consent, it is possible that the sample population was limited in that students
could only participate if they had transportation after-school and could remain beyond the
normal school day. Lastly, this study only captured student perceptions and did not collect data
from their parents or teachers which perhaps could have added validation or refuted participants
perceived reading behaviors, reading attitudes and self-efficacy.

Recommendations for Further Research
Research in the area of literacy learning and reading development are important to extend
educators’ knowledge base and improve pedagogical practices. The purpose of this study was to
examine the relationship between second-grade students’ perceptions of reading self-efficacy,
reading attitudes and reading behaviors who engage in activity-based learning. In doing so, the
researcher hoped to illuminate the value of activity-based instructional methods in reading
classrooms. This approach assures that students’ cognitive and affective needs are met.
Findings underscore the complex nature of elements that have an impact on the reading process
and the intricacies associated with measuring, observing and analyzing reading behaviors,
reading attitudes and reading self-efficacy.
Additional research in activity-based pedagogy. Results from this study indicate the
need for additional research in the area of activity-based pedagogy to determine additional
PLAY, READ, LEARN 194

effective instructional practices in the area of reading. A one-size-fits-all instructional approach
to teaching reading has not been an effective strategy to address the varied instructional needs of
young Black male students (Kunjufu, 1989; 2011). Further studies with a larger sample would
provide qualitative and quantitative data that would be able to be generalized to other student
populations. Specifically, more time, resources, staff, and research is needed in order to solidify
effective methods of reading instruction. The conclusions from this study demonstrated that
there are many benefits to children engaging in play-based learning. Sensitive and intentional
instructional methods of teaching reading are essential for supporting student’s reading
development and continued progress. The results of this study revealed the need for educational
leaders and reading teachers to revisit the organizational structure of classrooms, reading
instructional practices, curriculum, and materials being used to teach reading. Keeping abreast
on education-related issues including current and future research ensures that teachers are
consistently accessing research findings that can enhance their instructional practices to meet the
needs of diverse learners in the classroom (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss & Shapley, 2007).
Goal setting. This study only captured student perceptions. Another area to be
considered in future research would be the exploration of second grade Black male students
reading self-efficacy as it relates to reading goals set by themselves verses goals set exclusively
by their teachers. This information could affect the degree to which certain motivational
influences affect achievement reading, engagement levels, persistence, and effort. These
motivational factors could add to the body of knowledge about intrinsic and extrinsic motivators
for reading as it relates to students’ achievement, persistence and progress in reading. In
addition, identifying what types of strategies highly effective teachers use in classrooms to
PLAY, READ, LEARN 195

contribute to Black males self-efficacy, persistence and levels of engagement would be an area to
conduct further research.
Implications For Professional Practice
What will happen to young Black male students’ attitudes as they grow older? As second
graders, they felt positively about reading. If they are not provided with sufficient opportunities
to enjoy the activity of reading now, these attitudes will surely be lost. Researchers reported that
that children often become less motivated to read and often develop negative reading attitudes
and beliefs as they progress through elementary school (McKenna et al., 1995; Wigfield, 1997).
For these students, and others like them, the answer lies in the development of opportunities for
meaningful learning experiences, progressive classroom libraries and active teaching instruction
that motivates students to persist and take control of their learning process. There are several
implications for professional practice that have emerged through the findings and discussion
sections of this study. All of these are embedded in and connected to current research.
Establish a purpose for reading. It is critical that all children during their early
formative years learn the value reading so that they will become active avid readers (Fractor et
al., 1993). If children value reading they will have a positive attitude towards reading and want
to read instead of viewing reading as a task enforced upon them by their parents and teachers. It
is important that educators work to ensure that all assigned reading and literacy activities are
meaningful and purposeful (Roskos & Christie, 2004). When children have a purpose for
reading, the value of reading is positively increased which also impacts their reading attitudes,
reading behaviors and confidence as a reader (Fractor et al., 1993).
Bridging home and school. Parents are the primary teachers of literacy to their children
and parental involvement is a way to increase a child’s opportunities for academic success.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 196

(Bissett, 1969; Elley, 1992; Heywood & Stagg-Peterson, 2007; Krashen, 1993; LeMoine et al.,
1997; Trelease, 1995). School leaders and teachers must continue to develop effective methods
to bridge the literacy learning experiences of the home and school in order to increase a child’s
overall academic ability (Hallgarten, 2000). The approaches academic between home and school
should be seamless (Irvine, 2003). Parental involvement in a child’s education does not
guarantee success. However, research does support the notion that parents play a vital role in a
child’s early years of literacy development and reading skills (Irvine, 2003; Sukhram & Hsu,
2012). Parents can promote early literacy skill development in their children through: (a)
reading aloud to them daily; (b) by encouraging their children to read independently daily; (c)
engaging in play and storytelling; and (d) visiting the library (Cunningham & Neuman, 2009;
Fiester, 2010; Sonnenschein et al., 2010).
Black males’ perceptions of how reading makes them feel internally were conveyed
during this study. This may point to why second-grade Black boys would want to read less often
during their free time and why their recreational reading attitudes differed from their academic
reading attitudes. It is important for parents and teachers to be aware of these reasons, and
provide encouraging feedback, especially since a great deal of feedback comes from teachers and
parents provide feedback at home. It is important that children maintain high self-perceptions of
their reading ability, since children’s perceptions of their reading ability were significantly
related to their reading attitudes and reading behaviors. Teachers and parents can also work on
children’s perceptions of how they feel when they read and how they perceive their reading
ability in comparison to their classmates and help foster positive feelings and attitudes about
reading.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 197

Align curriculum with effective pedagogical practices. Educational leaders and
teachers continue to debate the best ways to teach children to read and the merits of direct skills
instruction verses activity-based instructional methods. Educational policy can be an instrument
for improving teaching and learning (Cohen & Hill, 2001). Building a positive attitude towards
reading and self-efficacy must be done in tandem with cognitive development practices (Dewey,
1916). With the recent release of Common Core Standards, it is important that teachers’ literacy
instructional practices involve a variety of student-centered, hands-on activities to engage all
learners (Bingham et al., 2010). It is also recommended that future educational leaders and
teachers work together to create print rich environments that engage children in rigorous,
meaningful, hands-on, literacy activities to foster mastery experiences, positive reading attitudes
and the belief that they can be successful readers both in and outside of the classroom.
Continuous teacher professional development. Literacy is comprised of five
components including phonological awareness, phonic, fluency, vocabulary, and reading
comprehension. Each component of literacy should be integrated meaningfully to create a solid
foundation for early literacy development (Carroll et al., 2011). The findings from this study
indicate the need for increased teacher professional development around the integration of
literacy and play-based learning. Specifically, this study highlights the need for educators to
understand the cohesiveness of the five components of literacy and how to adequately infuse
them into activity-based instruction that leads to increased students’ overall reading
achievements. Professional development plays a vital role in the classroom and should be used
to create learning experiences that help teachers translate theory into practice (Yoon et al., 2007).
When professional development is directly connected to the curriculum that is being
implemented, it is more likely to lead to a change in teaching practices (Cohen & Hill, 2001).
PLAY, READ, LEARN 198

With dynamic thinking, educators can provide students with challenging, engaging, and
meaningful classroom experiences. High-quality professional development should: (a)
encourage active learning; (b) contain adequate duration; (c) involve collective teacher
participation; and (d) focus on content knowledge and skills that help improve classroom
instruction and increase student reading achievement (Yoon et al., 2007).
Access to varied reading material. All children need access to a variety of books and
reading materials and should have access to print rich environments including at home, in
schools, and in their community. A print rich environment encompassing stimulating reading
materials and engaging literacy activities that capture children's interest create opportunities for
children to explore their natural world. Flooding classrooms with random reading materials and
reading activities is not a recommendation. Rather, this study conveyed that activity-based
experiences created opportunities for students’ to self-select text based on their interests which
positively enhanced their reading behaviors, reading attitudes and, self- efficacy. There is a
critical need for the inclusion of many intentional and thoughtful reading materials both in the
recreational and academic reading settings. If children are frequently given choice in their
reading materials, perhaps a greater and statistically significant difference would develop over
time as children’s’ feelings on the continuum of reading attitude would progress toward the
positive end (McKenna, 1994).
Conclusions
This study set out to address how the implementation of an activity-based intervention
influences second-grade Black males reading attitudes, reading behaviors and self-efficacy. Both
the quantitative and qualitative findings add to the dialogue focused on addressing the
discrepancy between what researchers have suggested are effective reading pedagogical practices.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 199

The data generated about Black male students’ reading attitudes, self-efficacy and reading
behaviors through their participation in an activity-based intervention can be used to improve
literacy achievement outcomes for second-grade Black males. Educators must offer second-grade
Black males access to meaningful learning experiences to ensure that their individual needs and
interests are being addressed while simultaneously delivering effective reading instruction.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 200

References
Agyemang, C., Bhopal, R., Bruijnzeels, M. (2005). Negro, Black, Black African, African
Caribbean, African American or what? Labelling African origin populations in the health
arena in the 21
st
century. Journal of Epidermal Community Health, 59, 1014-1018.
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P., Aldrich, N., & Tenebaum. H. (2011). Does discovery-based learning
enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1-18.
Doi:10.1037/a002017
Allington, R., & Walmsley, S. (1995). No quick fix: Rethinking literacy program in America’s
elementary schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Anderson, M.A., Tollefson, N.A., & Gilbert, E.C. (1985). Giftedness and reading: A cross-
sectional view of differences in reading attitudes and behaviors. Gifted Child Quarterly,
29, 186-189.
Anderson, V. (1992). A teacher development project in transactional strategy instruction for
teachers of severely reading-disabled adolescents. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8(4),
391-403.
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2003). A child becomes a reader: Birth through
preschool. Washington, DC: Partnership for Reading (National Institute for Literacy,
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U.S. Department of
Education). Retrieved December 10, 2013 from www.nifl.gov
Ball, A. (2006). Multicultural strategies for education and social change: Carriers of the torch
in the United States and South Africa. New York: Teacher College Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 201

Bandura, A. (1978). The self-system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33 (4),
344-358.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self- efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37,
122-147.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman and Company.
Becker, W. (2001). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged: What we have learned
from research. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1, 31-52.
Begeny, J.C. (2011). Effects of the Helping Early Literacy with Practice Strategies (HELPS)
reading fluency program when implemented at different frequencies. School Psychology
Review, 40, 149-157.
Bennett, N., Wood, L., & Rogers, S. (1998). Teaching through play: teacher’s thinking and
classroom practice. PA: Open University Press.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional change.
Change, January/February, 45-52.

Bickel, R., & Maynard, A. S. (2004). Group and interaction effects with "no child left behind":
Gender and reading in a poor, Appalachian District. Education Policy Analysis Archives ,
1-23.
Bingham, G., Hall-Kenyon, K., & Culatta, B. (2010). Systematic and engaging early
literacy: Examining the effects of paraeducator implemented early literacy
instruction. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32(1), 38-49.
Bissett, D. (1969). The amount and effect of recreational reading in selected fifth grade classes.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 202

Blachowicz, C. L., Fisher, P. J., Ogle, D., & Watts- Taffe, S. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions
from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 524-539.
Blaiklock, K. E. (2004). The importance of letter knowledge in the relationship between
phonological awareness and reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(1), 36-57. John
Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00213.x
Blair R, Savage R. (2006). Name writing but not environmental print recognition is related to
letter-sound knowledge and phonological awareness in pre-readers. Reading and Writing.
6 (19), 991–1016.
Block, C. C., & Mangieri, J. (2002). Recreational reading: 20 years later. The Reading Teacher,
55(6), 572-580.
Bloodgood J. (1999). What’s in a name? Children’s name writing and literacy acquisition.
Reading Research Quarterly. 34, 42–367.
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and
why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bonawitz, E.B. (2009). The rational child: Theories and evidence in prediction, exploration, and
explanation. MIT PhD Thesis in Brain and Cognitive Sciences.
Bond, M.A., Hindman, A., & Wasik, B.A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy
intervention on head start children and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(1), 63-74.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 203

Boykin, A.W. (1994). Afrocultural expression and its implications for schooling. In E.R. Hollins,
J.E. King & W.C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a
knowledge base (pp. 243-256). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bredecamp, S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in early childhood
programs. (Rev. ed.). NW: NAEYC.
Broderick, M., Cheng, K.J, Dreyer, B.P, Forman, J.A, Mendelsohn, A.L, Mogilner, L.N., Moore,
T. & Weinstein, S.C. (2001). The impact of a clinic-based literacy intervention on
language development in inner-city preschool children. Journal of the American
Academy of Pediatrics. 107(1), 129-134.
Bodrova, E., Leong, D. J. & Paynter, D. E. (1999). Literacy standards for preschool learners.
Educational Leadership, 57, 2, 42-46.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early
childhood education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bogard, K & Takanishi, R. (2005). PK-3: An aligned and coordinated approach to education for
children 3 to 8 years old. Social Policy Report, 19(3), 3-22.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Markman, L.B. (2005). The contribution of parenting to ethnic and racial
gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 15(1).
Brown, R. (2008). The road not yet taken: A transactional strategies approach to comprehension
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 538-547. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/203287794?accountid=14749
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duiguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher. 18, 32-4.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 204

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation
of transactional strategies instruction with previously low-achieving second-grade
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.
Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1962). Introduction. In L. S. Vygotsky, Thought and language (pp. v-xiii).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton.
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1-21.
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-
American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention.
American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743-772.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct instruction reading
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Carroll, J.M, Bowyer-Crane, C., Duff, F.J., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. (2011). Theoretical
Framework: Foundations of learning to read. Developing Language and Literacy:
Effective Intervention in the Early Years. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction.
Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
Chard, D.J. and Pikulski, J.J. (2005). Fluency: bridge between decoding and reading
comprehension. International Reading Association, 510-519.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 205

Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions
for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406.
Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for
differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105
Christie, J. (1991). Psychological research on play: Connections with early literacy development.
In J. Christie (Ed.), Play and earlv literacy development (pp. 27-43). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Christie, J. F., & Enz, B. (1992). The effects of literacy play interventions on preschoolers' play
patterns and literacy development. Early Education and Development, 3, 205–20.
Chomsky, C. (1978). When you still can’t read in the third grade: After decoding, what? In S. J.
Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 13-30)? Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Clark, R., E., & Estes, F. (2008) Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clay, M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH:
Heineman.
Cleveland, K. P. (2011). Teaching boys who struggle in school: Strategies that turn
underachievers into successful learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Clifford, G. J. (1989). A Sisyphean task: Historical perspectives on writing and reading
instruction. In A. H. Dyson (Ed.), Collaboration through writing and reading (pp. 25–83).
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 206

Cohen, D. K. & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Coiro, J. (2012). Understanding Dispositions Towards Reading on the Internet. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(7), 645-648.

Coley, R. (2001). Differences in the gender gap: Comparisons across racial/ethnic groups in
education and work. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010a). Common Core State Standards for English
Language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf

Connor, D. & Baglieri, S. (2009). Tipping the scales: disability studies asks “How much
diversity can you take?” In S. Steinberg (Ed). Diversity and multiculturalism: A reader.
New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Conrad, N.K., Gong, Y., Sipp, L., & Wright, L. (2004). Using text talk as a gateway to culturally
responsive teaching. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 187-192. doi: 1082-
3301/04/0300-0187/0
Copple, C., & S. Bredekamp, eds. 2009. Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early
Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8. 3rd ed. Washington,
DC: NAEYC.
Costello, B. (2008). Where the education gender gap is leading America. Retrieved March 3,
2013, from http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/2008/dec08/gender-gap.html
Council of the Great City Schools. (2011). Beating the odds: Analysis of student performance on
state assessments and NAEP. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 207

Craig, H.K., Connor, C.M., Washington, J.A. (2003). Early positive predictors of later reading
comprehension for African American students: A preliminary investigation. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in School, 34, 31-43.
Craig, H.K., Thompson, C.A., Washington, J.A. (2004). Variable production of African
American English across oracy and literacy contexts. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in School, 35, 269-282.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cunningham, L. & Neuman, S.B. (2009). The impact of professional development and coaching
on early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational Research
Journal, 46(2), 532-566.
Dail, A.R., Payne, R.L. (2010). Recasting the role of family involvement in early literacy
development: A response to the NELP report. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 330-333.
Danziger, S.K., & Danziger, S.H. (2008). Childhood poverty in economics and public policy
contexts. In S. A. Neuman (Ed.), Educating the other America: Top experts tackle
poverty, literacy, and achievement in our schools, 19-39. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Darling- Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318- 3344.
Davis, J.E. (2003). Early schooling and academic achievement of African American males.
Urban Education, 38(5), 515-537.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 208

Deci, E.L. (1992). The relation of interest to the motivation of behavior: A self-determination
theory perspective. In K.A.Renninger & S.Hidi (Eds.), The role of interest in learning
and development (pp.43-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerace Erlbaum Associates.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The
New Press.
Delpit, L., & Dowdy, J. K. (2002). The Skin That We Speak: Thoughts On Language and Culture
in the Classroom. New York: The New Press.
Dembo, M. H. & Seli, H. (2013). Motivation and learning strategies for college success: A focus
on self-regulated learning. New York, NY. Routledge Publishers.
Demo, D.H. & Hughes, M. (1989). Self-perceptions of Black Americans: Self-esteem and
personal efficacy. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 132-159.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.
Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education. An introduction to the philosophy of education
(1966 edn.), New York: Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1933) How We Think. A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process (Revised edn.), Boston: D. C. Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Collier Books.
Diamond, K, Gerde, H, Powell, D. (2008). Development in early literacy skills during the pre-
kindergarten year in Head Start: Relations between growth in children’s writing and
understanding of letters. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 23, 467–478.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 209

Diamond L., Gutlohn L., & Honig B. (2000). Teaching reading sourcebook for kindergarten
through eighth grade. Novato, CA: Arena Press.
Diller, D. (2003). Literacy work stations: Making centers work. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Diller, D. (2006). Launching literacy stations: Mini lessons for managing and sustaining
independent work, K-3. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers.
Diller, D. (2007). Making the most of small groups: differentiation for all. Portland, Maine:
Stenhouse Publishers.
Dimmler, M. H. (2007). Parents’ Role in Promoting Academic Achievement: Parental
Expectations, Interpretation of School Feedback, and Achievement Supporting Practices
Psychology Department (Read this article to add in role parent section)
Dinkevich, E.I., Mulvihill, M., Ozuah, P.O, & Sharif, I. (2003). Impact of a brief literacy
intervention on urban preschoolers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(3), 177-180.
Dockett, S. & Fleer, M. (1999). Play and pedagogy in early childhood: Bending the rules .
Marrickville, New South Wales: Harcourt Brace.
Donahue, P. L., Finnegan, R. J., Lutkus, A. D., Allen, N. L., & Campbell, J. R. (2001). The
Nation's report card: Fourth-grade reading 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved December 13, 2001, from
http://nces.ed.gov/naep3/pdf/main2000/2001499.pdf
Douglass, F. (1845). Narrative life of Fredrick Douglass an American slave. Available from
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Narrative_of_the_Life_of_Frederick_Douglass,_An_Ameri
can_Slave/Chapter_2
PLAY, READ, LEARN 210

Duckworth, E. R. (1987). "The having of wonderful ideas" & other essays on teaching &
learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
Duke, N.K., & Carlisle, J. (2011). The Development of Comprehension. Handbook of Reading
Research, IV, 199-228.
Eitle, T.M. (2002). Special education or racial segregation: understanding variation in the
representation of Black students in educable mentally handicapped programs. The
Sociological Quarterly, 43(4), 575-605.
Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the world do students read? Hamburg, Germany: International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. New
York: Irvington Publishers. Direct Instruction | 2
Engelmann, S., Becker, W., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (1989). Corrective Reading-Series Guide.
USA: McMillan McGraw Hill.
Engelmann, S., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (2002). Corrective reading. Columbus, OH:
SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Engelmann, S., Meyer, L., Carnine, L., Becker, W., Eisele, J., & Johnson, G. (1998).Corrective
reading decoding level B: Decoding strategies. Columbus, OH: Science Research
Associates (SRA). P. 38
Englemann, K. (2004). Direct instruction model (K-8). In J. Raphael (Ed.), The catalog of school
reform models. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved
February 19, 2013, from
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/catalog/ModelDetails.asp?modelID=13
PLAY, READ, LEARN 211

Engelmann, S. (1980). Direct instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Erikson, E.H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.
Feister, L. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of the third grade matters. Baltimore,
MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from:
http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/123/2010KCSpecRepor
t/AEC_report_color_highres.pdf
Ferguson, R. F. (2002). What doesn't meet the eye: Understanding and addressing racial
disparities in high-achieving suburban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University,
John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Ferreiro, E. & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Fitzgerald, J. & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and their development.
Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39-50.
Fink, A. 2013. How to conduct surveys: a step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Sage, Chichester.
Ford, D. Y, & Grantham, T C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students:
From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42, 217-225.
Foorman, B.R. & Connor, C.M. (2011). Primary Grade Reading. Handbook of Reading
Research, IV, 136- 156.
Frey, B. B., Lee, S. W., Tollefson, N., Pass, L., Massengill, D. (2005). Balanced literacy in an
urban school district. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(5), 272-280.
Fractor, J.S., Woodruff, M.C., Martinez, M.G., & Teale, W.H. (1993). Let’s not miss
opportunities to promote voluntary reading: Classroom libraries in the elementary school.
The Reading Teacher. 46, 476-485.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 212

Froebel, F. (1897). Pedagogics of the kindergarten. (J. Jarvis, Trans.). London: Appleton.
Frost, J. L., Wortham, S., & Reifel, S. (2005). Play and child development. (Rev. ed.) Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Gadsden, V. (1991). Literacy and the African American Learner. Theory into Practice, 31(4),
275.
Gambrell, L. (1996). Creating classrooms cultures that foster reading motivation. The Reading
Teacher, 50, 4-25.
Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2007). Evidence-based best practices for
comprehension literacy instruction. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow & M. Pressley
(Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (Vol. 3, pp. 11-29). New York: Guilford.
Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A. 2006. "Equality of Educational Opportunity: A 40 Year
Perspective." Pp. 3-27. Education and Equity: International Perspectives on Theory and
Policy. Richard Teese, Stephen Lamb and Marie Duru-Bellat, editors. Springer.
Ganschow, L., Miller, K., Sparks, R., Javorsky, J., Philips, L., Evers, T., Schneider, E., &
Turner, B. (2000). Working with struggling foreign language learners in different
languages: Issues and solutions. The International Dyslexia Association Annual
Conference, Washington DC.
Gandara P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of failed
social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Garcia, G. (2002). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 3-39.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 213

Garcia, G.E., & Pearson, P.D. (1991). The role of assessment in a diverse society. In E.H.
Hiebert (ed.), Literacy for a diverse society (pp. 253-278). New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University.
Gardner, R. III, & Mayes, R. D. (2013). African American learners. Preventing School Failure,
57(1), 22–29.
Gaskins, I. W. (2003). “A Multidimensional Approach to Beginning Literacy.” Literacy and
Young Children: Research-Based Practices. The Guilford Press.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Gee, J.P., (2008). Discourses and literacies. In J. P. Gee. Social Linguistics ad Literacies:
Ideology in Discourses. Routledge, NY, 150-180.
Gersten, R., (1985). Direct instruction with special education students: A review of evaluation
research. The Journal of Special Education, 19(1), 41-58.
Gersten, R., Darch, C., & Gleason, M. (1988). Effectiveness of a direct-instruction academic
kindergarten for low-income students. Elementary School Journal, 89, 227–240.
Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct instruction: A research-based approach to
curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53(1), 17-31.

Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Woodward, J. (1987). Direct instruction research: The third decade.
Remedial and Special Education, 8(6), 48-56.
Getzel, J.W. (1956). The nature of reading interest. Developing Permanent Interest in Reading.
Supplementary Educational Monographs, 84, 5-9. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 214

Gibbs, J. T. (1988). Young, black, and male in America: An endangered species. Westport, CT.:
Auburn House Paperback.
Gill, S. (2008). The Comprehension Matrix: A Tool for Designing Comprehension Instruction.
The Reading Teacher, 62(2), 106-113. Retrieved February 5, 2013, from Research
Library Core. (Document ID: 1575025341).
Gjems, L. (2010). Teachers talking to young children: Invitations to negotiate meaning in
everyday conversations. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(2),
139–148.
Glasser, W. (1992). The Quality School. New York: Harper Collins.
Glasser, W. (1997). A new look at school failure and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, 596(7).
Goffreda, C.T., Diperna, J.C., & Pedersen, J.A. (2009). Preventive screening for early readers:
Predictive validity of the dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS).
Psychology in the Schools, 46(6), 539-552.
Good, R.H, Gruba, J. & Kaminski, R.A. (2001). Best practices in using dynamic indicators of
basic early literacy skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J.
Good, R.H. III, & Kaminski, R.A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement.
Good, T.L. (1983). Recent classroom research: Implications for teacher education. In D.C. Smith
(Ed.), Essential Knowledge for Beginning Educators. Washington, DC: American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Grant, R., Guthrie, J.T., Bennet, L., Rice, M.E., & McGough, K. (1994). Developing engaged
readers through concept-oriented instruction. The Reading Teacher, 47(4), 338 – 340.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 215

Greaney, V., & Hegarty, M. (1987). Correlates of leisure-time reading. Journal of Research in
Reading, 10(1), 3-20.
Greenwood, C.R., Bradfield, T., Kaminiski, R., Linas, M., Carta, J.J., Nylander D. (2011). The
response to intervention (RTI) approach in early childhood education. Focus On
Exceptional Children, 43(9), 1-24.
Grossen, B. (1997). 30 Years of research: What we know about how children learn to read.
Retrieved March 2, 2013, from http://www.cftl.org/30years/30years.html
Guastello, E. F., & Lenz, C. (2005). Student accountability: Guided reading kid stations. The
Reading Teacher, 59(2), 144-156. Retrieved February 5, 2013, from ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/203277991?accountid=14749
Guthrie, J.W. & Springer, M. G. (2004). A nation at risk revisited: Did “wrong” reasoning result
in “right” results? At what cost? Peabody Journal of Education, 79 (1), 7-35.
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K.C. (2004). Motivating reading comprehension:
Concept-oriented reading instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hall, M., Ribovich, J. K. (1973). Teach reading in reading situations. Reading Teacher, 27,163-
66.
Hallgarten, J. (2000). Parents exist, OK!? Issues and visions for parent-school relationships.
London: The Institute for Public Policy Research.
Han, M., Moore, N., Vukelich, C., & Buell, M. (2010). Does play make a difference? Effects of
play intervention on at-risk preschoolers' vocabulary learning. American Journal of Play,
3, 82–105.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 216

Hardman, M.A. & Jones, L. (1999) Sharing books with babies: Evaluation of an early literacy
intervention. Educational Review, 51 (3) 221-229.
Harry, B. & Anderson, M. (1994). The disproportionate placement of African American males in
special education programs: A critique of the process. The Journal of Negro Education,
63(4), 602-619.
Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters. Education Trust: Washington, DC.

Hempenstall, K. (1996). The gulf between educational research and policy: The
example of Direct Instruction and Whole Language. Behaviour Change, 13,
33-46.
Hempenstall, K. (1999). The gulf between educational research and policy: The
example of Direct Instruction and whole language. Effective School
Practices, 18(1), 15-29.
Hemphill, L. & Tivnan, T. (2008). The Importance of Early Vocabulary for Literacy
Achievement in High- Poverty Schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 12(4), 426-451.
Henk, W.A., & Melnick, S.A. (1992). The initial development of a scale to measure “perception
of self as reader”. In C.K. Kiner & D.J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and
practice: Views from many perspectives, Forty-first Yearbook of the National Reading
Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference, 111-117.
Henk,W.A., & Melnick, S.A.(1995).The reader self-perception scale (RSPS): A new tool for
measuring how children feel about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48, 470-
482.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 217

Heydon, R., Hibbert, K., Iannacci, L. (2004). Strategies to Support Balanced Literacy
Approaches in Pre- and Inservice Teacher Education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 48(4), 312-319.
Heywood, D., Stagg-Peterson, S. (2007). Contributions of families’ linguistic, social, and
cultural capital to minority-language children’s literacy: parents’, teachers’, and
principals’ perspectives. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(4), 517-538.
Hilden, K., & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 51-75.
Hillerich, R.L. (1976). ‘Toward an Assessable Definition of Literacy’. The English Journal,
65(2), 50-55.
Hirsch, E. S. (1996). The block book (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. (2003). The great balancing act: Optimizing core ccurricula
through playful pedagogy. E. Zigler, S. Barnett, & W. Gilliam (Eds.) The preschool
education debates.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., Berk, L., & Singer, D. (2008). A Manifesto for playful learning
in preschool: Presenting the scientific evidence. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Hochschild, J. & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. Oxford,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Hylton, P. L. & Miller, H. (2004). Now that we've found love what are we gonna do with it? A
narrative understanding of black identity. Theory & Psychology, 14 (2), 373-408.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 218

Irvine, J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity. Seeing with a cultural eye. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Isenberg, N., & Quisenberry, N. (2002). Play: Essential for all children. Childhood Education,
79, 33-39.
Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading”: A survey of what makes students w ant to
read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 350-377.
Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. R, & Yawkey, T. D. (1987). Play and early childhood development.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Yawkey, T. D. (1999). Play and early childhood development
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Jones, B., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1994). Designing learning and
technology for educational reform. Oak Brook, IL. North Central Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first
through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437-447.
Kaderavek, J. N., & Justice, L. M. (2004). Embedded-explicit emergent literacy intervention II:
Goal selection and implementation in the early childhood classroom. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 212-228.
Kagan, S. & Lowenstien, A.E. (2004). School readiness and children’s play: Contemporary
oxymoron or compatible option? In E.F.Zigler, D.G.Singer & S.J. Bishop-Josef (Eds.).
Children’s play: The roots of reading. (pp. 59-76). Washington, D.C. Zero to Three
Presses.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 219

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2001). Learner experience and efficiency of
instructional guidance. Educational Psychology, 21, 5–23.
Kaplan, S. N. (2009). Myth 9: There is a single curriculum for the gifted. The Gifted Child
Quarterly, 53(4), 257-258. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/212084499?accountid=14749
Karpov, Y.V., Haywood H.C. (1998). Two Ways to Elaborate Vygotsky’s Concept of
Mediation; Implications for Instruction. American Psychologist, 53 (1), 27-36.
Kazelskis, R., Thames, D., Reeves, C., Flynn, R., Taylor, L., Beard, L. A., & Turnbo, D. (2005).
Reliability and stability of elementary reading attitude survey (ERAS) Scores across
gender, race and grade level. The Professional Educator, 27(1), 29-37.
Klauda, S.L. & Guthrie, J.T. (2008). Relationship of three components of reading fluency to
reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100 (2), 310-321.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO: Libraries
Unlimited, Inc.
Kunjufu, J. (1989). Critical issues in educating African American youth. Chicago: African
American Images.
Kunjufu, J. (2000). Developing positive self-images and discipline in Black children. Chicago:
African American Images.
Kunjufu, J. (2005). Countering the conspiracy to destroy Black boys. Chicago: African
American Images.
Kunjufu, J. (2011). Understanding Black male learning styles. Chicago: African American
Images.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 220

Kush, J.C., & Watkins, M.W. (1996). Long-term stability of children’s attitudes toward reading.
The Journal of Educational Research, 89(5), 315-319.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, J. (1974). Towards a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Langer, J. A., & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive tasks.
Indrisano, Roselmina; Squire, James R. (eds.) Perspectives on writing: research, theory,
and practice. Newark: International Reading Association.
Langer, J.A. (1987). A sociocognitive perspective on literacy. In J.A. Langer, Language,
literacy, and culture: Issues of society and schooling (pp.1-20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lave, J. & Winger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1996). Teaching, as learning, in practice. Mind. Culture, and Activity. 3. 149-165.
LeMoine, N., O’Brian, B., Brandlin, E., & McQuillan, J. (1997). The (print) rich get richer:
Library access in low and high achieving schools. The California Reader. 30, 23-25
Leonhardt, M. (1993). Parents who love reading, kids who don't. New York: Crown Publishers,
Inc.
Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313, 1893-
1894.
Linn, R. L., (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 221

Lyons. W. & Thompson, S. A. (2011). Guided reading in inclusive middle years classrooms.
Intervention in School and Clinic January, 47: 158-166, Retrieved on February 4, 2013
doi:10.1177/1053451211423814
Mandara, J., & Murray, C. B. (2002). Development of an empirical typology of African
American family functioning. Journal of Family Psychology,16, 318–337.
Matthews, J.S., Kizzie, K. T., Rowley, S. J. (2010). African Americans and boys: Understanding
the literacy gap, tracing academic trajectories, and evaluating the role of learning- related
skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (3), 757-771.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Maylor, U. (2009). What is the meaning of ‘black’? Researching ‘black’ respondents. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 32(2), 369-387.
McClurg, S. (2009). Increasing middle school student achievement in reading and language arts
with project-based learning methods of instruction. (Order No. 3342458, Walden
University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,119. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/276075080?accountid=14749. (276075080).
McDowell, J. A. (1993). The argument for and measurement of disposition toward reading.
University of Miami). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses,, 116-116 p. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304058798?accountid=14749. (304058798).
McGee, L. M, & Richgels, D. J. (2003). Designing early literacy program: Strategies for at-risk
preschool and kindergarten children. New York: A Division of Guilford Press Inc.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 222

McKenna, M.C. (1994). Toward a model of reading attitude acquisition. In E.H. Cramer & M.
Castle (Eds.), Fostering the life-long love of reading: The affective domain in reading
education (pp. 18 – 40). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
McKenna, M.C. (2001). Development of reading attitudes. In L. Verhoeven & C.E. Snow (Eds.),
Literacy motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp.135 – 158).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McKenna, M.C. & Kear, D.J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for
teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(9), 626-639.
McKenna, M.C., Kear, D.J., & Ellsworth, R.A. (1995). Children’s attitude toward reading: A
national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934-956.
McLeod, S. A. (2007). Pavlov's Dogs. Retrieved on February 8, 2014 from
http://www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html
McNamara, D.S., Kinstch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text
coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-287.
Meckley, A. (2002). Observing children’s play: Mindful methods. Paper presented at the meeting
of the International Toy Research Association. London, England.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. 2nd ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Montessori, M. (1917). The advanced Montessori method: Spontaneous activity in education.
Frederick A. Stokes Company.
Montessori, M. (1995). The absorbent mind (1st ed.). New York: Henry Holt.
Morrow, L. M., & Rand, M. K. (1990). Preparing the classroom environment to promote literacy
during play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 537- 554.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 223

Morrow, L. M., & Rand, M. K. (1991). Promoting literacy during play by designing early
childhood classroom environments. The Reading Teacher, 44, 6, 396-402.
Muter, V. and Diethelm, K. (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and letter knowledge
to early reading development in a multilingual population. Language Learning, 51: 187–
219. doi: 10.1111/1467-9922.00153
Nadolski, R.J., Kirschner, P.A., & Van Merriënboer, J.J.G. (2005). Optimizing the number of
steps in learning tasks for complex skills. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,
223-237.
Nash-Ditzel, S. (2010). Metacognitive reading strategies can improve self-regulation. Journal of
College Reading and Learning, 40(2), 45-63.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Retrieved from National Center for Education
Statistics website: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2009455.pdf
National Education Association. (2011, February). Focus on blacks. Retrieved March 2, 2013,
from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/educatingblackboys11rev.pdf
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.
Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.
National Reading Panel (U.S.). (2000). Report of the national reading panel : Teaching children
to read : An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading
and its implications for reading instruction. United States.
Nelson, N., & Calfee, R. C. (Eds.). (1998). The reading-writing connection. 97th yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: National Society for the Study of
Education.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 224

Neuman, S.B., & Roskos, K. (1992). Literacy objects as cultural tools: Effects on children's
literacy behaviors in play. Reading Research Quarterly. 27, 184-201.
Neuman, S.B., & Roskos, K. (1997). Literacy knowledge in practice: Contexts of participation
for young writers and readers. Reading Research Quarterly. 32, 10-32.
Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2005). The state of state prekindergarten standards. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 125-145.
Newell, R.J. (2003). Passion for learning: how project based learning meets the needs of 21st
century students. Lanham, MD and Oxford, England: Scarecrow Press.
Newman, D. M. (2005). Identities and inequalities: Exploring the intersections of race, class,
gender, and sexuality. : McGraw-Hill
Newmann, F. M. & Wehlage G. G. (1995). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational
Leadership, 50(7), 8-12.
No Child Left Behind. (n.d.). Is your child being left behind? Retrieved March 5, 2013, from
http://www.nochildleftbehind.com/
Noguera, P. A. (2008). The trouble with black boys and other reflections on race, equity and the
future of public education. San Francisco, CA US: Jossey-Bass.
North Carolina State University. (2002). Getting a grip on project based learning. Retrieved
from http://www.ncsu.edu.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005). Constructivist model for learning.
Retrieved from www.ncrel.org.
Ogbu, J. U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic
disengagement. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. (ED 476 118).
Pajares, F., (2006) Self-efficacy, The Gale Group, www.education.com
PLAY, READ, LEARN 225

Palacios, L.M. (1998). Foreign language anxiety and classroom environment: A study of Spanish
university students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.
Palmer, B.M., Codling, R. M., & Gambrell, L.B. (1994). In their own words: What elementary
students have to say about motivation to read. The Reading Teacher. 48, 176-178.
Palmer, B. C., Leiste, S. M., James, K. D., & Ellis, S. M. The role of storytelling in effective
family literacy programs. Reading Horizons ,41 (2), 93-103.
Paratore, J.R., Cassano, C.M., & Schickedanz, J.A. (2011). Supporting early (and later) literacy
development at home and at school. Handbook of Reading Research, 4, 107-135.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2009). The role of play in human development. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Galda, L. (1990). Children's play, language, and early literacy. Topics in
Language Disorders, 10, 76–88.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Piaget, J. (1962). Commentary on Vygotsky's criticisms. New Ideas in Psychology, 13, 325-40.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Orion Press.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 226

Pogorzelski, S., & Wheldall, K. (2002). Do differences in phonological processing performance
predict gains made by older low-progress readers following intensive literacy
intervention? Educational Psychology, 22, 413-427.
Popham, W.J. (2009). Assessing student affect. Educational Leadership, 66(8), 85–86.
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards : The new
U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.
Prager, K. (2011). Addressing achievement gaps: Positioning young Black boys educational
success. Policy Evaluation & Research Center, 19(3), 1-15.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3
rd
ed.).
New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P.B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J.L., Almasi, J. (1992). Beyond
direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. The
Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513-555.
Pressley, M., Roehrig, A., Bogner, K., Raphael, L. M., & Dolezal, S. (2002). Balanced literacy
instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(5), 1. Retrieved March 4, 2012, from
Education Module. (Document ID: 109940187).
Pruisner, P. (2009). Moving beyond no child left behind with the merged model for reading
instruction. TechTrends, 53(2), 41-47. DOI:10.1007/s11528-009-0267-9
Puranik, C. & Lonigan C. (2011). From scribbles to scrabble: Preschool children’s developing
knowledge of written language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 24,
567–589.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 227

Puranik, C. & Lonigan, C. (2012). Name-writing writing proficiency, not length of name, is
associated with preschool children’s emergent literary skills. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 27(2), 284-294.
Puranik C., Lonigan C., & Kim Y. (2011). Contributions of emergent literacy skills to name
writing, letter writing, and spelling in preschool children. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly. (in press). 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.03.002
Randall, J.R. Jennifer, L.B., & Silberg, A. (2006). Longitudinal study of direct instruction effects
from first through third grades. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 179-192.
Rasinski, T.V. (2012). Why Reading fluency should be hot! The Reading Teacher, 65 (8), 516-
522.
Rasinski, T., Padak, N.D., & Fawcett, G. (2010).Teaching children who find reading difficult (4
th

ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Rasinski, T.V., Reutzel, D. R., Chard, D., Linan-Thompson, S. (2011). Reading Fluency.
Handbook of Reading Research, IV, 286-319.
Ravitch, D. (1985). The schools we deserve. New York: Basic Books.
Reutzel, D.R., Smith, J.A. & Fawson, P. (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching
reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 276-305.
Reynolds, A. J. (1989). A structural model of first-grade outcomes for an urban, low socio-
economic status, minority population. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 594–603.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 228

Reynolds, A. J. (1992). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their
effects on academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,7, 441–
462.
Reynolds, G. M. (2002). Identifying and eliminating the achievement gaps: A research-based
approach. Viewpoints, 9, 3-11.
Richards, H.C. & Bear, G.G. (1986, April). Attitudes toward school subjects of academically
unpredictable elementary school children. Paper presented at the meeting of the
American educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Richards, C., Pavri, S., Goiez, F., Canges, R., & Murphy, J. (2007). Response to intervention:
building the capacity of teachers to serve students with learning difficulties. Issues in
Teacher Education, 16(2), 55-64. doi: 20080708
Rodriguez-Brown, F.V. (2011). Family literacy: A current view of research on parents and
children learning together. Handbook of Reading Resarch, IV, 726-753.
Roettger, D. (1980). Elementary students'attitudes toward reading. The Reading Teacher, 22,
451-453.
Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind.
Culture, and Activity, 1, 209-229.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary
work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press; (1994). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
Press.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory Into Practice,
21(4), 268-277.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 229

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1991). Literature—S.O.S. Language Arts, 68, 444-448.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1995). Literature as exploration (5th ed.). New York: Modern Language
Association.
Rosenblatt, L. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R.B. Ruddell & N. J.
Unrau (eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5
th
ed., pp. 1363-1398),
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rosenshine, B. V. (1983). "Teaching Functions in Instructional Programs." Elementary School
Journal, 83: 335-351.
Rosenshine, B. V. (1986). "Synthesis of Research on Explicit Teaching." Educational
Leadership, 43:60-69.
Rosenshine, B. & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In D. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Longman.
Roskos, K., & Christie, J. (2004). Examining the play-literacy interface: A critical review and
future directions. In E. F. Zigler, D. G. Singer, & S. J. Bishop-Josef (Eds.), Children's
play: Roots of reading (pp.95-123), Washington D.C.: Zero to Three Press.
Roskos, K.A., & Christie, J.F. (2011). Mindbrain and play-literacy connections Journal of Early
Childhood Literacy 11, 73-94.
Roskos, K. & Neuman, S.B. (1990). Play, print, and purpose: Enriching play environments for
literacy development. The Reading Teacher, 44(3), 214-221.
Roskos, K. & Neuman, S. B. (2013). Common Core, Commonplaces, and Community in
Teaching Reading. The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 469–473.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 230

Rowell, C. G. (1972). An attitude scale for reading. The Reading Teacher, 25, 442-447.
Rubenstein, L. D. (2011). "The first word: an interview with Sandra N. Kaplan--on promoting
academic acuity”. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22(3), 365.
Rueda, R., & Houghton Mifflin Company. (2006). Houghton Mifflin English. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Ryan, J. (2005). Young people choose: Adolescents’ text pleasures. Australian Journal of
Language and Literacy, 28(1), 38-47.
Salpeter, J. (2003). 21st century skills: Will our students be prepared? Technology & Learning,
24(3), 17-18,20,22,24,26. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/212099794?accountid=14749
Saracho, O.N. (2002). Teachers’ role in supporting children’s literacy development through play.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94, 675-676.
Sameroff, A. J., & Mackenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for capturing transactional
models of development: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology,
15(3), 613-40. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/201696234?accountid=14749
Sameroff, A. J. (2009). The transactional model of development: How children and contexts
shape each other. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Samuels, S.J. (2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In S. Jay Samuels & Alan E. Farstrup
(Eds.), What Research Has To Say About Fluency Instruction (pp.159-178). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Schott Foundation. (2004). Public Education and Black Male Students. Cambridge, Mass.:
Schott Foundation.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 231

Schott Foundation. (2008). Given half a chance: The Schott 50 state report on public education
and Black males. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from
http://naacp.3cdn.net/e5524b7d7cf40a3578_2rm6bn7vr.pdf
Schott Foundation for Public Education (2010). Yes We Can: The 2010 Schott 50 State Report on
Black Males in Public Education. The 2010 Schott 50 State Report on Public Education
and Black Males.
Schulz, W. E., Bravi, G. (1986). Classroom learning environment in North American School.
Journal of American Indian Education, 26 (1).
Seefeldt, C. and Barbou, N. (1994). Early Childhood Education: An introduction. Toronto, Ont.:
Maxwell McMillan, 3rd ed.
Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among Oral Language, Reading, and Writing Development. In
MacArthur, Charles A.; Graham, Steve; Fitzgerald, Jill (eds.). Handbook of writing
research. (pp. 171-183). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. xi.
Simpson, M. L., Stahl, N. A., & Francis, M. A. (2004). Reading and learning strategies:
Recommendations for the 21st century. Journal of Developmental Education, 28 (2),
2-15.
Sims-Bishop, R. (1997). Opinion papers. Language arts, 75 (8), 630-634.
Shriver, E. K., (2006). Report of the national reading panel: teaching children to read. National
Institute of Child Health & Human Development.
Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Gallini, S., Simmons, A. D., & Feggins-Azziz, R. (2006).
Disparate access: The disproportionality of African American students with disabilities
across educational environments. Exceptional Children, 72, 411–424.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 232

Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Allyn and Bacon:
Needham Heights, MA.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what
we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 43-69.
Smith, A., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.,(2005). Pedagogies of Engagement:
Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education. January 2005.
Smith, M., & Wilhelm, J. (2002). Reading Don't Fix No Chevys: Literacy In the Lives of Young
Men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Smith, T. W. (1992). Changing racial labels: From “Colored” to “Negro” to “Black” to “African-
American”. Public Opinion Journal, 56(4), 496-514.
Snow, C. E. (2000). On language and literacy development. Early Childhood Today, 15(2), 46.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding towards an R &D program in reading
comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Snowman, J., & Beihler, R. (2002). Psychology applied to teaching. New York, NY: Houghton
Mifflin.
Sonnenschein, S., Baker, L., & Serpell, R. (2010). Reading Psychology, 27, 1-20.
Spiegel, D. L. (1981). Reading for pleasure: Guidelines. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 233

Spira, E.G., Bracken, S. S., Fischel, J. E. (2005). Predicting Improvement After First-Grade
Reading Difficulties: The Effects of Oral Language, Emergent Literacy, and Behavior
Skills. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 225-234.
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Introduction. In B. Stecher & S. N. Kirby, Organizational
improvement and accountability: Lessons for education from other sectors. 1-7. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved February 19, 2013 from
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Stein, M. & Carnine, D. (1998). Direct instruction: Integrating curriculum design and effective
teaching practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 33, 227-234.
Stone, S. J. (1993). Playing: A kid's curriculum. Parsippany, NJ: GoodYear Books.
Stone, S. J. (2009). Language and literacy development through primary sociodramatic play.
Childhood Education, 86(2), 4-96G,96H,96I,96J. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/89071268?accountid=14749
Sukhram, D. P., & Hsu, A. (2012). Developing Reading Partnerships Between Parents and
Children: A Reflection on the Reading Together Program. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 40(2), 115 – 121.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taber, S. R. (1987). Current definitions of literacy. Journal of Reading, 30(5), 458-461.
Tatum, A.W. (2005). Teaching reading to black adolescent males: Closing the achievement gap.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 234

Tatum, A. (2006). Engaging African American males in reading. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from
http://www.kckps.org/teach_learn/pdf/group2/t_l6_engaging.pdf
Tatum, A.W. (2009). Reading for their life: (Re) Building the textual lineages of African
American adolescent males. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. (2009). African Americans show solid gains in all
academic degree levels. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from
http://www.jbhe.com/features/-64_degreelevels.html
Thernstrom, S., & Thernstrom, A. (2003). No excuses closing the racial gap in learning.
NewYourk: Simon & Schuster
Thomas, J.W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michaelson, A. (1999). Project based learning for middle
school teachers. Middle School Journal, 36 (2), 28-31.
Tivnan, T. & Hemphill, L. (2005). Comparing four literacy reform models in high-poverty
schools: Patterns of first-grade achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5),
419-441.
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist theory applied to instruction: Success
or failure? New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Torgesen, J.K. (1998). Catch them before they fall. Retrieved on October 11, 2011 from
http://www.readinghorizons.com/research/catch_them.aspx
Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and
models. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Trelease, J. (1995). The read-aloud handbook. New York: Penguin Books.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 235

Tyree, O. (2008). 12 Brown Boys. Just Us Books: Chicago. Upchurch, C. (1996). Convicted in
the womb: One man’s journey from prisoner to peacemaker (as cited in Helping
Struggling Students, 2006.
Uecker, C.W. & Gess-Newsome. (2008). Active learning strategies. The Science Teacher, 75(9),
47.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004, July 01). Four pillars of nclb. Retrieved March 5, 2013,
from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html
Vukelich, C. (1984). Parents' Role in the Reading Process: A Review of Practical Suggestions
and Ways to Communicate with Parents. The Reading Teacher, 37,6. 472-477.Retrieved
on March 6, 2013, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20198511
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. (1985). Correlates of reading achievement and attitude: A national
assessment study. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 159-167.
Wallbrown, F. H., & Cowger, D. (1982). Normative data for eight dimensions of reading
attitude, Part III: Suburban parochial school students. Psychology in the Schools. 19. 15-
18.
Washington, J.A.(2001). Early literacy skills in African-American children: Research
considerations. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4), 213-221.
Watkins, C., & Slocum, T. (2004). The components of Direct Instruction. In N. E. Marchand-
Martella, T. Slocun, & R. C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (pp. 28-
65). Boston: Alllyn and Bacon.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 236

Walczyk, J.J. & Griffith-Ross, D.A. (2007). How important is reading skill fluency for
comprehension? The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 560-569.
Weigel, D., Martin, S., & Bennett, K. (2006). Contributions of the home literacy environment to
preschool-aged children’s emerging literacy and language skills. Early Child
Development and Care, 176, 357–378.
Weisberg, D. S., Hirsh-Pasek, K. and Golinkoff, R. M. (2013), Guided Play: Where Curricular
Goals Meet a Playful Pedagogy. Mind, Brain, and Education, 7, 104–112.
Weiser, B. L., & Mathes, P. G. (2011). Using encoding instruction to improve the reading and
spelling performances of elementary students at-risk for literacy difficulties: A best-
evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 170-200.
doi:10.3102/0034654310396719
Welsch, J.G, Sullivan, A., & Justice, L.M. (2003). That’s my letter!: What preschooler’s name
writing representations tell us about emergent literacy knowledge. Journal of Literacy
Research, 35(2), 757-776.
Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine
first grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary
School Journal, 99(2), 101–128.
Whitehurst, G.J. & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child
Development(69) 3, 848-872. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/1132208.
Whitmore, K. F. & Crowell, C. G. (1994). Inventing a classroom: life in a bilingual, whole
language learning community. York, Maine, Stenhouse Publishers.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 237

Wittrock, M.C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24,
345-376.
Wittrock, M.C. (1991). Testing and recent research in cognition. In M.C. Wittrock and E.L.
Baker, Testing and Cognition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Willis, A. I. (2002) Literacy at Calhoun colored school. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1),
8-44.
Wireless Generation, Reading 3D Overview. Retrieved from
http://www.wirelessgeneration.com/assessment/mclass-reading3d/overview
Wolfgang, C. (1974). An exploration of the relationship between the cognitive area of reading
and selected developmental aspects of children’s play. Psychology in the Schools 11,
338–343.
Wolfgang, C.H., Stannard, L.L., & Jones, I. (2003). Advanced construction play with LEGOs
among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Early
Child Development and Care, 173,467-475.

Woodson, C. G. (1933). The miss-education of the Negro. History is a weapon. Retrieved on
February 5, 2013 from http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/misedne.html
Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Worthy, J., Turner, M., & Moorman, M. (1998). The precarious place of self-selected reading.
Language Arts, 75(4), 296-304.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 238

Yang, S.O. (2000). Guiding children’s verbal plan and evaluation during free play: An
application of Vygotsky’s genetic epistemology to the early childhood classroom. Early
Childhood Education Journal, 28, 3-10.

Yawkey, T.D., & Pellegrini, A. (1984). (Eds.). Child’s Play: Developmental and applied.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues &
Answers Report, REL 2007 No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Zeece, P., & Graul, S. (1990). Learning to play: playing to learn. Day Care and Early Education,
Autumn, 11-15.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1993). Best practice: new standards for teaching and
learning in America’s schools. Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann.
Zigler, E., Singer, D., & Bishop-Josef, S. (Eds.) (2004). Children’s play: The roots of reading.
Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.
Zigler, E., Gilliam, W. S., & Jones, S. M. (2007). A vision for universal pre-school education.
British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 227-229.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 239

Appendix A
Play, Read, Learn: Interview Protocol
Asking questions about self-efficacy and reading attitudes is very complex for second-graders.
Thus, I will modify questions to ensure that they are developmentally appropriate. The student-
interview questions will focus on motivation based on interest and motivation based on beliefs.
The following questions are made to help inform the study on about your reading behavior and
reading attitude. The questions will read aloud by an adult and require the students verbally
respond to each question below. Due to the degree of interview questions participants will
answer them over three sessions (if necessary) for both pre and post interviews.
Script:
Researcher: Thank you for agreeing to this interview. For this interview the focus will be on
your beliefs and attitude about reading.
1. What do you enjoy best about school?
2. How do you feel about reading?
3. Why do you read books?
4. When do you read books? (School? Home? On the Bus? Store?)
5. Can you tell me what you do not like about reading?
6. How do you feel when you read aloud?
7. What kind of materials do you like to read?
8. Are you interested in the books that you read in school? Why or Why not?
9. Before you read something in class, what kind of things does your teacher say or do?
10. Does your teacher tell you why you are reading in class? What does she say?
PLAY, READ, LEARN 240

11. How do you know that you are doing well in reading class? (Could you give me an
example of what your teacher says or does to let you know how you are doing in
reading?)
12. What kind of characters do you like to read about?
13. Can you tell me about a book that you read that had characters that were like you?
14. Have you ever been told that you are a good reader? If yes, “who” and if no, do you read
when others are around? (Can you tell me who you read around?)
15. Is there anything else you would like to share about reading?
Researcher: This is the end of my interview. Thank you for answering my questions. Is there any
additional information you would like to add?

PLAY, READ, LEARN 241

Appendix B
Play, Read, Learn: Observation Protocol

This observation protocol captures reading behaviors and reading attitudes within the context of
the after school Play, Read. Learn reading intervention setting for second grade Black males. The
observation protocol enables the researcher to compile qualitative data in order to provide an
overview of the school site, generate a detailed script of events, and categorize data into a
sequence of events which will be examined and coded for common themes. At the beginning of
each observation, the researcher records context of the school site, takes attendance and records
notes on the physical characteristics of the room. During each observation, the researcher focuses
on activity-based methods of instruction, participant’s responses, and reading materials selected
by each participant. The researcher records the chronology of events which might include: a)
researcher-Subject interactions; b) peer to peer interactions; c) initiation of activity-based lesson;
d) reading behaviors during activity; e) reading behaviors during independent reading and; f)
reading behaviors during the completion of worksheets.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 242

Play, Read, Learn Activity-Based Intervention
School Name: _______________________________________ Date: _______________

Lesson Topic:_____________________________________________________

Researcher: ________________________________________________________

Time Started: ____________ Time Ended: ____________ Total Time: ___________
Classroom
Environment:
What does the
environment look
like?

Physical setup:

Teaching
aids/materials (per
activity)
Place Drawing Here & Notes Here:

Lesson Objectives:

PLAY, READ, LEARN 243

Observation Script
Subject:___________________________ Time:________ Date:_____________
Observer: _________________________ Site: _________ Lesson #:________
During Activity (Play)

During Independent Reading

Reading Material Selected: _________________________________

Peer-to-Peer Dialogue

Researcher-to-Subject Interactions

PLAY, READ, LEARN 244

Observation Script (Continued)
Subject:___________________________ Date:_____________ Lesson#_______
Additional Notes/Observations

PLAY, READ, LEARN 245

Appendix C
Elementary Reading Attitude Survey
Date________________ Grade ______ Name___________________
Recreational Reading Attitude
1. How do you feel when you read a book on a rainy Saturday?

2. How do you feel when you read a book in school during free time?

3. How do you feel about reading for fun at home?

PLAY, READ, LEARN 246

4. How do you feel about getting a book for a present?

5. How do you feel about spending free time reading?

6. How do you feel about starting a new book?

7. How do you feel about reading during summer vacation?

PLAY, READ, LEARN 247

8. How do you feel about reading instead of playing?

9. How do you feel about going to a bookstore?

10. How do you feel about reading different kinds of books?

Academic Reading Attitude
1. How do you feel when the teacher asks you questions about what you read?

PLAY, READ, LEARN 248

2. How do you feel about doing reading workbook pages and worksheets?

3. How do you feel about reading in school?

4. How do you feel about reading your school books?

5. How do you feel about learning from a book?

PLAY, READ, LEARN 249

6. How do you feel when it time for reading class?

7. How do you feel about the stories you read in reading class?

8. How do you feel when you read out loud in class?

9. How do you feel about using a dictionary?

PLAY, READ, LEARN 250

10. How do you feel about taking a reading test?

Kear, D.J. & McKenna, M. C. (1999). Measuring attitude toward reading: A new tool for teachers. In S. J.
Barrentine (Ed.). Reading assessment: principles and practices for elementary teachers. A collection of articles from
“The Reading Teacher.” p. 199-214. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Garfield Images approved
for use in this document only.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 251

Appendix D

Parental Consent Form

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education, WPH 402
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
PARENTAL PERMISSION

Play, Read, Learn: Building Young Black Males Literacy Skills Through Activity-Based
Curriculum
Your child is invited to participate in a research study conducted by Ms. Shenora Plenty (Dr.
Sandra Kaplan, faculty advisor) from the University of Southern California. Your child’s
participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand before deciding whether to participate and/or allow your child to
participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. Your child will also
be asked his/her permission and given a form to read, which is called an assent form. Your child
can decline to participate, even if you agree to allow him/her. You and/or your child may also
decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If you and/or your child decide to participate,
you will be asked to sign this form, and your child be asked to sign the assent form. You will be
given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to examine how implementing activity-based learning methods of
instruction affects students attitudes towards reading and their reading behaviors. The rationale
of the study is to document the implementation of activity-based learning, in order to positively
improve second grade Black male student’s attitudes towards reading and their behaviors. In
addition, this study will also document student’s perceptions of self-efficacy in the area of
reading. It is intended that other members of the educational community desiring to positively
impact students reading behaviors and dispositions will have a framework in which to do so.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you agree to allow your child to participate, your child will be asked to take part in a one-to-
one in person interview at their local school site. It is anticipated that the interview will take
between 30 and 45 minutes conducted over three periods. It will be beneficial to the study if
they answer every question. In addition, your child will participate in an activity-based literacy
intervention program over a six-week period with a small focus-group of three or four other
second grade male participants. Your child will meet one day per week for 75 minutes at their
local school site after school. Your child will also take a survey which will be used to measure
PLAY, READ, LEARN 252

their reading attitudes and reading dispositions. During the intervention, observations of each
participant as well as, documents produced during the period of intervention will be analyzed.
The Play, Read, Learn (PRL) reading intervention will include a series of activity-based lessons
over a six-week time period that are aimed to help participants engaged in literacy activities
through play. The five components of literacy that the PRL reading intervention program will
focus on include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary. The
lessons will require the participants in the small focus group to engage in self-directed “free
play," engage in discussions about the objects they have selected to play with during the session,
relate their play experiences to real-world experiences, and write about their experiences of self-
directed play. The participants will also have opportunities to engage in independent reading
with both self-selected and required text. Lastly, the participants will have opportunities to share
their reading and play experiences at the end of each session.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks for participation in this study. This is an educational study and no
risk that would occur in a normal educational setting will occur during this study. This study will
not impact your child’s normal school day activities or school curriculum.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
This is a research study, the benefits are contingent upon the results. This study seeks to
understand how activity-based learning can help to improve the development of second grade
Black male students’ literacy skills. Additionally, this study will examine the relationship
between the perceptions of the student participants in the areas of cultural-identity and self-
efficacy. Lastly, this study aims to inform the educational community of a research based
practice that helps at-risk Black male students who struggle in reading. The results from this
study can be utilized to bring about social change, educational equality and impact the pedagogy
used in urban school districts by ensuring that all students have a solid foundation of early
literacy instruction, academic success and achievements that extended throughout their academic
and professional careers. Furthermore, this study adds to the body of scholarly literature by
identifying effective instructional practices to improve teacher pedagogy in the literacy domain.
Furthermore, this study contributes to educational leaders responding to the demands to improve
the development of literacy skills of Black male students. It provides guidance to veteran,
novice and aspiring educators who face the challenge of educating struggling readers in their
classrooms. Additionally, school board members and curriculum specialist could use this
information in seeking strategies to improve the academic performance of struggling readers.
The findings have the potential to provide guidance to educational leaders and teachers pre and
in-service so that they may be better equipped to meet the challenges of increasing overall
student achievement for all students.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 253

This study will be of significance because of its potential to add to the body of research that
currently exists on the reading comprehension levels of primary-aged students in general and
Black males in particular. It will also help to clarify widely held assumptions about instructional
approaches to reading to Black males. The data generated about Black male students’ reading
perceptions, attitudes towards reading and self-efficacy through their participation in activity-
based learning can potentially be used to improve literacy achievement outcomes for primary-
aged Black males.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Your child will not be paid for participating in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
Your child’s name, address or other identifiable information will not be linked to their responses.
Information will be presented in the aggregate (as general data, without identifiable information).
If specific information from their interview is quoted or described, their name or other
identifiable information will not be included in the final report.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the welfare of research subjects.
The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects.
Neither you nor anyone in the school will have access to your child’s responses or to the
audio/video-recordings.
Any data collected by Ms. Shenora Plenty will be kept confidential and will be stored in a locked
filing cabinet at USC. Ms. Shenora Plenty has also agreed to provide to us a copy of the
aggregate results from her study. Any audio recordings will be maintained indefinitely,
confidentiality will be maintained. Information will not be released to any other party for any
reason. The participant’s names will be changed to pseudo names to protect their identity. No
other personnel will have access to this information. Please note that data must be kept for a
minimum of three years after the completion of the study.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be included.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 254

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your child’s participation is voluntary. Your child’s refusal to participate will involve no penalty
or loss of benefits to which you or your child are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your
consent, and your child may draw his/her assent, at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your child’s
participation in this research study.
INVESTIGATORS CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact the principal
investigator for this study is Ms. Shenora Plenty, (XXX)XXX-XXXX, XXX@usc.edu.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant you
may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have questions,
concerns, complaints about the research and are unable to contact the research team, or if you
want to talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park
Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

SIGNATURE OF PARENT(S)

I/we have read the information provided above. I/we have been given a chance to ask questions.
My/our questions have been answered to my/our satisfaction, and I/we agree to participate in this
study and/or have our child(ren) participate in this study. I/we have been given a copy of this
form.
□ I agree to allow my child to be audio-recorded
□ I do not want my child to be audio-recorded
□ I agree to be video-recorded
□ I do not want to be video-recorded

Name of Participant

Name of Parent (1)

Signature of Parent (1) Date
PLAY, READ, LEARN 255

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and his/her parent(s), and answered all of their
questions. I believe that the parent(s) understand the information described in this document and
freely consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

PLAY, READ, LEARN 256

Appendix E
Assent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
ASSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
FOR YOUTH
Read, Play, Learn: Building Young Black Males Literacy Skills Through Activity-Based
Curriculum
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Ms. Shenora Plenty (Dr. Sandra
Kaplan, faculty advisor) at the University of Southern California. Your participation is voluntary.
You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand,
before deciding whether to participate. Your parent’s permission will be sought; however, the
final decision is yours. Even if your parents agree to your participation by signing a separate
consent document, you don’t have to participate if you don’t want to. Please take as much time
as you need to read this form. You may also decide to discuss it with your family or friends. If
you agree to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this
form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Shenora Plenty wants to learn about how you feel about reading and how play activities affect
how you feel about reading. One way to learn about it is to do a research study; the people doing
the study are called researchers.

Your mom/dad/Legally Authorized Representative (LAR) have told us we can talk to you about
the study. You also can talk this over with your mom or dad. It’s up to you if you want to take
part, you can say “yes” or “no”. No one will be upset with you if you don’t want to take part.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to meet with Shenora Plenty for a
play reading group for 90 minutes after school one day a week. You will meet with Shenora
Plenty for 8-weeks. Shenora Plenty will also ask you some questions about reading during an
interview. With your permission Shenora Plenty will audio tape your interview. You can still
participate if you do not want your interview recorded. Shenora Plenty will also observe you
playing during the reading play group and take notes while you play. Lastly, Shenora Plenty will
ask you to complete a survey about how you feel about reading.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 257

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
Researchers do not always know what will happen to people in a research study. We do not
expect anything to happen to you during this study but you might not like some of the books you
read. However, you will be able to bring your own books to use during independent reading
activities.
Your answers will not be graded. Only the researchers will see your answers.
There are no anticipated risks for participation in this study. This is an educational study and no
risk that would occur in a normal educational setting will occur during this study. This study will
not impact your normal school day activities or school curriculum.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
This is a research study the benefits are contingent upon the results. This study seeks to
understand how activity-based learning can help to improve the development of second grade
Black male students’ literacy skills. Additionally, this study will examine the relationship
between the perceptions of the student participants in the areas of cultural-identity and self-
efficacy. Lastly, this study aims to inform the educational community of a research based
practice that helps at-risk Black male students who struggle in reading. The results from this
study can be utilized to bring about social change, educational equality and impact the pedagogy
used in urban school districts by ensuring that all students have a solid foundation of early
literacy instruction, academic success and achievements that extended throughout their academic
and professional careers. Furthermore, this study adds to the body of scholarly literature by
identifying effective instructional practices to improve teacher pedagogy in the literacy domain.
Furthermore, this study contributes to educational leaders responding to the demands to improve
the development of literacy skills of Black male students classified as struggling readers. It
provides guidance to veteran, novice and aspiring educators who face the challenge of educating
struggling readers in their classrooms. Additionally, school board members and curriculum
specialist could use this information in seeking strategies to improve the academic performance
of struggling readers. The findings have the potential to provide guidance to educational leaders
and teachers pre and in-service so that they may be better equipped to meet the challenges of
increasing overall student achievement for all students.
This study will be of significance because of its potential to add to the body of research that
currently exists on literacy development of primary-aged students in general and Black males in
particular. It will also help to clarify widely held assumptions about instructional approaches to
reading to Black males. The data generated about Black male students’ reading perceptions,
attitudes towards reading and self-efficacy through their participation in activity-based learning
can potentially be used to improve literacy achievement outcomes for primary-aged Black males.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 258

Your name, address or other identifiable information will not be linked to their responses.
Information will be presented in the aggregate (as general data, without identifiable information).
If specific information from their interview is quoted or described, your name or other
identifiable information will not be included in the final report.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the welfare of research subjects.
The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research
subjects.
Neither you nor anyone in the school will have access to your responses or to the audio/video-
recordings.
Any data collected by Ms. Shenora Plenty will be kept confidential and will be stored in a locked
filing cabinet at USC. Ms. Shenora Plenty has also agreed to provide to us a copy of the
aggregate results from her study. Any audio recordings will be maintained indefinitely,
confidentiality will be maintained. Information will not be released to any other party for any
reason. Your name will be changed to pseudo names to protect your identity. No other personnel
will have access to this information. Please note that data must be kept for a minimum of three
years after the completion of the study. When the results of the research are published or
discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be included.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your assent, and your parent
may draw his/her consent, at any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not
waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.
INVESTIGATORS CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions, you can ask the researcher Shenora Plenty.
If you want to take part in the study, please write your name at the bottom. You can change your
mind if you want too just tell the researcher Shenora Plenty.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant you
may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you have questions,
concerns, complaints about the research and are unable to contact the research team, or if you
want to talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University Park
Institutional Review Board, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.

PLAY, READ, LEARN 259

Appendix F
Information/Fact Sheet

INFORMATION/FACT SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Play, Read, Learn: Building Young Black Males Literacy Skills Through Activity-Based
Curriculum
Purpose of The Study
The purpose of the study is to examine how implementing activity-based learning methods of
instruction affects students attitudes towards reading and their reading behaviors. The rationale
of the study is to document the implementation of activity-based learning, in order to positively
improve second grade Black male student’s attitudes towards reading and their behaviors. In
addition, this study will also document student’s perceptions of self-efficacy in the area of
reading. It is intended that other members of the educational community desiring to positively
impact students reading behaviors and dispositions will have a framework in which to do so.
Participant Involvement
If you agree to allow your child to participate, your child will be asked to take part in a one-to-
one in person interview at their local school site. It is anticipated that the interview will take
between 30 and minutes conducted over three periods. It will be beneficial to the study if they
answer every question. In addition, your child will participate in an activity-based literacy
intervention program over a six-week period with a small focus-group of three or four other
second grade male participants. Your child will meet one day per week for 75 minutes at their
local school site after school. Your child will also take a survey which will be used to measure
their reading attitudes and reading dispositions. During the intervention, observations of each
participant as well as, documents produced during the period of intervention will be analyzed.
The Play, Read, Learn (PRL) reading intervention will include a series of activity-based lessons
over a six-week time period that are aimed to help participants engaged in literacy activities
through play. The five components of literacy that the PRL reading intervention program will
focus on include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension and vocabulary. The
lessons will require the participants in the small focus group to engage in self-directed “free
play," engage in discussions about the objects they have selected to play with during the session,
relate their play experiences to real-world experiences, and write about their experiences of self-
directed play. The participants will also have opportunities to engage in independent reading
with both self-selected and required text. Lastly, the participants will have opportunities to share
their reading and play experiences at the end of each session.
PLAY, READ, LEARN 260

Confidentiality
Your child’s name, address or other identifiable information will not be linked to their responses.
Information will be presented in the aggregate (as general data, without identifiable information).
If specific information from their interview is quoted or described, their name or other
identifiable information will not be included in the final report.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the welfare of research subjects.
Investigator Contact Information
The principal investigator for this study is Shenora Plenty, (XXX)XXX-XXX.
IRB Contact Information
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Hall, Room
306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In the realm of education, there is a debate between opponents and proponents of activity‐based pedagogy as educators move beyond direct instruction to a more student‐centered hands‐on approach to developing literacy skills. Although, active learning through play has not been recognized as the exclusive pedagogical approach to teaching reading, research suggests that it is needed to balance children's development and their readiness for school. The purpose of this study was to advance and provide an in‐depth, holistic description and interpretation of second grade Black males reading attitudes, reading behaviors and self‐efficacy after they engage in an activity‐based intervention. The specific reading behaviors for this study included: selection of reading materials and levels of engagement in literacy activities. Driven by a constructivist and transactional framework, a mixed methodology inquiry design strategy was used for data collection and analysis. Five second grade Black males attending Bears Elementary school, located in South Los Angeles, California made up the sample for this study. The participants engaged in a six‐week activity-based after‐school intervention program. Findings from this study suggest that an activity‐based intervention has positive effects on second grade Black males reading attitudes, reading behaviors and reading self‐efficacy. Participants with positive reading attitudes are likely to read for pleasure and have a high sense of self‐efficacy in reading than children with a lower sense of self‐efficacy. When participants are immersed in a print rich classroom environment that gives them opportunities to engage in autonomous meaningful learning experiences and hands‐on literacy activities, their reading attitudes mirror their reading behaviors. The data generated about Black male students' reading attitudes, self‐efficacy and reading behaviors through their participation in an activity‐based intervention can be used to improve literacy achievement outcomes for second‐grade Black males.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A dialogic reading intervention for parents of children with Down syndrome

PDF

Self-reflective practices and procedures to systematically examine reading comprehension instruction

PDF

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

PDF

Identifying young gifted children

PDF

Key leverage points for improving educational outcomes of black male students: Response to intervention as an effective strategy to support students in general education: An evaluation study

PDF

Math and science academy literacy instruction: student study strategies, self-perception as readers, and reading achievement

PDF

The role of critical literacy and the school-to-prison pipeline: what was learned from the life histories and literacy experiences of formerly incarcerated young Latino males

PDF

Early literacy intervention

PDF

Supplemental literacy instruction for students with Down syndrome: a program evaluation

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Latino parental aspirations and literacy practices related to children's reading engagement

PDF

Teaching academic and behavioral skills through arts-based programming: an evaluation study

PDF

School to Work Program as a contributor to adult literacy skill development

PDF

What is the relationship between early childhood teachers' training on the development of their teaching self-efficacy?

PDF

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

PDF

The effect of reading self-efficacy, expectancy-value, and metacognitive self-regulation on the achievement and persistence of community college students enrolled in basic skills reading courses

PDF

A qualitative study of educators’ attitudes towards blended learning institutional adoption

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

Increasing family engagement at Lily Elementary School: An evaluation model

PDF

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

Asset Metadata

Creator Plenty, Shenora Nicole (author)

Core Title Play, read, learn: building young Black males literacy skills through an activity-based intervention

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/29/2014

Defense Date 03/24/2014

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

Tag Black males,intervention,OAI-PMH Harvest,Play,reading attitudes,reading behaviors,self-efficacy

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair), Gallagher, Raymond John (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email msplenty301@gmail.com,plenty@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-405970

Unique identifier UC11295894

Identifier etd-PlentyShen-2447.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-405970 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PlentyShen-2447.pdf

Dmrecord 405970

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Plenty, Shenora Nicole

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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