Round 2 Data Analysis Memo and Round 3 Plan

Research Question:
What happens to students’ phonological awareness when they engage in multimodal small group
learning activities?
1. How does using letter sounds intervention support students to understand the concept of

alphabet sounds and using it towards other phonological skills?

2. What happens to the knowledge of rhyming words for preschool children, when engage

in explicit instruction activities? More precisely, how does it increase a child’s ability to

identify rhymes, identify beginning sounds, and more aware of word sounds?

Intervention/Innovation: Based on my findings in round 1, a repetitive code of “uncertainty”

shows up in rhyming of Phonological Awareness skills. To support my focal students with a
better understanding of rhyming; I focused this intervention on using 3 letter CVC (consonant,
vowel, consonant) rhyming words. CVC words are easier to sound out, as each letter presents a
single sound. There is no blending or diphthongs with CVC words, which will make it easier for
preschoolers to achieve and develop fluency. In this explicit instruction intervention, I point to 3
rhyming word cards (cup, cat, and bat) along with photos for visual learners. Two of the three
cards will have the same beginning on-set sound, as well as two cards with the same ending
sound.
Next, I asked each focal student which two words rhyme or sound the same using
beginning words that share an onset. This will support focal students with focusing on the ending
sound. Studies suggest that children will benefit from repeated exposure, explicit teaching of
what it means to rhyme, and scaffolding. In addition to findings that suggest effective linguistic
focus is better served by teaching children phonological awareness through word, syllable, onset-
rime, and phoneme-level manipulations rather than exclusively through traditional rhyming
activities (Wolf, 2015, p.7). I worked with students 3 times a week during small group. This
intervention is to support focal students to distinguish rhyming words more comprehensively
using word, syllable, onset-rime, and phoneme-level manipulations.
Data Collected:
 Observations of engagements during small group.
 Rubric to analyze data in this round.
 Compare the tally score of correct use of the intervention on-set rhyming words to
traditional rhyming words.

Data Analysis:
I will be using mixed methods when it comes to analyzing the data.
Qualitative Data-
 I will utilize the Phonemic Awareness Skills rubric at the end of each round. The rubric
has 5 Phonological Awareness skills and four levels, including a description of what
performing to a certain level on each scale looks like per skill. An observation scale using
four levels will be used. Next, I will compare for any growth in the four-level observation
scale in each round. This rubric will measure the accuracy of the observations and will
give me information about my overall findings. An example of one section from the
Phonemic Awareness Skills Rubric will be displayed below:
PA SKILLS 1 2 3 4 Level/Score
RHYMING Student Student Student Student
recognized and recognized and recognized and recognized and
produced produced produced produced
rhyming words rhyming words rhyming words rhyming words
with with 20-60% with 60-80% with 80%
>20% accuracy accuracy accuracy accuracy
*Students will be presented with 5 items for each section. Score: /20

 Student observations: I will be observing for word lists of what rhyming words students
struggle with and which hands-on activities are more engaging, such as matching cards,
clip cards, or puzzles. I will take anecdotal notes and find the common codes at the end of
the round. Then I will write up any themes, patterns, or findings.

Quantitative Data-
 I will be using the same rubric to analyze data from each round of my study. The rubric
has 5 Phonological Awareness skills, measuring a level on each scale. In addition to
scoring 5 items per skill on each scale, and the Pre assessment of Read Right from the
Start. Next, I will compare for any growth in the scores of each round. The rubric scores
will be calculated, and I will display the data in graphs.
  Focal students were presented with 14 different rhyming cards. 7 of the rhyming cards
have on-set beginning sounds. The other 7 rhyming cards are traditional ending sound
cards. Students were asked with beginning sounds, “What two words rhyme or sound the
same in both on-set rhyming and traditional rhyming.
Findings:
From my qualitative data analysis finding during my intervention observation, from the
CVC rhyming words listing, “bed, bun, and red” (3%) were the words that most focal students
struggled with to identifying. On the other hand, “big, bat, dig (21%), and had, hot, mad (21%)
were the most recognized CVC rhyming words to identify. With the multimodal activities during
small group, focal students were mainly engaged in the rhyming card matching game (46%). To
illustrate, focal students #1, #4, and #7 enjoyed working together to find the matching cards. As
well as working together to find a random card that they consider belongs to the card. The
longest time recorded for this activity and all other activities is ten minutes, which is throughout
the entire small group time. Other multimodal activities that were offered throughout the
intervention were rhyming clip cards (32%), which was the second most engaged activity. The
average time (mode) spent on this activity was about six minutes. Focal students were least
interested in the rhyming puzzles (22%). To demonstrate, focal student #5 was more focused on
finding the fitting piece to the puzzle rather than matching the rhyme piece. After a few attempts
of not finding the fitting piece, focal student #5 moved on to other activities. The shortest time
recorded for this activity was about 17 seconds.
According to the research question, how much knowledge of rhyming words do
preschool children have with explicit instruction, more precisely, does it increase children’s
ability to identify rhymes and PA? Based on the research question, the rubric scale results show
that explicit instruction does increase children’s ability to identify rhymes and PA. Another
qualitative data analysis finding after coding through the rubric. I discovered two themes; the
first theme is the focal students’ comprehension of each PA skill. The second theme is what focal
students are exploring for each PA skill. With each PA skill, there was a comprehension or
challenge that focal students encountered. For example, focal students were able to comprehend
rhyming when being offered two rhyming words to choose from. What the focal students are
exploring is producing rhyming words with a given word or producing their own rhyming words.
An example of what focal students comprehend and do not comprehend will be displayed below
in Table 1. In addition to my qualitative data analysis findings, the rubric scale results show
Level 2 as the highest rated scale and Level 4 as the lowest rated scale. The levels of the students
in this round are reflected below in Table 2.
Table 1. Rubric scale theme and student responses examples (n=8)
Themes Sample responses Total responses

What students Rhyming: Students comprehend 6/8

comprehend more accurately when rhyming
words are given. When asked does
hug and bug rhyme?

Examples of Student responses:

“yes.”

“Yes, bug and hug.”

Phoneme Isolation: Students 7/8

comprehend beginning sounds.

What is the first sound you hear in

the word two?

Examples of Student responses:

“/t/”

“two, two, two.”

What students Rhyming: Student struggles with 5/8

are still producing rhyming words that go
exploring with a word given or producing their
own rhyming words. What rhymes
with me?

Examples of Student responses:

“me.”

“wall.”

Phoneme Isolation: Students 8/8

struggle with identifying the middle
sound and ending sounds. What
middle sound do you hear in the
word pet?

Examples of student responses:

“/p/”

“pet”
(Table shows total responses per PA skill of what students comprehend and is exploring. In
addition to the table 4/8 students comprehend adding sounds to words in Phoneme
Manipulation, 8/8 struggled with manipulation of taking out beginning sounds. 5/8 student
comprehend blending 3 letter words in Phoneme Blending, 6/8 struggled with blending 4
letter words. 7/8 comprehend segment of word syllables. 8/8 struggled with sound in
segmentation.)

Table 2. Rubric Level Scale Round 2 (n=8)

Level Scale Percentage Percentage R-1 R-2 Percentage R-2
Round of students of students of students R-3
(Round 2, 17%
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 of focal
students are
rated at Level
LEVEL 1 1, with a
decrease of
20% 42% 17% -84.746% 84.746% to a
ACCURACY higher level.
LEVEL 2 50% of focal
students are
20-60% 39% 50% +24.719% rated at Level 2
ACCURACY with an
LEVEL 3 increase of
24.719% from
60-80% 17% 28% +48.889% round 1 to
ACCURACY round 2. 28%
LEVEL 4 of focal
students are
80% 2% 5% +85.714% rated at level 3
ACCURCY with an
increase of
48.889% from round 1 to round 2. 5% of focal students are rated at level 4 with an increase
of 85.714% from round 2 to round 3)

In my quantitative data analysis findings, I used the same rubric from each round. The
rubric score results show Phoneme isolation had the lowest skill score at 16% and Phoneme
Blending had the highest skill score at 26%. The scores of the students in this round is reflected
below in Table 3. The results from the correct tally comparison between on-set rhyming
(intervention) and traditional rhyming show that focal students did better with the intervention.
The data graph shows 34 frequencies of correct beginning rhyming sounds tallied, and 27
frequency of correct ending rhyming sounds tallied. Based on this finding, focal students were
more successful using the beginning sound strategy to support their rhyming skills. I will
compare and display the data in graphs to present my findings.
The scores of the comparison will be displayed below in Graph 1. Based on the rubric
scores and the correct tally comparison between on-set rhyming words and traditional rhyming
words, the intervention shows that learning is taking place and supporting students, although
there was a slight difference between the results. From the rubric score, rhyming increased from
17% to 19%, which is a slight growth. As well as a slight growth in the comparison score from
34% (on-set rhyming) to 27% (traditional rhyming).
Table 3. Rubric Score Round 2 Chart (n=8)
PA SKILLS ROUND ROUND R-1 R-2 ROUND R-2 R-3
1 2 3
Rhyming 17% 20% +16.216%
Phoneme Isolation 19% 17% -11.111%

Phoneme 20% 19% -5.1282%

Manipulation
Phoneme Blending 22% 21% -4.6513%
Phoneme 22% 23% +4.4444%
Segmentation
(This round 2 rubric scoring, shows that the total score for Phoneme Segmentation from
focal students is at 23%, 21% in Phoneme Blending, 20% in Rhyming, 19% in Phoneme
Manipulation, and 17% in Phoneme isolation.)

Graph 1. Results of the score between onset and traditional rhyming (n=8)
 Comparison score between onset and traditional
rhyming
Onset Rhyming Traditional Rhyming
6 6

5 5 5 5

4 4

3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(The total score of onset rhyming is 34 and total score of traditional rhyming is 27 for all
focal students. Showing that focal students score higher with the intervention onset
rhyming.)

Planning Next Round:

My qualitative and quantitative findings show the challenges and what PA skills are in
need of support. Phoneme Isolation is one of the main focus areas. Due to the challenges from
other PA skills, Phoneme Isolation will be a difficult task for my focal student’s rating level.
This is imparted because mastery of this task involves being able to isolate and delete, beginning,
middle, and ending sounds. Many kindergartens and first grade students could complete this task
with ease (Mathisen, 2014, p. 18). The following tasks to improve phonemic awareness are
responding to rhymes, classifying or matching phonemes, segmenting part of a word, full
phoneme segmentation, and phoneme isolation (Mathisen, 2014, p. 16). To master Phoneme
Isolation my focal students will first have to tackle the tasks mentioned. Although some tasks
were focused on in rounds 1 and 2, students still need to focus on those areas.

Emergent literacy skills are related to with each other. For example, growth in oral
language may be associated with an increasingly segmental structure of spoken word recognition
that may support the learning of increasingly higher levels of phonological sensitivity (phonemic
awareness). Additionally oral vocabulary development related to text decoding and letter
knowledge and sounds associated with print exposure or the development of reading skills
(Anthony et al., 2002 p. 3). Given this information and the challenges my focal students are
showing, it should be obvious that all my focal students should continue to be exposed to
phonological sensitivity explicit instructions. The goal of continuing to build in all areas of PA
skills will eventually create the bridge to reach the master of Phoneme Isolation. I will need to
modify my interventions to target all the PA skills needed. The new literature reviews will assist
me with planning my next round to continue supporting my focal students in all PA skills. I will
continue to use repeated strategies but will modify them with new practices from the new
literature. I will use a checklist and data review to monitor my focal students.

Literature Connections:

Phillips, B. M., Menchetti, J. C., & Lonigan, C. J. (2008). Successful phonological awareness

instruction with preschool children: Lessons from the classroom: Lessons from the

classroom. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(1), 3–17.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121407313813

This literature addresses the issues of rhyme and how it is more difficult than it
seems. It is recommended that you teach sounds, syllables, and word segments before
jumping into rhyming. Instead of presenting 3 words with 2 rhyming and having students
identify the odd one, I will provide phonological awareness instruction to preschool
children in rhyming. The author explained using the same task, however, with words that
share an onset and ending sound. This will challenge the child to focus on words sharing
endings rather than beginning sounds. This literature influences my intervention since it
supported my age group and findings from round 2.

Adhami, E. O. (2005). Emmie: a multi-modality tool for developing the link between rhyming
and reading comprehension. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/concern/theses/ns064b608?
locale=en
The literature states that students learn best when the modalities of hearing, sight, touch, and
movement are all involved. The author also states that it has been observed that students retain
10% of what they read, 20% of what they hear, 30% of what they see, 50% of what they see and
hear, 70% of what they say, and 90% of what they say and do. This literature was also a big
influence on how I created my intervention in round 2. I wanted to create a multimodal
intervention in small group that would support students with 90% of their effort.
 Mathisen. (2014). Best practices of reading instruction for emergent readers pre-k through first
grade.

Anthony, J. L., Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Driscoll, K., Phillips, B. M., & Cantor, B. G.

(2002). Structure of preschool phonological sensitivity: overlapping sensitivity to rhyme,

words, syllables, and phonemes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82(1), 65–

92. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2002.2677

Two new literature reviews with implementing round 3 and data collection planning.