Curriculum and reading instruction in educational contexts

Education Curriculum

The research question being asked by Kamps, Wills, Greenwood, Thorne, Lazo, Crockett, Akers, and Swaggart (2003) is: "What are the links between reading and behavior problems?" The hypothesis being tested is that children who displayed poor reading skills in first grade had a 90% chance of continuing to have poor reading skills 3 years later. Based on a review of 25 studies, 50% of children in third grade exhibiting emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) had reading achievement lower than expected, based on their assessed intellectual levels. Gender was not an issue in this study.

In addition to EBD and learning disabilities (LD), third grade children with poor reading ability are also affected by serious antisocial behavior. Fortunately there have been early screening tools developed: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) for early literacy skills, Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) for behavioral problems and Early Screening Project (ESP) for overall screening. Once screened, the pupils with behavioral and/or learning problems are given attention (2003. p. 212).

Schools who participated agreed to have students monitored for progress over a 2-3-year period. Teachers monitored 383 students in kindergarten, first and second grades in the classroom, based on DIBELS subtests, including Letter Naming, Nonsense Word Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency. The teachers at the five schools had different kinds of curricula that they used, a Reading Mastery curriculum, a Success for All curriculum and a literature-based curricula. Students needing intervention were given best practices in reading instruction. Students who were unresponsive to the primary level instruction were given a secondary intervention. Students were given a third intensive intervention if determined by the results of the measurements in DIBELS and SSBD (2003, p. 213).

The tests sought to answer the questions concerning word fluency, progress in reading, how the curricula affected reading skills, pattern of growth as influenced by academic and, finally, behavioral risks and how the pattern of growth in oral reading was influenced by the curriculum (2003, p. 215).

In comparable studies, researchers found that reading and behavior had correlating effects on the success of students in grades 1-3. One study, done by Cascario compared the male teacher and reading achievement of first grade boys and girls with the incidence of academic and behavioral problems in later grades. (Cascario, 1978).

Another study (Mayfield-Arnold, et al., 2005) found that children and adolescents with poor reading skills face challenges, and may be at risk for emotional and behavioral problems. This study tried to analyze the risks of students with ADHD and socio-demographic factors, along with the findings of reading problems and depression among teen and pre-teen boys and girls.

Dr. Lendell Braud has proposed teachers use learning how to read as a therapeutic intervention in behaviorally and emotionally aggressive children and cites his research findings that these groups made significant progress, statistically, after 6-9 months remediation.

The research project being studied, done by Kamps, Wills, Greenwood, Thorne, Lazo, Crockett, Akers, and Swaggart (2003) utilizes data from past studies that show the age of the student, the success at learning how to read in first grade and the emotional and behavioral make-up of the child's character may have some bearing on whether the child will continue to have worsening behavioral problems by the time they reach fourth grade.

Data collection was done by the teachers, and statistical analysis was in the form of cross tabulations, means and standard deviations explored the frequency and magnitude of specific variables. Pearson product-moment correlation was used to examine the linkages between DIEBELS measures at common points in time. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was used to address research questions related to growth in early literacy skills. (2003, p. 215)

The data yielded that, using the DIBELS scores, 197 out of the 383 students showed academic risk; 137 were at academic risk only, whereas 60 were at behavioral risk, as well. Based on behavioral screening procedures, 100 students were at behavioral risk. For the 100 students at behavioral risk, 60 also showed academic risk. (2003, p. 216). Other sub-findings were detailed in the charts of mean scores and standard deviations for Letter Naming and Nonsense Word Fluency Subtests by Student Risk Group.

Reading curriculum was the differential influence in students' growth in this study by Kamp, et al. (2003). Accelerating growth patterns for the three fluency measures, with some slowing in letters and oral reading, showed that curriculum type led to significant differences in performance at the end of first grade. One of the curriculum choices (Reading Mastery, Success for All) was found to positively affect students skills in each area more than literature-based curricula. By Grade 3 endpoint, performance showed significant differences in the group with no risk, compared to the behavior risk group, the academic risk group and the students at risk for both. Their charts show that "students with behavior risks, academic risks, or both, made the least progress in oral reading fluency over time. At the end of the study, mean fluencies were 109.98 (no risk), 95.05 (behavior risk), 81.13 (academic risk), and 67.21 (both)." The conclusion was that both risk and curriculum affect results, both assisting student growth and attainment of end-of-grade benchmark levels, over time. The no-risk students made comparatively more progress, but students using the Reading Mastery curriculum made more progress than did students using an alternative curriculum, Success for All or literature-based curricula. Students with academic and academic-behavioral risks initially showed slow growth in first grade, but increased acceleration into third grade. High-risk students (with both and academic risks) fell below all end-of-grade benchmarks and had not caught up with lower risk peers, although the curriculum using Reading Mastery helped some outperform lower risk students using a literature-based curricula.