Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Masters Thesis
Masters Thesis
Masters Thesis
The Relationship of Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and of
By
Danielle OGrady
Special Education
Manhattan College
Spring 2016
Danielle OGrady 2
Acceptance Sheet
This study entitled The Relationship of Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning
OGrady has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science in
___________________________________________ _____________________
Signature Date
Table of Content
Danielle OGrady 3
Abstract............................................................................................................................................6
Chapter I: Introduction....................................................................................................................7
Research Hypotheses................................................................................................................8
Descriptive questions................................................................................................................8
Core English Language Arts Learning Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons.......8
Theoretical Background...............................................................................................................8
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................................9
Teacher Perceptions....................................................................................................................17
....................................................................................................................................................20
Summary....................................................................................................................................22
Participants.................................................................................................................................23
Procedures..................................................................................................................................23
Instrument...................................................................................................................................24
Pilot study................................................................................................................................25
Data Analysis..............................................................................................................................25
Descriptive statistics...............................................................................................................25
Inferential analysis..................................................................................................................26
Statistical Results.......................................................................................................................26
Frequencies.............................................................................................................................26
Range......................................................................................................................................26
Standard deviation...................................................................................................................27
Summary....................................................................................................................................28
Conclusions................................................................................................................................29
Recommendations......................................................................................................................29
Danielle OGrady 5
Assumptions............................................................................................................................29
Limitations..............................................................................................................................30
Delimitations...........................................................................................................................30
References......................................................................................................................................30
Appendix A Correspondence.........................................................................................................36
Appendix B Instrument..................................................................................................................43
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore whether teachers perceptions of the effectiveness of
Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program was related to their perceptions of the Common Core
Learning Standards. The sample consisted of 20 elementary school teachers in urban public
elementary schools. The instrument was a survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common
Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN. The findings indicated that there was
not a correlation between teacher perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and
Chapter I: Introduction
The New York City Department of Education initiated curriculum based on the Common
Core Learning Standards (Cramer, 2013). Since then, the Common Core Learning Standards
have been under fire because teachers evaluations are now based on their students standardized
test scores. Most school principals are pleased with their literacy curriculums, but some teachers
are not (Darville, 2015; Wall, 2014). The most complained-about curriculum is Pearsons
Why are teachers complaining about ReadyGEN? There have not been any studies on
how teachers feel about the ReadyGEN program, but there have been studies done about how
teachers feel about the Common Core Learning Standards. The audience for this study would be
school administrators, teachers who use the ReadyGEN curriculum, and Pearson itself. With
this study, school administrators and Pearson would get a better understanding about why
teachers do not like ReadyGEN, and Pearson would get a better understanding on how to
improve the ReadyGEN program. This topic was related to special education because
inclusion teachers and special educators participated in this study, contributing their opinions on
differentiation in ReadyGEN.
The purpose of this study was to explore when teachers perceptions of the effectiveness
of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program was related to their perceptions of the Common
Core. Thirty teachers in a kindergarten through sixth grade general education, special education,
or inclusion classroom setting in public urban elementary schools were surveyed. The
independent variable, the Common Core Standards, was generally defined as what public school
curriculums are based on. The dependent variable, the ReadyGEN literacy program, was
Danielle OGrady 8
generally defined as the English Language Arts program that some New York City public
elementary schools use. The intervening variables, what type of class the teacher has (i.e.
general education class, special education class, etc.), years of experience teaching, and
Core State Standards would be related to their perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy
program.
Descriptive questions. What were teacher perceptions of the Common Core? What was
the frequency of teacher perceptions of the Common Core? What was the mean of teacher
perceptions of the Common Core? What was the range of teacher perceptions of the Common
Core? What was the standard deviation of teacher perceptions of the Common Core? What were
teacher perceptions of the ReadyGEN program? What was the frequency of teacher
perceptions of teacher perceptions of the ReadyGEN program? What was the mean of teacher
perceptions of the ReadyGEN program? What was the range of teacher perceptions of the
ReadyGEN program? What was the standard deviation of teacher perceptions of the
ReadyGEN program?
Common Core English Language Arts Learning Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons
Theoretical Background
The English Language Arts Common Core Standards were partly developed using the
Three-Part Model for Measuring Text Complexity (Common Core State Standards for English
Danielle OGrady 9
Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, n.d., p. 4).
The first part is qualitative dimensions of text complexity, which are the parts of the text that
the student determines (p. 4). The second part is quantitative dimensions of text complexity,
which are parts of the text that refer to grammar (p. 4). The third part is reader and task
Definition of Terms
for all by presenting modeled reading experience with authentic text (ReadyGEN, n.d., para.
1). In this study, the ReadyGEN literacy program was defined as the English Language Arts
program used by some New York City public elementary schools. Teachers perceptions of
ReadyGEN were measured by Question 9 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the
The Common Core State Standards are a set of high-quality academic standards in
mathematics and English language arts/literacy (ELA) (About the Standards, n.d., para. 2). In
this study, the Common Core State Standards will be defined as what Pearsons ReadyGEN
literacy program is based on. Teachers perceptions of the Common Core State Standards were
measured by Question 9 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning
Perception was defined as the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the
act of perceiving (Perception, n.d.). In this study, teachers perceptions were generally
defined as how teachers feel about ReadyGEN. Teachers perceptions were measured by the
scores of Question 8 and Question 9 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common
study, effectiveness was defined as ReadyGENs suitability for teaching English Language
Arts. Teachers perceptions of the effectiveness of ReadyGEN was be measured by the scores
of Question 9 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards
General education was defined as the program of education that typically developing
children should receive, based on state standards and evaluated by the annual state educational
standards test (Webster, 2015, para. 1). For this study, general education was defined as a
classroom setting with no students with special needs. If a teacher had a general education
classroom, it was measured by Question 5 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the
Inclusion was defined as the educational practice of educating children with disabilities
in classrooms with children without disabilities (Webster, 2016, para. 1). In this study, inclusion
was defined as a general education classroom setting with students with special needs. If a
teacher had an inclusion classroom, it was measured by Question 5 on the survey titled Teacher
specialized placements or environments to ensure that all students' educational needs are
provided for (Watson, 2015, para. 3). In this study, special education was defined as a
classroom setting with only students with special needs receiving specialized services for their
disabilities. If a teacher had a special education classroom, it was measured by Question 5 on the
survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons
ReadyGEN.
Danielle OGrady 11
Year was defined as a space of 12 calendar months calculated from any point (Year,
n.d.). Experience was defined as the process or fact of personally observing, encountering, or
undergoing something (Experience, n.d.). In this study, years of experience were defined as
the total amount of time that a teacher has spent teaching in his or her lifetime. This was
measured by Question 4 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning
was defined as ones origin, education, experience, etc., in relation to ones present character,
status, etc. (Background, n.d.). In this study, educational background was defined as the
highest degree that the participant has achieved. This was measured by Question 2 on the survey
titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons
ReadyGEN.
School administrators would benefit from this study. With this study, they would know
what teachers think about the effectiveness of the ReadyGEN program. With this information,
they would be able to make necessary and beneficial changes to their schools curriculum.
The purpose of this study was to explore whether teachers perceptions of the
effectiveness of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program was related to their perceptions of the
Common Core for 20 teachers in a through sixth grade general education, special education, or
inclusion classroom setting in public urban elementary schools. In this section, there is a review
of research related to Common Core Learning Standards, teacher perceptions, and teacher
perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards. Because ReadyGEN was a new
Danielle OGrady 12
program, there were not many studies about the program. There is a review of related research
The basis of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program is authentic text which includes
tradebooks, a text collection, sleuth books, and a leveled text library (p. 4-5). Each
grade has twelve tradebooks which, according to Pearson, meets text complexity requirements
and the suggested percentage of fiction to nonfiction selections and develops a body of
knowledge focused on the unit theme and the Enduring Understanding within each module (p.
4). The text collection span[s] multiple genres and cultures, includes poetry, primary sources,
and biographies, and [is] tied to content-area standards that build a broad range of knowledge
and literacy experience in a multitude of texts (p. 5). The Sleuth books are a collection of
short, high-interest reading selections to sharpen students critical thinking skills (p. 5). The
Leveled Text Library is a broad range up to 60 conceptually connected texts at each grade
Pearson also provides a three-step assessment for instruction plan for teachers. The
first step is to give the students a baseline assessment to determine instructional needs for
students at the start of the year. The second step is assessments for every lesson and
performance-based assessmentsat the end of each module. The third step is to measure the
students at the conclusion of each unit. Each grade has four or six units, and each unit has two
modules. According to Pearson, these units and modules pave the path to college and career
readiness. Each Module Overview identifies the instructional focus, or what readers,
writers, and learners are expected to know and do, and these expectations fall in line with the
Danielle OGrady 13
goals for the Performance-Based Assessment. Each module includes pacing plans in order to
properly prepare the students for the Performance-Based Assessment (Pearson, n.d.).
Lessons include scripts that teach students to read closely, cite evidence in text, and
generate vocabulary (p. 12-13). Mini lessons also introduce the students to foundational
skills for reading independently (p. 14). According to Pearson, teachers should teach
foundational skills in three steps (p. 16). The first step is to teach the Foundational Skills mini
lesson as part of Whole Group instruction (p. 16). The second step is to assign more robust
Foundational Skills instruction to students who may require additional support (p. 16-17). The
third step is to help students make progress toward Foundational Skills mastery with Check
Progress formative assessments (p. 17). ReadyGEN also provides foundational skills
components such as phonics activity mats, high-frequency word cards, and foundational
for all and extra supports for students who may have trouble learning a concept and English
Language Learners (p. 24). ReadyGEN teaches students how to write through the Gradual
Release of Responsibility Model (p. 26). ReadyGEN also provides online activities for the
students and professional development resources for the teachers (Pearson, n.d., p. 36).
The purpose of Porter, McMaken, Hwang, and Yangs (2011) study was to compare the
Common Core Learning Standards with other state standards (p. 104). The participants were 35
specialists in math and ELAR from 18 states who examined the standards of thirty-one states (p.
105). They discovered that the degree of alignment between the Common Core and state
standards was low to moderate (p. 105). The study was limited because of the thirty-one
Danielle OGrady 14
states, only the literacy standards of twenty-four states were examined and only the math
The essential philosophy of the Common Core is made up of three parts: that every
state in the nation follows the same standards in order for the United States to be internationally
ranked, that every student is ready for literacy and mathematics in college and the workplace,
and for all high-school students to be prepared for college when they graduate (p. 153-154). In
order to successfully teach in line with the Common Core Standards, educators must do the
following: read the College and Career Readiness Standards to gain an overview of the
expectations of the Common Core, within each category, read vertically within each grade
levelthrough grade 5, to gain a general understanding of how the standards are structured and
what the more specific expectations are, within each standard, read horizontally to fully
understand what each grade-level standard actually encompasses, within each standard and
across standards, know what to teach students to help increase their understanding, assess
students in relation to their knowledge of the standards to plan effective instruction, and within
each standard and across standards, use formative assessments to measure student progress (p.
154-155, 157). McLaughlin and Overturf (2012) believed that teachers should use the Gradual
Release of Responsibility Model in order to teach students concepts aligned with Standard 8.
Teachers should also use literature that would interest the students, and they needed to
differentiate the material for various learning needs. Educators needed proper training in order to
One of the main goals of the Common Core Standards is that all students will be able to
read increasingly complex texts proficiently and independently (p. 1). In order to fulfill this,
teachers should teach close reading strategies. Close reading is an investigation of a short piece
Danielle OGrady 15
of text, with multiple readings done over multiple instructional lessons (p. 2). These lessons
include using short complex texts, have students read the text by themselves, using a group
read aloud, answering questions about the text, having a conversation about the text as a class,
and writing about the text (p. 3). Teachers should also take into account the following about
close reading: it can make the texts wide-ranging, it can be used for all subjects, teachers need to
know how to teach close reading strategies, close reading is explicit, and the reader is driven by
Rickelman (2013) presented information and resources on the Common Core Standards
to help current teachers and future teachers. The participants in this study were various members
of different schools across North Carolina. Rickelman (2013) used the following questions to
guide him: What should our pre-service and in-service teachers be learning/doing about the
Common Core State Standards in our teacher preparation programs? What is the optimal level
of breadth and depth of information to share with them, knowing that they will be receiving
intensive training through staff development when they get their first teaching position? How
can we best prepare new teacher candidates for entering public schools in our states? What
resources are already available to help teachers, and more importantly teacher educators, at the
national and state levelsto prepare our candidates for planning lessons and assessments related
to the CCSS? (p. 47). Rickelman (2013) found that a Verb Chart for Revised Blooms
Taxonomy, Webbs Depth of Knowledge Chart, and Karin Hess Cognitive Rigor Matrix
were helpful resources for teachers (p. 50, 52, 54). He recommended using these resources in the
classroom.
Applebee (2013) believed that the Standards could mislead curricula. He did not like
how the Common Core Standards split foundational skills for reading (K5) and language (K
Danielle OGrady 16
12) (p. 28). He also felt that dividing some skills by grade level and that the writing standards
not being flexible were detrimental to their learning (p. 29). He also believed that the way the
VanTassel-Baska (2015) presented the arguments for and against the Common Core
State Standards in English language arts and mathematics (p. 60). The participants were writers
for other journals on gifted children. VanTassel-Baska asked in her article, Would it not make
sense to have all states requiring similar things of students in an age of national and international
competition, in an age of economic concerns for job skills that match the needs of employment
markets? (p. 60). The study found that the standards need to be differentiated for gifted
students (p. 60). VanTassel-Baska recommended that these standards may offer a way to
transform education in the classroom, so that all students are able to fulfill their learning
primary grade teachers during their first year of full CCSS implementation by using
framework and a method for analysis to provide a rich description of the complex environment
in which literacy instruction and learning occur (p. 1). The participants were two primary
grade teachers at an elementary school in the Southeastern United States (p. 1). Barrett-Tatum
(2015) hypothesized that Cultural Historical Activity Theory would be suitable for teaching and
learning. The findings demonstrated the complex and interrelated influences of ELA CCSS,
and reveal the power of the individual teacher in constructing the literacy learning opportunities
(p. 1). Barrett-Tatum recommended that teachers and students create an enacted literacy
Danielle OGrady 17
curriculum influenced by: a) artifact use; b) rules and roles of community members, c)
Iannone (2015) discussed the teachers handbook to Pearsons The American Experience,
Common Core Edition. She felt that although the textbook had its strength, it was overall
inadequate (p. 190). She found that the textbook was overly scripted and not friendly for
students whose second language is English. She mentions Sandra Stotsky, a member of the
Common Core Validation Committee but refused to sign onto the final product who found that
the standards on informational text standards were not based on research and that imaginative
literature was better for teaching students (p. 185). The readings that the students have to read
were increasingly difficult, and the textbook does not address the work as literature (p. 185,
189).
Carillo (2016) argued that one of the most fundamental aspects of the Common Core
that needs to be rethoughtis how the Common Core defines the student-reader (p. 31). She
felt that the Common Core standards prevented the student from connecting to the text and
make meaning of the text (p. 31). Carillo suggested that teachers can have their students
engage in freewriting and journaling in order to draw on their experiences and backgrounds
(p. 32). She also recommended having the teachers present other meanings and texts to the
students.
Teacher Perceptions
The purpose of Ledermans (1999) study was to see whether teachers perceptions about
science affected their teaching practices. The participants of his study were five high school
biology teachers, ranging in experience from 2 to 15 years (p. 916). Lederman found that how
teachers viewed science did not affect their pedagogy. Lederman felt that further research needs
Danielle OGrady 18
to be done on this subject and that his research was a basis for further research.
Borg (2003a) wanted to analyze studies on how teacher cognitions affected the
pedagogy of secondary language teachers (p. 81). Borg defined teacher cognitions as
unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching what teachers know, believe, and think (p.
81). His analysis asked, What do teachers have cognitions about? How do these cognitions
develop? How do they interact with teacher learning? and how do they interact with
classroom practice? (p. 81). Borg found that teachers former education on learning a language
formed their thoughts on language acquisition, and this affected their teaching. He also found
that the teachers education, preparation on teaching second languages, and professional
experience affected their teaching (p. 98). Borg felt that further research needs to be done on
In a separate study, Borg (2003b) analyzed studies on how teacher cognition[s] affected
the grammar pedagogy of primary language teachers, secondary language teachers, and foreign
language teachers (p. 96). Borg focused on teachers declarative knowledge about grammar, of
their beliefs about teaching grammar, and of their knowledge as expressed through their
grammar teaching practices (p. 96). Borg found that these educators did not have a satisfactory
knowledge of grammar and prior language learning experiences and what they knew about
their students and the subject affected their pedagogy (p. 100). Borg (2003b) feels that future
Inan and Lowther (2009) wanted to examine the direct and indirect effects of teachers
technology integration in the classroom (p. 137). The participants of their study were 1,382
educators working at public schools in Tennessee. They found that educators age and years of
Danielle OGrady 19
experience teaching positively and negatively affect their ability to use technology and whether
or not they use technology in the classroom. However, the following had a positive effect on
using technology in the classroom: educators perceptions, educators abilities, and availability
of computers, technical support, and overall support (p. 146). Inan and Lowther believed that
their instrument, path analysis, caused limitations in the study, and they suggested that future
Similar to Inan and Lowther (2009), Pierce and Ball (2009) studied how teachers views
affect the use of technology in secondary math classrooms. The participants were 92 secondary
mathematics teachers in Australia (p. 299). Most teachers, despite the amount of teaching
experience they had, viewed teaching with technology positively, and these teachers were
supposed to incorporate technology into their pedagogy. However, some teachers felt that there
were still obstacles when incorporating the use of technology in the classroom, such as the cost
of purchasing the technology (p. 314). Pierce and Ball suggested that future teacher training
Giles and Tunks (2014) wanted to see how early childhood teachers views regarding
childrens acquisition of literacy affect how they teach (p. 525). Seventy-six prekindergarten
through second grade teachers participated in this study (p. 526). They found that educators
who had six to ten years of experience favored using reading readiness as the preferred way of
teaching reading while educators with over 21 years of practice did not (p. 528). Some of the
limitations of this study were using surveys and having a smaller research group. The study
showed how teaching literacy had evolved over time and would continue to evolve.
Danielle OGrady 20
Materials
When analyzing the effects of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, Alison Dobrick
(2014) mentioned ReadyGEN. Teachers said that ReadyGEN taught the students to take
standardized tests with scripts that they cannot alter. Dobrick also said that Pearson makes
The purpose of Lalus (2014) study was to examine teachers (as well as students and
parents) perceptions on if a textbook was effective in achiev[ing] its goal (p. 59). Lalu
surveyed fifty teachers about their perceptions on the effectiveness of their textbooks, asking the
teachers questions about the textbooks materials and content. She found that respondents
considered important that publishers and Ministry of education to consult teachers on the quality
of school textbooks, and she recommended that the textbooks be more student-oriented and to
Nadelson, Pluska, Moorcroft, Jeffrey, and Woodard (2014) wanted to learn what
familiarity teachers grades K-12 had of the Common Core standards and how they viewed the
Standards, and they were unable to find studies previously done on this subject. The 323
participants were drawn from a population of educators who have participated in science,
region and from local school districts in a state in the Rocky of the United States (p. 55). Using
a survey, the researchers found that the participants had a moderate level of knowledge about
the Common Core standards and slightly higher than moderate opinion on the Common Core
standards (p. 57-58). However, the researchers wrote that the study had the following
limitations: the sampling, the nature of the data that we collected, and our methods (p.
Danielle OGrady 21
63). They also believed that their work would be helpful in future studies on this subject.
Henderson, Peterson, and West (2015) found through surveys that teacher support of the
Common Core was decreasing and teacher opposition to the Common Core was increasing. In
2013, seventy-six percent of teachers approved the Common Core, twelve percent neither
approved nor disapproved the Common Core, and twelve percent disapproved the Common
Core. However, in 2014, forty-six percent of teachers approved the Common Core, fourteen
percent neither approved nor disapproved the Common Core, and forty percent disapproved the
Common Core. They also found that there were fewer misconceptions about the standards
Murphy and Marshalls (2015) research was to gain an understanding on what college
professors and student teachers knew about the Common Core standards and how they felt about
teaching with them, how they could deepen the standards in regards to special education, and
what needed to covered in future professional development on the Common Core. Education
professors and student teachers from five colleges and universities within two southeastern
states participated in the study (p. 170). They found that college professors had varying levels
of confidence teaching the standards, expressed a desire for more formal training, felt that
preparation on the standards was vital and that there was a lack of consistency in presenting
the standards in classes (p. 174-175, 177). Student teachers felt that their preparation was narrow
but necessary and were more confident in certain subject area rather than the standards
themselves (p. 178). The study was limited because only two states were surveyed. Murphy
and Marshall felt that future research should focus on development of collaborative and more
formalized trainings.
Ajayi (2016) examined high school English teachers attitudes toward the Common Core
Danielle OGrady 22
literacy standards when they first started implementing them, surveying twenty-three teachers
from a Southern California school district. Ajayi wanted to know what the teachers awareness
of the Common Core standards was, what the teachers thought about their guidance on teaching
the Common Core standards and their curricula material, and how the teachers thought about
the Common Core standards (p. 4). Ajayi found that even though the teachers felt that the
Common Core standards would help them in the long run, they did not feel prepared to teach the
standards, and he recommended that schools provide resources properly aligned to the
standards and that schools offer continuing guidance on the standards (p. 15).
Summary
There have not been many studies about ReadyGEN, but there have been studies on the
Common Core State Standards and teachers perceptions on the Common Core State Standards.
Many teachers did not feel properly prepared to teach according to the standards, and the one
study that mentions ReadyGEN portrays the teachers perceptions as negative. Therefore, this
study addressed why the teachers perceive ReadyGEN the way they do, and this study would
The purpose of this study was to explore whether teachers perceptions of the
effectiveness of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program were related to their perceptions of the
Common Core. It was hypothesized that teachers would most likely differ in their perceptions of
the ReadyGEN program based on their years experience, educational background, the type of
This was a correlational research study. The data was collected to determine whether
Danielle OGrady 23
teachers perceptions of the Common Core are related to their perceptions of Pearsons
Participants
The participants were 20 kindergarten through sixth grade teachers who used or had used
Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program in the classroom. These individuals were identified
based on their schools adoption of the ReadyGEN program for the English Language Arts
curriculum. These teachers were instructors in general education classrooms, special education
classrooms, and inclusion classrooms. The convenience sample was selected through cluster
sampling. The stratification characteristics of the participants were age, gender, years of
experience teaching, the use of ReadyGEN in the classroom, and what type of classroom they
Procedures
The purpose of this study was ethically analyzed by not changing the data to match my
hypothesis. The participants had confidentiality, and they did not have to participate in the study
if they did not want to. The researcher contacted the creators of the surveys she used in order to
receive their permission to use their work for the researchers data collection. The researcher
contacted the principal of the school in order to receive permission to do the study at the site.
ReadyGEN literacy program to their perceptions of the Common Core State Standards. The
data was collected by a survey over the span of 8 weeks in multiple public urban elementary
schools during the Fall of 2016. The participants were 20 teachers in multiple elementary
Danielle OGrady 24
schools.
Instrument
This study used a survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning
Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN. The survey was created based on Ajayis (2016)
survey of high school teachers perceptions of the English Language Arts Common Core State
Standards and on Savino-Garzons (2013) survey on Reading Street. The independent variable,
teachers perceptions of the Common Core State Standards was measured by question 8 on the
program, was measured by question 9 on the survey. The participants answered on the following
scales: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), no opinion/neutral (3), agree (4), strongly
agree (5).
question 2. The type of class in which the teacher taught Pearsons ReadyGEN, an intervening
Teachers perceptions on the Common Core State Standards were measured by question 8
on the survey. Teachers perceptions on Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program were measured
To determine the validity of his survey, Ajayi (2016) consulted three literacy education
professors and three high school ELA teachers, and he conducted a pilot study (p. 8).
Danielle OGrady 25
To determine the validity of her survey, Savino-Garzon (2013) consulted the districts
questionnaire obtained an overall Cronbach's alpha of .926 indicating that the instrument was
According to Ajayi (2016), a limitation of his study was that it focused more on how the
teachers view their initial preparation for teaching the Common Core rather than how teachers
limitation of her study was that the Reading Street Program was only created for second to fifth
grade, and because of this, discussion of results was limited to Grades 2 through 5 (p. 84).
There is also the possibility that the participants will not answer the survey honestly. Other
Pilot study.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics.
For the data collected, frequencies, means, range, and standard deviation were reported
Inferential analysis.
The strength of the correlation was considered weak for r < .30; moderate if .30<r<.70; strong if
.70<r<1.00.
Danielle OGrady 26
The purpose of this study was to explore whether teachers perceptions of the
effectiveness of the ReadyGEN literacy program, published by Pearson, was related to their
It was hypothesized that teachers would differ in their perceptions of the ReadyGEN
Statistical Results
Learning Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN, the survey Teacher
Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN was
coefficient. The strength of the correlation was considered weak for r < .30; moderate if .
Frequencies.
Range.
The range of teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards was 1.44.
Standard deviation.
The standard deviation of teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards
Danielle OGrady 27
was .48986. The standard deviation of teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was .
60111.
According to the measures of central tendency, teachers who participated in this study, on
average with a mean of 3.2667, had a neutral or no opinion on the Common Core Standards. In
contrast, teachers who participated in this study, on average with a mean of 2.4891, had a
The mean of teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards was 3.2667.
The mean of teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was 2.4891. The median of
teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards was 3.4722. The median of
teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was 2.3913. The smallest mode of teachers
perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards was 2.56. The smallest mode of teachers
perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons
ReadyGEN. The correlation between teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning
Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was .264. The strength of the
These results showed that, contrary to Henderson, Peterson, and Wests (2015) findings
that 12% of teachers neither approved nor disapproved of the Common Core, teachers who
Danielle OGrady 28
participated in this study, according to a mean of 3.2667, on average had no opinion or a neutral
opinion on the Common Core State Standards. However, according to a mean of 2.4891,
teachers who participated in this study had a negative perception of Pearsons ReadyGEN.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to explore whether teachers perceptions of the
effectiveness of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program was related to their perceptions of the
Common Core. It was hypothesized that teachers would differ in their perceptions of the
ReadyGEN program based on their perceptions of the Common Core, their years experience,
The data was correlated to determine whether teachers perceptions of the Common Core
State Standards are related to their perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program. The
participants were 20 kindergarten through sixth grade teachers who use or had used Pearsons
this study. This study used a survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning
Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN. This survey was based on Ajayis (2016) survey of
high school teachers perceptions of the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards
and Savino-Garzons (2013) survey on Reading Street. The independent variable, teachers
perceptions of the Common Core State Standards was measured by question 8 on the survey.
The dependent variable, teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program, was
measured by question 9 on the survey. The participants answered on the following scales:
strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), no opinion/neutral (3), agree (4), strongly agree
(5). Correlational research design analyzed data by calculating the correlation coefficient. The
Danielle OGrady 29
strength of the correlation was considered weak for r < .30; moderate if .30<r<.70; strong if .
70<r<1.00.
Conclusions
on the Common Core State Standards. These results contradict Henderson, Peterson, and Wests
(2015) findings that only 12% of teachers neither approved nor disapproved of the Common
Core. According to a mean of 2.4891, teachers who participated in this study had a negative
The correlation between teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards
and teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was .264. The strength of the correlation
was considered weak for .264 < .30. This shows that teachers perceptions of the Common Core
State Standards were not related to their perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program.
This goes against the hypothesis that teachers perceptions of the Common Core State Standards
Recommendations
Assumptions.
In conducting this study, the researcher assumed that the participants would answer
truthfully and accurately, and that all participants had had experience with Pearsons
ReadyGEN literacy program. The researcher also assumed that the survey would correctly
measure teachers perceptions on the Common Core and on ReadyGEN and that the data would
be correlated properly.
Limitations.
The limitations of this study that prevent generalization to a larger population included
Danielle OGrady 30
the following: extraneous variables that could not be controlled (years experience, educational
background, and the type of class they teach); lack of participants; a small non-random sample
size of 20 participants.
Delimitations.
This study was confined to public elementary school teachers in New York City. No
effort was made to determine their programs, their grades, and any previous activities that may
future research should be expanded to throughout the state of New York, not just New York City.
References
About the standards. (n.d.). Retrieved April 01, 2016, from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-
standards/
Ajayi, L. (2016). High school teachers' perspectives on the English Language Arts Common Core State
Standards: An exploratory study. Educational Research For Policy And Practice, 15(1), 1-25.
Applebee, A. N. (2013). Common Core State Standards: The promise and the peril in a national
Background. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 01, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/background
Barrett-Tatum, J. (2015). Examining English Language Arts Common Core State Standards instruction
through cultural historical activity theory. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(63).
Borg, S. (2003b). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Language Awareness,
12(2), 96-108.
Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language
teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language teaching, 36(02), 81-109.
Brown, S., & Kappes, L. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: A primer on. Aspen
Institute.
Carillo, E. C. (2016). Reimagining the role of the reader in the Common Core State Standards. English
Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science,
and Technical Subjects Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements of the Standards
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf
Danielle OGrady 32
Cramer, P. (2013, February 28). Newly hatched Common Core curriculums get city endorsement.
core-curriculums-get-city-endorsement/#.Vt9G8_krK73
Darville, S. (2015, June 09). In limited survey, principals say theyre happy with new Common Core
most-principals-say-theyre-happy-with-new-common-core- materials/#.Vt9JJ_krK70
Dobrick, A. (2014). Poverty and pretense: Good intentions and misguided educational reform from No
Child Left Behind through Race to the Top. In The Obama Administration and Educational
Educational. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 01, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/educational
Effective. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved March 08, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/effective
Experience. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 01, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/experience
Giles, R. M., & Tunks, K. (2015). Teachers thoughts on teaching reading: An investigation of early
43(6), 523-530.
Henderson, M. B., Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2015). No common opinion on the Common Core.
Iannone, C. (2015). Experiencing the common core. Academic Questions, 28(2), 182-194.
doi:10.1007/s12129-015-9502-3
Lalu, E. (2014). Teachers, pupils, and parents opinions on primary textbooks: Their selection, quality
Danielle OGrady 33
Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice:
Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8),
916-929.
McLaughlin, M., & Overturf, B. J. (2012). The common core: Insights into the K5 standards. The
Murphy, M. R., & Marshall, K. J. (2015). Common core preparation in special education teacher
education programs: Beginning the conversation. Teacher Education And Special Education,
38(3), 167-185.
Nadelson, L. S., Pluska, H., Moorcroft, S., Jeffrey, A., & Woodard, S. (2014). Educators perceptions
and knowledge of the Common Core State Standards. Issues In Teacher Education, 22(2), 47-66.
Pearson. (n.d.). ReadyGEN Program Overview [Brochure]. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from
http://assets.pearsonschool.com/asset_mgr/current/20168/Program-Overview Brochure.pdf
Perception. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved March 08, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perception
Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers intention to use technology in
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards the new US intended
locator=PS2eUe
Rickelman, R. J. (2013). Tapping into the common core standards. In Szabo, S., Martin, L., Haas, L.,
Garza-Garcia, L., & Association of Literacy Educators and, R. (2013). (Ed.), Literacy Is
Danielle OGrady 34
Savino-Garzon, D. (2013). Teacher evaluation of the scripted Reading Street Program and the level of
satisfaction among its sub-scale components. Retrieved from Seton Hall University Dissertations
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). Arguments for and against the Common Core State Standards. Gifted Child
Wall, P. (2014, January 29). As crises ebb, educators adjust to new Common Core curriculums.
adjust-to-new-common-core-curriculums/#.Vt9J-PkrK71
Watson, S. (2015, August 15). What is special education? Retrieved March 08, 2016, from
http://specialed.about.com/od/idea/a/Special101.htm
Webster, J. (2015, September 05). General education -- the education everyone should be provided.
Webster, J. (2016, February 27). Inclusion - what is inclusion? Retrieved March 08, 2016, from
http://specialed.about.com/od/integration/a/Inclusion-What-Is-Inclusion.htm
Woodard, R., & Kline, S. (2015). Moving beyond compliance: Promoting research-based professional
discretion in the implementation of the common core state standards in English language arts.
Year. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 01, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/year
Danielle OGrady 35
Appendix A Correspondence
Danielle OGrady 36
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Y55BJFP
Thank you!
Danielle OGrady 37
Danielle OGrady 38
Danielle OGrady 39
Danielle OGrady 40
Danielle OGrady 41
Danielle OGrady 42
Danielle OGrady 43
Danielle OGrady 44
Appendix B Instrument
Danielle OGrady 45
Danielle OGrady 46
Danielle OGrady 47
Danielle OGrady 48
Danielle OGrady 49
Danielle OGrady 50
Danielle OGrady 51
Correlations
CCmean Rmean
CCmean Pearson Correlation 1 .264
Sig. (2-tailed) .261
N 20 20
Rmean Pearson Correlation .264 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .261
N 20 20
Danielle OGrady 52
Statistics
CCmean Rmean
N Valid 20 20
Missing 0 0
Mean 3.2667 2.4891
Median 3.4722 2.3913
a
Mode 2.56 2.13a
Std. Deviation .48986 .60111
Range 1.44 2.70
Frequency Tables
CCmean
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2.56 3 15.0 15.0 15.0
2.67 1 5.0 5.0 20.0
2.72 2 10.0 10.0 30.0
3.00 1 5.0 5.0 35.0
3.06 1 5.0 5.0 40.0
3.33 1 5.0 5.0 45.0
3.44 1 5.0 5.0 50.0
3.50 2 10.0 10.0 60.0
3.56 3 15.0 15.0 75.0
3.67 2 10.0 10.0 85.0
3.78 1 5.0 5.0 90.0
3.94 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
4.00 1 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
Danielle OGrady 53
Rmean
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1.30 1 5.0 5.0 5.0
1.91 1 5.0 5.0 10.0
2.13 3 15.0 15.0 25.0
2.22 1 5.0 5.0 30.0
2.26 2 10.0 10.0 40.0
2.30 1 5.0 5.0 45.0
2.39 3 15.0 15.0 60.0
2.43 1 5.0 5.0 65.0
2.65 1 5.0 5.0 70.0
2.70 2 10.0 10.0 80.0
2.78 1 5.0 5.0 85.0
2.83 1 5.0 5.0 90.0
3.87 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
4.00 1 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0