Round 3 Data Analysis

Research Questions

In Round 3 of my research I aimed to determine to what extent phonemic awareness instruction is

supporting my beginning readers to decode and read fluently through small group instruction. My research
questions are the following:

1. What happens when intensive phonemic awareness instruction is provided as an intervention to struggling
second-grade readers?
2. What are the impacts on decoding accuracy?
3. What are the impacts on reading fluency?
4. What are student’s opinions of the Heggerty Reading Program on their decoding and fluency skills?

Intervention/Innovation

In order to support my students with their decoding skills and reading fluency, I taught lessons that are
focused on building students’ phonemic awareness skills. For the supplementary instruction, I used the
Heggerty Primary Curriculum to study if the improvement in phonemic awareness skills increases the
acquisition of reading skills. Children who have phonemic awareness are able to break apart words into
phonemes in order to read a word and write a word (Chapman, M.L., 2003). In Round 3, I taught ten phonemic
awareness lessons over the course of two weeks. These lessons were similar in structure for all three rounds.
The lessons included eight phonemic awareness skills that were presented in a sequential order. The lessons
included the following skills 1) Rhyme Recognition 2) Onset Fluency 3) Blending Words 4) Isolating Final
Sounds 5) Segmenting words 6) Adding Words 7) Deleting Words 8) Substituting Words. Additionally, I
reviewed letter names and sounds. Finally, each lesson ended with a language awareness skill in which I said a
nursery rhyme and students repeated the nursery rhyme with the same expression. I continued using specific
hand motions for each skill and students responded with the hand motions (total physical response) throughout
the intervention lessons in Round 3. Research shows that total physical response (TPR) helps students by
sharpening their listening skills and helps students with different learning modalities including kinesthetic and
visual learners (Shi, 2018).

At the culmination of the ten intervention lessons, my focal students were given three assessments
including the basic phonics skills test (BPST), grade level reading fluency assessment, and a phonemic
awareness assessment. I finished the round with a student interviews. The interviews gave me insight on
students’ opinion of the Heggerty Reading Program on their decoding and fluency skills.

Data Collected

Students were assessed in February of 2022 for baseline data scores and again in March, April, and
lastly in May of 2022 after completing three rounds of interventions. My focal students were assessed using the
BPST, Reading Fluency Passage by the University of Oregon, and the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness
Assessment. The data that has been included in the Round 3 memo includes all five of my focal students. My
focal student Lauren, returned to school after missing a vast amount of school in Round 2. I was pleased to have
Lauren back for Round 3.

Data Analysis

Qualitative Data Analysis

 I began by reviewing my field notes following the phonemic awareness lessons as well as the student
interview notes using open coding qualitative methodology. While reviewing my notes I highlighted students’
perceptions toward the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness lessons. I also went through my observation notes and
began looking for codes and for themes. The qualitative data revealed that most of my students found the
phonemic awareness activities engaging and good. Through interviews, the five focal students mentioned they
liked using their hands while participating in the lessons and felt good about their reading progress. Good and
proud were major themes throughout my interviews with the students. Through observation, students were
playful and gitty during the lessons. I observed smiles when they would participate. My five focal students used
the TPR motions on a very consistent basis not only during lessons but are also using the TPR during the
assessments. What I am taking away is that the students continue to enjoy the phonemic awareness lessons in
small groups during Round 3 and are feeling very happy and proud of themselves. This indicates that the
continued use of TPR is becoming second nature and keeping students engaged and is very important for their
learning.

Quantitative Data Analysis

I began by reviewing the beginning phonics skills test (BPST). The test assesses several skills including
consonant sounds and names, consonant digraphs, short vowels, and one-syllable words with five vowel
patterns including the following: short vowels, final e, long vowel digraphs, other vowel digraphs, and r-
controlled. Additionally, two syllable patterns are also examined. This assessment has been administered four
times. Once to establish a baseline and again at the conclusion of Round 1, Round 2, and Round 3 to monitor
student’ progress.

I also administered a reading fluency assessment by the University of Oregon. This assessment is an
extremely time-efficient assessment to track a students’ overall reading ability. This is a one minute assessment
that serves as a powerful indicator of overall reading competence. This assessment is helping me answer two of
my research questions: 1. What are the impacts on decoding accuracy? 2. What are the impacts on reading
fluency?
This assessment has been administered four times. Once to establish a baseline and at the wrap-up of Round 1,
Round 2, and lastly in Round 3 to monitor student’ development.

Lastly, I administered the Phonemics Awareness assessment. This assessment assesses nine phonemic
awareness skills. The skills being assessed are: rhyme production, onset fluency, blending phonemes, isolating
final sounds, segmenting words into phonemes, isolating medial sounds, adding initial phonemes, deleting
initial phonemes, substituting initial phonemes. This phonemic awareness assessment is helping me to progress
monitor phonemic awareness skills and answer one of my research questions: 1. What happens when intensive
phonemic awareness instruction is provided as an intervention to struggling second-grade readers? This
assessment has been administered a total of three times. Once to establish a baseline and again in Round 2 and
at the end of Round 3 to monitor students’ progress.

Findings

In analyzing the results of quantitative data, I started by analyzing the Basic Phonics Skills Test (BPST).
I found the baseline mean increased from a baseline of 36 points to 53.4 points at the completion of Round 3.
There was a 12.4-point mean increase, which is indicating that the phonemic awareness instruction is growing
after each round of instruction and having an impacting student decoding accuracy. Towards the end of every
intervention lesson I hold up a flashcard one at a time in random order. Students say the letter name and sound
and also provide the short sounds and long sounds for each vowel. The students had been having a hard time
between the j and g sound. After the third round, we finally have these two letter sounds mastered. This
assessment is helping me answer question two of my research. What are the impacts on decoding accuracy?
This continued growth in decoding accuracy supports the continuation of intensive phonemic awareness
instruction.

Lauren has a score of 42 points. She is also showing growth and recognizes 20/21 consonant letters and
sounds. She has not mastered the letter sound of q. She knows 5/5 of the short vowel names and sounds. Her
area of strength is reading short vowel cvc words and consonant blends. Her areas of need are reading
consonant digraphs, words with inflectional endings, long vowel words with final e, and long vowel digraphs.
She gained 9 points since Round 1. Lauren was not included in Round 2 due to attendance issues.

Esmeralda has an overall score of 58 points out of 91. She identifies 21/21 of the consonant letters and
sounds. She presently knows 5/5 of the short vowel names and sounds. Emmi is showing growth and beginning
to read long vowel digraphs, r –controlled words, other vowel digraphs, and 2-syllable words. Some areas of
limitation include affixes and multi-syllabic words. She gained 5 points since Round 2.

Yolanda has a total score of 54 points out of 91. She is showing growth and recognizes 21/21 consonant
letters and 5/5 of the short vowel names and sounds. Areas of strength include short vowel words, consonant
digraphs, consonant blends. She is beginning to read long vowel words with final e. She is also beginning to
decode words with 2 syllables. Her areas of need include reading words with inflectional endings and long
vowel digraphs. She grew a total of 8 points since Round 2.

Roberto has a score of 54 points. He showed the most growth in Round 3. Roberto recognizes 21/21
consonant letters and sounds. He also knows 5/5 of the short vowel names and sounds. His area of strength is
reading short vowel cvc words, consonant digraphs, consonant blends and long vowel words with final e. His
areas of need are decoding long vowel digraphs, r-controlled words, other vowel digraphs. He grew a total of 10
points since Round 2.

Vicente has an overall score of 59 points. He can identify 21/21 consonant letters and sounds.
Additionally, he recognizes 5/5 of the short vowel names and sounds. His area of strength includes reading
short vowel cvc words and consonant blends. He has showing excellent growth in reading consonant digraphs
and long vowel words with final e.
Areas of need include decoding-controlled words, other vowel digraph words, and multi-syllabic words.
Vicente increased by 8 points since Round 2. Please view overall BPST totals and growth in figures 1.1. and
1.2

Figure 1.1
 BPST Assessment
70
58 59
BPST Totals ( 91 Points Possible)

60 54 54
51 53 51
50 46 48
42 44 46 44
40 39
40 36
33 33
30 26

20

10

0
Lauren Esmeralda Yolanda Roberto Vicente

BPST Baseline BPST End of Round 1 BPST End of Round 2 BPST End of Round 3

Figure 1.2

Students' BPST BPST End of BPST End of BPST End of

Scores Baseline Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
Lauren 26 33 42
Esmeralda 46 51 53 58
Yolanda 36 44 46 54
Roberto 33 40 44 54
Vicente 39 48 51 59

Total 180 216 194 267

Mean 36 43.2 48.5 53.4
Median 36 44 48.5 54
Mode #N/A #N/A #N/A 54
Highest 46 51 53 59
Lowest 26 33 44 42
Range 20 18 9 17
Std 7.3824115 7.04982269 4.20317340 6.76756972
Deviation 3 3 4 6
17.6666666
Variance 54.5 49.7 7 45.8

Next, I examined the reading fluency results. By looking at the reading fluency bar graph below,
students were able to demonstrate progress from the baseline data taken in February to the current Round 3 data
taken in May. Reading fluency is defined as the ability to read with speed, accuracy, and proper expression.
Fluency is important for children to understand what they read.

After conducting Round 3 interventions, my focal students are all showing good growth and making
gains in their reading fluency. There is growth from February when I collected baseline data which is very
encouraging and helping me see the positive outcomes on what can happen when intensive phonemic awareness
instruction is provided as an intervention to struggling second-grade readers. After reviewing the Round 3
fluency data I saw the class average increase from 21.6 wcpm on the baseline assessment to an average of 48
wcpm after the culmination of Round 3. This reading fluency data rise tells me the phonemic awareness lessons
may be contributing to the growth of students’ reading fluency.

Lauren is currently reading 16 wpm. She has made a gain of 7 words since her last assessment in Round
1. Esmeralda is reading 45 wpm. She made a gain of 12 words since Round 2. Yolanda has had an increase of 6
wcpm since Round 2 with a current fluency score of 45 wcpm. Roberto has made a gain of 15 wpm with a
current fluency score of 60 wcpm. Finally, Vicente has an increase of 10 wcpm since Round 2 and has a current
fluency score of 60 wcpm as well. The steady increases in all of my focal students reading fluency is validating
how the phonemic awareness intervention lessons are supporting their reading fluency scores positively.
Please view figure 1.3 and figure 1.4.

Figure 1.3

Reading Fluency
70
60 60
60
Words Per Minute (WPM)

48 50
50 45 45
42
40 33 33
30 29 31 33
30 23 25
19
20 16
9
10 4
0
Lauren Esmeralda Yolanda Roberto Vicente

Fluency Baseline Fluency-End of Round 1 Fluency-End of Round 2 Fluency-End of Round 3

Figure 1.4

Students' Fluency Fluency-End Fluency-End Fluency-End

Scores Baseline of Round 1 of Round 2 of Round 3
Lauren 4 9 16
Esmeralda 19 23 33 45
Yolanda 25 30 42 48
Roberto 29 33 45 60
Vicente 31 33 50 60

Total 108 128 170 229

Mean 21.6 25.6 42.5 45.8
Median 25 30 43.5 48
Mode #N/A 33 #N/A 60
Highest 31 33 50 60
Lowest 4 9 33 16
Range 27 24 17 44
Std 10.8535708 10.1390334 7.14142842 18.005554
Deviation 4 8 9 7
Variance 117.8 102.8 51 324.2
 The last assessment I administered was the phonemics awareness assessment. This assessment has a
possibility of 48 total points. I gave this assessment in February 2022 as a baseline test and again in Round 2
and at the end of Round 3. Throughout the assessment, I observed my students instinctively using total physical
response (TPR) to respond to the questions being asked. TPR is an ESL strategy and supports visual, audio, and
kinesthetic learner modalities.

After examining the Round 3 phonemic awareness data I observed the class average increase from 28
points (58% test average) on the baseline assessment to an average of 43 points (88% test average) at the
culmination of Round 3. The average gains in phonemic awareness skills are very impressive as this indicates
that students’ growth in reading are due to their phonemic awareness development. Children who have
phonemic awareness are able to break apart words into phonemes in order to read a word and write a word
(Chapman, M.L., 2003). After going through the phonemic awareness test results, the focal students have
strengths in onset fluency, blending, isolating final sounds, deleting and substituting initial phonemes. One area
of great need is rhyme production. In Round 3, one of the skills taught was language awareness. Students were
asked to recite nursery rhymes line by line echoing the teacher. We recited nursery rhymes such as Little Miss
Muffett, Old Mother Hubbard, Twinkle, Twinkle, Hey Diddle Diddle, and Humpty Dumpty. To my surprise
many of my students had never heard of these nursery rhymes which was very unexpected. Nursery rhymes are
really important for children so they develop an ear for rhyme and rhythm. As a Spanish speaker, I had to reflect
on what nursery rhymes might look like in their native language. I do remember a few from my childhood such
as Los Politos Dicen Pio Pio and my all time favorite Un Elephante se Balenciaba. These were also foreign to
my students. Not having enough exposure to nursery rhymes in English or Spanish could explain why this is an
area of vast need. I plan on using nursery rhyme practice in class to help students continue to develop their
language awareness. Please see figure 1.6 and figure 1.7.

Figure 1.6

Phonemic Awareness Assessment

50 47
45
45 42 42
39 40 41 40
40 36
35 32 33
Score ( out of 48)

30
30
25
25
20
20
15
10
5
0
Lauren Esmeralda Yolanda Roberto Vicente

Phonemic Awareness Screener Phonemic Awarenes Screener-End of Round 2

Phonemic Awarenes Screener-End of Round 3

Figure 1.7

Students' Phonemic Phonemic Phonemic

 Awareness Awareness
Awareness Screener End Screener End
Scores Screener of Round 2 of Round 3
Lauren 25   42
Esmeralda 20 36 39
Yolanda 30 42 47
Roberto 32 40 41
Vicente 33 40 45

Total 140 158 214

Mean 28 39.5 42.8
Median 30 40 42
Mode #N/A 40 #N/A
Highest 33 42 47
Lowest 20 36 39
Range 13 6 8
Std 5.43139024 2.51661147 3.19374388
Deviation 6 8 5
6.33333333
Variance 29.5 3 10.2

Planning

Although, my collection of data has concluded in Round 3 I still plan on continuing the implementation
of the Heggerty Phonemic Awareness lessons daily for 20 minutes through the remainder of the school year.
The data collected from the culmination of Round 3 is continuing to indicate that the phonemic awareness
lessons are essential and plausibly be the reason students are showing growth in their reading skills. I am seeing
progression across the board in students’ scores after the administration of the Basic Phonics Skills Test,
reading fluency assessment, and the phonemic awareness assessment which is very reassuring that going back
and teaching the foundational skills of reading is essential.

Literature Connections

Through this Round 3, I referenced and made some literature connections. Research claims that
phonemic awareness statistically makes a significant contribution to reading skills (Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows,
D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T., 2001). In this article, the authors explained how
phonemic awareness instruction in numerous studies, statistically impacts reading positively in both word reading,
spelling, and reading comprehension. In short, this article found that phonemic awareness instruction helped normally
developing readers and at risk readers.

As I wrapped up my Round 3 instruction and data collection I continued to see gains in all my students
assessment scores. Nearly all my students reading fluency scores doubled since the baseline data was collected in
February 2022. After reading this article, it validates my research question that phonemic awareness skills are
positively impacting reading fluency skills (wcpm). Also, this article mentioned how spelling is improved
through phonemic awareness instruction. I did not include a question about writing in my research, however
after reading my students’ writing samples I have noticed an improvement in their spelling skills as well. They
are using their phonemic awareness skills to sound out their words as they write in their daily journals.
Phonemic awareness skills are so important for reading because written words correspond to spoken words. So
not only do phonemic awareness skills improve reading but also impact students’ writing.
 This article also examined under what circumstances PA instruction helped students. It confirmed that
teaching students in small groups rather than individually or as a whole was more effective. Likewise, I had
read this point made in the Foorman article. Students with reading difficulty need added instructional intensity
which can be offered with extra time or in a small group or one-to-one instructional setting (Foorman, B.R., &
Torgesen, J., 2001). With this information, I decided to proceed with the delivery of instruction in small groups