Running head: WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

The Impact of Direct Whole Group Instruction on Increased Word Recognition for Struggling
First Grade Students
LaMar A. Torres
East Carolina University
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this paper was to share the results of an action research study. The study focused

on a whole language approach to phonics instruction to increase struggling readers ability to

identify single syllable words. This qualitative study included direct phonics instruction for 23

first grade students, while the intervention group made up of six of these students, received

explicit small group instruction for three weeks. Data collection from Mclass NWF pre-test and

post-test assessment suggest the intervention positively impacted students.

Keywords: Whole language instruction, struggling readers, first grade, phonics instruction
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Impact of Direct Whole Group Instruction on Word Instruction in First Grade

Increased word recognition with whole to part phonics instruction for struggling readers

in the first grade is central to teaching students to recognize words in meaningful context.

Providing students with these skills is important because, the ability to read is an important skill

for childrens academic success and overall well-being (Barquero, Fuchs, & Toste, 2014). Word

recognition is important because when students struggle to decode words, they are unable to

focus on reading comprehension (Ayala & OConnor, 2013). Students who struggle with

decoding often repeat phrases, are unfocused and guess at unknown words because they lack the

necessary phonological awareness skills to recognize words. Teaching emergent readers to

manipulate sounds orally and in print increases the learners chances at being able to rapidly

name words, which is just one skill used by more proficient readers (Ayala & OConnor, 2013).

The purpose of this action research project is to share results with other educators that

will answer the question: How will explicit whole language phonics instruction impacts the

learners ability to recognize single syllable words? The literature review included in this

research project describes the usefulness of whole language phonics instruction in the classroom.

Literature Review

Most research supports the use of decoding as one of many tools students should have as

part of their schema when learning how to read and write. Decoding is a skill generally taught to

emergent readers using phonics instruction. Students are taught to dissect words into the smallest

unit of sounds or phonemes, and then put the sounds together to produce words. For some

students learning phonics in this way is an effective tool, but for others, phonics instruction

works best using what the student already knows about language. Using what the student already
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

knows about language to teach the student about letters and sounds, is part of the whole language

approach to teaching phonics. The whole language approach teaches phonics in meaningful

context, and not in isolation (Dahl & Scharer, 2000). The literature review for this project will

discuss whole language instruction, decoding, spelling and independent practice, the benefit of

phonics instruction as well as its limitations for struggling first- grade students.

Whole Language Instruction

Teachers have many options to choose from when trying to select which research based

reading program should be used with decoding and phonics instruction. There are programs such

as Houghton Mifflin Series, Scotts Foresman and Reading First designed with phonics

instruction embedded in the daily lesson plan for readers of various ability levels. Before

selecting a program to implement, it is important to be certain the emergent learner is a

struggling reader and not a student with learning disabilities (Williams, 1980). As long it is clear

the learners challenges are with reading and not some other learner disabilities, it can be

beneficial to the learner to begin phonics instruction (Compton,1998). One such approach to

incorporating phonics instruction into a daily literacy program is the whole language approach.

The focal points for the whole language reading program allow teachers to choose which one of

the five dimensions will work best with the needs of the students as well as the teaching style

that will be used to instruct learners. The five dimensions of the whole language reading program

are materials, classroom environment, teaching approach, child-centered approach, or

collaborative peer context (Dahl & Scharer, 2000). The whole language method uses the whole

to part teaching rather than the part to whole instruction for phonics (Dahl, L.K., Grogan, P.R.,

Lora., L.L., & Scharer, P.L., 1999). Whole to part teaching allows phonics or letter sound

correspondence to be introduced in a meaningful way for the learner, while part to whole
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

instruction teaches phonics in isolation without meaningful context. Supporters of whole to part

language instruction believe phonics is just one cueing system a child needs to learn to read and

should be embedded in daily reading and writing instruction (Dahl, et al.,1999). In contrast,

advocates for part to whole instruction believe, direct whole-group phonics lessons with

worksheets and drills designed to focus on specific phonics skills, work best at teaching students

to read (Dahl, et al.,1999). The whole language program emphasizes literature, composition,

inquiry, and process-centered instruction (Dahl & Scharer, 2000). The best way to provide

students with effective phonics instruction is a challenge, there is no way of teaching phonics

instruction that works best for every student. The most effective method for providing students

with phonics instruction in daily language routines continues to be debated (Dahl et al.,1999).

According to research investigated by Dahl (1999), children use analogies to look for

patterns and consider the context when encoding and decoding words. Part of whole language

instruction focuses on teaching children using meaningful literature, as well as, relying on what

the child already knows about language and its patterns to teach phonics lessons. Whole

language instruction also incorporates phonics daily reading and writing lessons. Additional

findings from Dahl (1999) show children learn about phonics through early writing. It is this

kind of early experimentation that eventually leads to better reading and writing for students. For

this study, students will be engaged in whole to part phonics instruction.

Decoding

Decoding is the central task of the beginning reader of any language based on the

alphabetic code (Williams, 1980, p.3). When a learner can decode it means the reader can

isolate individual phonemes and blend these sounds to form words. The learner that demonstrates

the ability to decode has a working knowledge of the relationship between sounds in words and
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

the written symbols of these sounds. Emergent readers need to be able to identify the correct

order of letter sounds and blend the sounds to form words. Blending abilities in first grade are

connected to later reading achievements through twelfth grade (Williams, 1980).

Spelling and Independent Practice

Researchers have investigated students use of inventive spelling and discovered

experimenting with letter combinations allows the learner to eventually become better spellers

and readers (Dahl, Grogan, Lawson & Scharer,1999). For this reason, most examples of whole

language instruction devote a considerable amount of time to writing, reading, phonics lessons

and its application with content instruction. Reinforcing phonics skills through repetition gives

students the opportunity to practice segmenting, blending and analyzing sounds that will help

most students acquire decoding skills (Dahl et al.,1999). In a report by Cook, Slee, and Young

(2009), children in the study were taught to write, manipulate letter sounds and to segment

words. The results showed improved spelling and decoding abilities for the emergent readers

(Cook et al., 2009).

Phonics Instruction

At the primary levels, decoding is generally used in the classroom to provide students

with the opportunity to develop orthographic knowledge to increase the ability to recognize

printed words (Catts & Swank, 1994). The ability to recognize and eventually memorize printed

text is thought to increase fluency as the reader gains exposure to words. As students are

learning to dissect words, they should have interactions with text containing familiar word

patterns, to allow for practice with letter-sound relationships as part of instruction with phonics

(Cook et al., 2008: Beverly, Giles and Buck, 2009). Teaching learners to decode at the early
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

stages of literacy is thought to have a lasting influence beyond grades K-2. According to Blythe,

Dodd and Pagan (2015), it is repetition with decodable word patterns and experience with

decodable text that leads students to try to attempt to decode new words based on letter-sound

relationships at the pre-primer level. As stated by research done by Beverly et al. (2009) below

average readers showed higher comprehension gains when compared to average readers because

of explicit phonics instruction and reading practice with printed material with familiar word

patterns.

Phonological Awareness

There are many layers to teach students to decode and recognize words in a variety of

contextual instances. Phonological awareness may be defined as awareness or sensitivity to the

sound structure of the language (Catts & Swank, 1994, p.25). This kind of sensitivity to sound

occurs in developmental stages. Phonological awareness starts out as knowledge of speech

sounds and eventually progresses to the ability to break words apart into syllables and phonemic

units of sound. This awareness of speech sounds will eventually lead to learning to decode

printed words. It has been proven that good readers display phonological awareness skills,

whereas, less skilled readers encounter challenges with tasks requiring the use of the same kind

of skill (Dahl & Scharer, 2000). This is not to imply that all struggling readers face challenges

due to a lack of phonological awareness skills (Williams, 1980). There are and can be several

causes for reading deficits in learners that have difficulties learning to read (Williams, 1980).

Limitations of Phonics Instruction

There are debates that have taken place professionally and legislatively about the best

way to teach beginning learners to read. The two major influences for developing readers are the
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

methods of reading instruction and the texts used for word recognition (Beverly, Buck & Giles,

2009). Systematic phonics instruction is important, but there is no single way of providing

phonics instruction to meet the needs of all learners in any given area. While there are mixed

reviews on the usefulness of decodable texts as stated by the National Reading Panel, there are

some studies to support the validity of using a systematic approach in phonics (Beverly, et al.,

2009). In the same report, the researchers studied the use of basal pre-primers using phonetically

regularly spelled words (Beverly et al., 2009). The findings showed students exposed to

decodable printed material included words made up of word families were more likely to explore

new texts (Beverly et al., 2009).

The National Reading Panel conducted research based on the five domains of literacy:

phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension (Beverly et al., 2009).

Based on the research conducted by the NRP, phonemic awareness has been connected to

success in spelling and reading for emergent readers through first grade (Cook, Slee &Young,

2008). According to research reviewed by Cook, Slee and Young (2008), alphabetic instruction

along with phonological awareness training proved to be most effective for first grade students in

the areas of reading and spelling when compared to studies focused on phonological awareness

in isolation. These findings suggest students benefit more from instruction that uses meaningful

context, such as the whole language approach, rather than, isolated lessons used in part to whole

instruction (Cook et al., 2008).

Considerations

Stanovich, Cunningham, and Freeman (2008) conducted a study about the connection

between reading acquisition and decoding skills in context using meaningful literature, or out of

context and in isolation using worksheets and drills. The study conducted by these researchers
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

compared the speed and accuracy of skilled readers to less skilled readers in their ability to read

words in and out of context. Participants performed better on assessments in the Spring than they

did in the fall. The growth observed in the study cannot be fully credited to Stanovich,

Cunningham and Freeman (2008) since most learners will experience growth during the second

semester of the first grade based on cognitive development. It is important to consider the timing

in which the research takes place when examining the results of the data (Stanovich et al., 2008).

Just like the study conducted by Stanovich, Cunning and Freeman (2008), this research project

will also take place during the second semester of first grade. The results of this project could

also be influenced by the growth most students ordinarily experience during this time of year.

Students like Wyatt and Madeline became more talkative and willing to verbally express the

work they produced in class. At times, they could provide the teacher with explanations for the

results they produced on their student work samples. The teacher observed these changes in the

behavior of these participants and in others that would indicate some degree of growth based on

maturity and time spent being in a first- grade classroom.

In conclusion, providing students with phonics instruction using the instructional strategy

whole to part learning could be an effective tool for helping struggling readers to recognize

single syllable words following the consonant -vowel -consonant word pattern.

Methodology
Research Design
The type of data collected for this project was qualitative since the data came from

teacher observations and documents created to determine proficiency with phonics skills and

word recognition. The independent variable for this project was the instruction students received
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

to increase word recognition. The dependent variable was the students ability to identify single

syllable words.

The independent variable, whole to part phonics instruction, was taught to the 23 students

in the class. Whole to part phonics instruction used direct whole group instruction to introduce

phonic skills to students with the use of stories using predictable text. The teacher used

discussion questions to guide the students ability to decode and read single syllable words. It

was during direct whole group instruction, that the teacher modeled the beginning, middle and

ending sounds of words with specific short vowel sounds for the students. It was the teachers

role to model demonstrate decoding while using texts with predictable consonant- vowel-

consonant word patterns. After direct whole group instruction occurred, the six participants

involved in the study were engaged in explicit small group instructional activities. Explicit small

group instruction included the use of word sorts, close reading passages, and word family picture

cards.

The dependent variable was the students ability to recognize consonant-vowel-consonant

words. The measure of this dependent variable consisted of a common literacy assessment, with

an emphasis on the students ability to write words to match the corresponding single syllable

short vowel words with the consonant vowel consonant word pattern. Another measure for the

dependent variable included the Mclass Nonsense Word Fluency assessment as the pre-test and

post-test assessments. The nonsense word fluency assessment was used as pre-test and post-tests

assessments because it assessed each participants ability to fluently read consonant vowel

consonant words. This assessment was like a measurement of phonics achievement in the study

done by Dahl, Grogan. Lawson and Scharer, (1999). Ultimately, using nonsense syllable words

in that study was rejected because it did not align with concepts consistent with the whole
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

language approach. Although research done by Dahl, Grogan, Lawson and Scharer (1999)

suggests nonsense word fluency is not the best measure of phonics achievement, it is an

assessment required by the county and state for all students in grades K-3. The last dependent

variable was the researchers log. The log was used to record data collected throughout this

intervention. The data from the researchers log was used to establish themes and patterns among

the six participants in this study.

Variables

Independent Variable: Decode single syllable words using a whole to

part phonics instruction

Intervention Students

1. Word Families (picture cards)

2. Decodable Text
3. Word Sorts

Dependent Variable: 1. Researcher log observations

Word Recognition 2. Common Literacy Assessment (Phonics)
3. Mclass Progress Monitoring Data (NWF WWR)
Table 1: Independent Variable: Whole language phonics strategies

Participants
The participants for this research project came from the researchers first-grade

classroom, where the researcher is listed as the teacher of record. There were a total of 23

students enrolled in the class at the time of this study. The average age of the students in this

class ranged in age from six years and six months to eight years of age. There were four Hispanic

students, ten African-American students, seven Caucasian students and two Native American

students. Of these students, four received speech therapy service, one received exceptional

childrens services and three received English Language Learners services with support outside

of the classroom. Five of the twenty students have been retained in first grade or kindergarten.
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Due to recent weather conditions in the state of North Carolina, one of the students was

homeless. The socioeconomic status for most of the students qualified them for free or reduced

lunch services.

Of the 23 students on record at the start of this study, six were selected to participate in

the intervention portion of this action research project. The group was composed of two

Caucasian male students, one male Hispanic student and three African-American females. One of

the participants in the study left the classroom for speech therapy service while the other five

participants did not receive outside services for academic support. The six participants were

selected to be a part of this study because they have demonstrated the same weakness with

recognizing single syllable words following the same CVC word pattern. The Nonsense Word

Fluency data collected from Mclass showed the participants struggled to correctly read nonsense

words following the consonant- vowel- consonant word pattern with medial sounds using the

short e, short i and short o vowel sounds.

Setting

This action research project was conducted at Don Steed Elementary School, in Raeford,

North Carolina. The school is in a small rural county with a total of twelve elementary schools

and one high school for the entire county. The school has one instructional coach, a guidance

counselor, and one school social worker to provide support for 680 students. The average class

size for students in grades K-2 is about 23 students, with at least one teacher of record in each

classroom. The teacher assistant in first grade was rotated among six classrooms, spending about

1.5 days in each classroom per week.

WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

The classroom had three work stations for small group activities and 23 student desks

and chairs. The student desks were grouped so that each student had one shoulder buddy to work

with when asked to think and share. The desks were arranged so students could work in

cooperative learning groups with five students in each group. The teacher desk was in the front

left corner of the classroom angled to allow for the supervision of all activities. The assistant sat

at the small group table located on the other side of the room near the cubbies.

The teacher of record participating in this project has worked in North Carolina, as a

regular education teacher since 2009. The teacher has experience working with children in rural

and urban settings across the sand hills region of the state. Over the last eight years, the teacher

has taught all core subjects from first through fourth grades. The teacher participating in this

study is qualified to conduct this research because she holds a current teaching license for

students in grades K-6. The teacher is also studying to obtain a masters degree in reading, in

addition to the bachelors degree, the teacher already has in elementary education. The teacher

acquired additional training for this project by attending and participating in weekly online Saba

meetings, planned to cover validity, integrity, and organization as it related to the completion of

this research project. It is the teachers years of experience in the classroom and formal education

that have prepared the teacher to implement this action research project.

Research Procedures
The intervention used in the study was direct whole language phonics instruction, which

took place for three weeks. The time and duration of group session varied based on previously

scheduled school events. The teacher adjusted the meeting times and days to meet the needs of

the students and administration. The researcher used data collected through Mclass to serve as

pre-test and post- test assessments. The data collected was used to determine strengths and
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

weakness with identifying single syllable words. This data was collected in January 2017 before

the research project began, in accordance with the schools mandatory testing window. It was this

data that was used to homogenously group the participants in this study. The intervention began

February 1, 2017 and ended February 24, 2017. A timeline of events that took place during the

intervention is included in the table below.

Dates Intervention Details

January Parental consent forms sent home and collected. The purpose of the research
31- project and student assent forms signed and discussed.
Februar
y1
Februar Intervention Week 1: Students are introduced to story read aloud, Pets at the Vet,
y 2-3 focusing on words with the short e sound
Februar Intervention Week 2: Students are introduced to grouping CVC words with the
y 6-10 short e
Februar Intervention Week 3: Students were assessed to determine if they recognize and
y write CVC words with short e. Introduced students to the text, Who Will Win,
13-17 focusing on words with the short i sound
Februar Intervention Week 4: Students grouped CVC words with short i. Concluded the
y intervention with progress monitoring
20-24
Table 2: Intervention timeline and details of events

The researcher was unable to maintain a consistent daily block of time to complete this

intervention due to school events that took place. The intervention time included direct whole

group instruction, as part of the whole language approach to teaching phonics, as well as, explicit

small group instruction. Most sessions lasted approximately 40 minutes, for at least three days a

week (Beverly et al. 2009). The whole language approach used in this intervention included

direct instruction as part of the teachers role to read aloud texts with predicable words and

repeated word patterns. Part of the teachers role during direct instruction was to model the

beginning, middle and ending sounds using words from the text and guided questions to teach

students to decode and recognize consonant-vowel-consonant words. The texts planned for this

intervention were selected because the material emphasized specific phonics skill (Dahl et al.
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

1999). Embedded text was used to transfer learning into ongoing explicit small group activities

meant to enhance the learning experience (Dahl et al. 1999). The participants in the study were

given the opportunity to read the same book or poem used during whole group instruction for

small group activities (Baer et al., 2004). The connection between spelling, reading, and writing

levels is what caused the researcher to make this decision.

The other part of this intervention included explicit small group instruction. Small group

instruction for the six participants included a brief writing assignment using written word family

cards to complete close reading passages at the end of each week. These small group activities

were an extension of the whole group sessions used to teach phonics using predicable, decodable

text. During small group sessions, the researcher used premade questions to guide group

discussion to emphasize learning with specific single syllable words. It was during this time

participants interacted with each other to discuss miscues with words to clarify their thinking and

learning in a safe controlled environment. Although the days and times of each session varied,

the lesson followed the plan explained as follows.

The first session of each whole group activity began by introducing the text to the class.

The text was read aloud as part of a whole group activity. The teacher chose four or five words

from the text to segment the sounds heard in each word. The teacher reminded students to decode

words from left to right just as they would read any familiar word or text. The teacher would say

each sound in the words and explain the consonant -vowel- consonant word pattern. Then the

teacher asked the students to explain patterns found in the four selected. The students were

expected to notice these words had certain short vowel sounds and followed the CVC word

pattern. The researcher used the words pet and vet from the title of the text to demonstrate

decoding word patterns and word families. The researcher stood at the front of the class and
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

decoded p-e-t and v-e-t. The students were instructed to identify vowel sounds, word patterns,

and commonalities between the two words (Allington et al., 2009).

At the start of the first small group session, the researcher linked the days activity to the

groups discussion from the previous. During the next small group session, the six participants

interacted with text to find words following the consonant vowel consonant pattern. The words

identified by the students as following a CVC pattern were written on word cards to be sorted by

the participants based on the categories they created (Bear et al., 2004). Once the students met

with the group to discuss ways to sort words from the text, the researcher asked the students to

explain why they chose to group in the words in the listed categories. There were instances when

the researcher had to help the participants think of ways to group the words. The questions used

to guide whole and small group sessions can be found in Appendix A at the end of this study.

The third session included picture cards with short e and short i word families such as -ig

and -ed preprinted on each card. The participants had to decode each word on the card to find

which word correctly identified each picture. The researcher showed the picture card to the

students, after reminding students to decode the words. The researcher also explained to the

students they should think about the ending sound found in each word since the sound is repeated

in all the words. The researcher also showed the students how to decode words and use process

of elimination to find the CVC word that describes the picture. After these instructions were

given to the participants, they worked with partners to record and say which word correctly

described each picture. The researcher showed nine to twelve cards during these sessions. The

number of cards shown depended on the time and student responses.

The fourth session began with the researcher reading a short story with specific word

families. The words in the passage were similar in sound to the word studies completed during
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

the other sessions. The students were expected to listen to the story and participate in a

discussion about the beginning, middle and ending sounds of single syllable words founds in the

passage. After the students completed the discussion about the passage, they worked together to

answer three short questions about what they had read. The questions required the students use

CVC words from the passage to form complete answers.

Session five began with the researcher rereading the same passage. After the passage was

read again the participants were given word cards to use for the next part of the activity. Words

such as Ned, fed, bed, get, bet, slid, hid, and kid, were just some of the words written on cards

to be used to complete the passages, Get Better Ned and The Park. The participants took turns

reading the words on the cards until each participant had at least two cards. Next, the participants

used the word cards to complete the close passage given to the group by the researcher. Finally,

each participant was expected to read the passage aloud to the group.

The researcher chose to give the participants the dictation quiz and the literacy

assessment as independent work to maintain the integrity of student work samples. These

assessments were typically given, by the researcher, for morning work to be completed by the six

participants involved in the study. Allowing the participants work to be completed independently

also allowed the students time to think about and apply decoding strategies needed to write

words following consonant vowel consonant pattern.

Data Sources and Collection Procedures

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact direct instruction would have on

increasing struggling first grade students ability to recognize single syllable words. The

researcher collected qualitative data to analysis themes and patterns about the students response

to direct instruction. There were five data sources collected during this study. Data from Mclass
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

was collected to be used as the pretest and posttest for this study. Data also came from a teacher

made literacy assessment and student work samples. In addition to these data sources, a

researchers log was maintained to record procedures and observations.

Mclass data is composed of different areas of skills used for reading, comprehension, and

phonics. For this study data about phonics and fluency with words was collected from the

nonsense word fluency section of the Mclass assessment. The nonsense word fluency section

evaluates the participants ability to decode and read CVC words with various middle vowel

sounds. Words like, mez, mip, sog and hej, were some of the words all students were expect to

read using a consonant vowel consonant words. The researcher recorded miscues with beginning,

middle and end sounds in addition to the students ability to recognize the entire word. This is a

timed test, and the number of words read by each student will vary based on how quickly they

can decode and read nonsense words in 60 seconds.

The literacy assessment was also used for qualitative data collection. Like Mclass, this

assessment was designed to assess different skills. For the purpose, of this study, the data utilized

came from the phonics section of the test. On this assessment, participants were expected to

write CVC words, using different short vowel words illustrated in the picture. This assessment

reinforced phonics skills using a practice drill format.

Student work samples were also collected for analysis. The work samples included dictation

sentences. The participants were asked to listen and record the sounds heard in each single

syllable word. There was a total of five sentences read and reread to the participants in this study.

The dictation sentences were given to assess the participants ability to hear and decode the

sounds made by consonant- vowel- consonant words then blend the sounds to create words in

context. Other work samples, were based on the small group sessions. The work included
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

completing activities such as close reading passages, recording words using picture card and

other practice drill activities (Dahl & Scharer, 2000).

The final piece of data, came from the researchers log. The information in the journal

was used to track teaching practices and the participants response to interaction with the

researcher and other members of the group. When collecting data for analysis researchers should

allow students time to practice and apply skills before being assessed (Cunningham, Freeman,&

Stanovich, 2009). The schedule used to collect data for this project is shown in the table below.

Data Assessment Collection Schedule

Mclass NWF MOY Assessment January 17, 2017
Dictation Sentences February 1, 2017
Common Literacy Assessment February 8, 2017
Mclass Progress Monitoring NWF and PSF February 23, 2017
Table 3: data collection schedule

Data Analysis
The data collected for this research project came from spelling dictation sentences,

literacy assessments, Mclass Nonsense Word Fluency data, and a research journal. The results of

these data sources were recorded in the researchers journal. The results in the journal included

the participants ability to correctly recognize words, patterns of error, and areas of strength. The

data in the research journal also included brief summaries based on teacher observations about

the participants response to instruction during direct whole group and explicit small group

instruction. The participants in the study could match the beginning and ending sounds to the

corresponding letters. However, the participants struggled to consistently recognize and write

CVC words with the short vowels e and i when asked to work independently.

Each of the six participants were a given a short vowel sorting mat to record their

responses. The responses were a result of interactions among the members in the study group, as
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

well as, teacher guided questions during explicit small group instruction. An example of the short

vowel sorting mat is in Appendix I of this action research project. The results recorded on table 4

and Table 5 show the participants could choose words form both passages that followed

consonant- vowel-consonant word pattern.

One of the assessments given to the participants was a dictation quiz containing short

vowel words along with basic first grade sight words. For this study, the data collected used

single syllable words following the consonant vowel consonant word pattern. The sentences in

the quiz contained single syllable CVC words with the short e and short i vowel sounds. The

teacher read aloud five sentences for the students to record during independent practice to

determine if the participants were applying the skills and strategies discussed during explicit

small group instruction.

Validity and Trustworthiness

The researcher followed five steps to maintain the integrity of this research project.

Before beginning the intervention, the researcher submitted a proposal describing the

intervention, methodology, and the setting to the IRB board for review. The purpose of the IRB

board is to ensure all research projects adhere to a code of ethics with the least amount of harm

to the participants. The researcher waited for approval from the IRB board before beginning this

study. For the researcher to get approved from the IRB board, the action research proposal had to

have the following documents.

Appendix A contains a copy of the signed letter of support from the principal at Don

Steed Elementary, the location for this study. The letter explained the instructional strategy and

the expected outcome for each learner in the study. Parents were also given a consent form with

the same information stated in a more parent friendly version. The parental consent form is in
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Appendix B, clearly explained participation in the study was strictly voluntarily and consent

could be revoked at any time. Parents were made aware there would be no consequences for

them or their child had they chosen not to participate or withdraw from the study at any time.

The parents were asked to provide written consent and the six participants in the were

also given the choice to participate in this action research study or decline to participate. The

verbal assent form (Appendix C) contained child friendly language giving the six students

involved in the intervention the opportunity to participate or decline participation without

repercussions. Throughout the study the participants involved in the intervention were constantly

asked if they would like to continue to be a part of the study. Each of the participants chose to

continue to be all activities for the duration of the study.

Limitations to the Study

There were a few challenges to maintaining the validity and trustworthiness for this

project. The first threat was the teacher and researcher bias. Too much support could have been

given at the time of independent practice or assessments. The researcher allowed students to

complete independent practice and assessments away from the group and the researcher to

reduce the chances of providing additional support.

Another challenge to validity was recording the data from Mclass an assessment used to

determine proficiency with phonics skills. The researcher could have inadvertently provided too

much support during the collection of nonsense fluency data from Mclass. However, the limited

allowed for the test should have reduced the researchers ability to influence the results of the

assessment and progress monitoring. To maintain the trustworthiness of the data collected, the

researcher discussed the results of the data collected with another professional in the field of

education to ensure the results of the students work was recorded objectively.
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Scheduling was also a threat to the validity and trustworthiness of this study and the

implementation of the intervention. The research was conducted over three weeks, rather than the

intended six weeks as previously planned. In addition to having less time to implement the

intervention, the researcher was unable to schedule a consistent time to meet with the six

students for explicit small group instruction. There were times the researcher met with the six

participants for explicit small group instruction in the morning from 8:00 am to 8:25 am, and on

other days the group met between 10:00 to 11:00 am. The time and length of the sessions varied

because of other scheduled school events. On February 13,2017, there was a pep rally for

students in grades K-5 following a One Book, One School read aloud and comprehension

sessions. From February 7 through February 10, 2017, all first-grade students took the second

quarter mathematics benchmark. No instruction took place on February 11, 2017 because the

teacher had to meet with other first grade teachers to score the second quarter mathematics

benchmark assessment. The lost in time could have affected the results of this study. The

participants in the study were unable to develop a routine that would allow for any significant

growth to have occurred.

The final limitation to this study could have come from the participants. The six

participants in this study did not always get along. Julian was asked to work at his seat on,

February 13, 2017, rather than stay with the group because he did not want to share the word

cards for the close reading passage, Pets at the Vet. Wyatt admitted to being nervous when

sharing his thoughts and ideas about learning, and at times he did not speak. Azariah had to be

reminded to let the other children participate in the words sorts. She would give the other

participants in the group the cards she wanted them to have. The researcher spent a lot of time

redirecting undesired behavior. The researcher discussed the expectations for behavior with the
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

six participants at the beginning of the study to avoid potential conflicts among the students.

However, the students still struggled to control their own behavior.

Findings/Results
The purpose of this study was to determine, how teaching students to decode single syllable

words using the whole language approach to phonics instruction, would help struggling readers

increase word recognition. The teaching style used in this study was centered around the teacher

model to allow sufficient support for discussions and instruction (Dahl, 2008).

Dictation Assessment

The following statement is an example of the kinds of sentences recorded by the

participants: A big green bug bit me. The results of the dictation sentences showed students were

able hear and record the beginning, middle and ending sounds for most consonant vowel

consonant words used in the assessment. The results of this data indicate the participants can

decode and recognize consonant vowel consonant word patterns in context. Although the

students can recognize some CVC words with the short e and short i vowel sounds, words with

similar beginning and ending sounds made it difficult for students to correctly identify the word.

Dictation Quiz
Participant Big Bit Will Sit Let Hen Bed Hit Did Well
s
Madeline x o o o x x x o x o
Aubrielle x x x x o x x x x o
Aiden x x x x o x x x x x
Wyatt x x o x x x x x x o
Julian x x x x x x x x x o
Azariah x x x x o x x x x x
Table 4: An x in the box means, the participant could correctly identify the cvc word pattern and wrote the word. An
o in the box means the participant did not correctly identify the short vowel word.
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

The posttest data collected from Mclass provided similar results. The data collected from

the Mclass nonsense word fluency assessment given did not show any significant increase of

word recognition for the participants in the study. Two of the six participants could recognize

single syllable words at the end of the intervention, while one showed no increase in word

recognition. The other participants declined in their ability to recognize CVC words with short e

and short i vowel words. Each student in the study attempted to read a different amount of

nonsense words. All the participants could correctly identify the beginning and ending sounds for

the nonsense words they were assessed with. Although nonsense words follow the same pattern

as CVC words, they are not actual words. This could have made it difficult for the participants to

recognize the words on the assessment. The table below shows the results of the Mclass progress

monitoring assessment.

Progress Monitoring Results

Participant Hif Me Liv Re Yej Lig Ib Ke Jin Teb
s z m b
Madeline x x x x x x x x ---- ----
-
Aubrielle x x R x x R ---- ----- ---- ----
- - -
Aiden R x x R x x R R x ----
Wyatt R x x x R R ---- ----- ---- ----
-
Julian x x x R x x ---- ----- ---- ----
- -
A,zariah R R R R x x R x R ----
Table 5: The letter R, in the box, means the participant recognized CVC the word pattern and read the
nonsense word. An x in the box means the vowel sound was incorrectly stated during the assessment.

The researchers log was used to record students responses to instruction. The researcher

reviewed the log to look for patterns to identify patterns of strengths and weakness as indicated

by the student work samples. The student work samples from the text, Who Will Win? suggested

the students can identify CVC words with the medial short i vowel sounds, the students recorded
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

CVC words such as kids, Jill, will, Nick, Tim, spins, zigs, hit, did, Tim and him, on a short

vowel response sheet. All the students in the study could look at the text and find single syllable

short i words. The focus of instruction was short e words, the teacher read aloud the short

passage, Get Better Ned. The students were asked to listen to the passage being read aloud by the

researcher, and discuss the short e words found in the passage. Before allowing the students to

engage in conversations, the research modeled thinking to help the students to participate in the

groups discussion. The researcher selected two words from the text and slowly sounded out each

word. The researcher demonstrated decoding the word N-e-d and the word was f-e-d. After the

participants were shown how to decode these words, the researcher started to wonder aloud, as

part of modeled thinking. The researcher asked, If I know this word N-e-d, Ned and this word is

f-e-d, I can tell these words have something in common. Aiden said the two words rhyme. He

also said he could use rhyhming to other find short e words in the passage. He explained to the

group Ned and fed sounded the same at the end of the words. The researcher told the participants

using word endings is one way to decode unfamiliar words. As the students continued to discuss

the passage, Get Better Ned, they asked to read the short response questions to the group. The

responses to the questions required the students to locate CVC short e words from the passage as

part of a complete sentence. The first volunteer read the question, while the other participant

struggled to read the next question. Julian was instructed to look at the words again, think about

the beginning, middle and ending sounds, then blend the sounds together to make the word. The

words in each question contained CVC words with various short vowels in each word. The

students could read these questions to determine if they could recognize CVC words in context.

With support from the researcher, he could read the question to the group. The students

responses indicated the participants could recognize words from the passage needed to answer
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

the short response questions. These results support the theory learning happens when it is

meaningful and students can engage in discussion.

The data on these charts is qualitative and shows an established pattern of strengths and

weaknesses with single syllable words showing the effectiveness of whole language phonics

instruction in a first-grade classroom.

Pets at the Vet, Short e Sort

Participant Pet Vet Bess Tess Get Better Meg Slept (should
s not have
been
included,
but was)
Madeline x x NR NR x NR x NR o
Aubrielle x x NR NR x NR x NR o
Aiden x x x x x x x x NR
Wyatt x x x x x x x x NR
Julian x x x x x x x x NR
Azariah x x x x x x x NR NR
Table 4: An x, in the box means, the participant chose the correct word from the passage to put in the sort. NR in the
box means, the student did not include this word. An o, in the box means, the participant included a word from the
sort, but the word does not match the short vowel sound or CVC word pattern.

Who Will Win, Short i Sort

Participant Will Win Kids Miss Hit Did Him Spin (should
s not have
been
included,
but was)
Madeline x x NR x x x x NR o
Aubrielle NR x NR NR NR x NR x o
Aiden x x x x x x x x o
Wyatt NR x NR NR x x x NR o
Julian x x x x x x x x NR
Azariah x x x x NR x x x o
Table 5: An x, in the box means, the participant chose the correct word from the passage to put in the sort. NR in the
box means, the student did not include this word. An o, in the box means, the participant included a word from the
sort, but the word does not match the short vowel sound or CVC word pattern.
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Researcher Log

During the three weeks of intervention, the researcher maintained a log to document

observations, reflections, and evidence of student learning. The researchers log was used to

provide qualitative data that was analyzed for themes related to the hypothesis: how will explicit

whole language phonics instruction impact the learners ability to recognize single syllable

words? The notes in the researchers log showed the following patterns among the participants.

Students clarify understanding through conversations with peers. In this intervention, the

researcher introduced phonics skills as part of direct whole group instruction. These interactions

were followed by explicit small group instruction and activities. On February 14th, the researcher

read the text, Who Will Win, to the participants. After reading the text to the students, the

researcher again said the word will, and modeled the sounds w-i-ll. Then the researcher selected

another word from the text. After all, four words were modeled the researcher asked the students

the following question, when you look at the words on your short vowel mat, what kind of word

patterns do the words have? The students had no response and the researcher had to repeat the

same steps with a different set of words from the same story. The researcher wrote these words

on the board and discussed the beginning, middle, and ending sound for each of the words. The

researcher wrote the letter CVC under the words to help the students decode the words and

identify the word pattern. The researcher asked, what do these words have in common? Wyatt

said, these are consonant vowel consonant words. Another member in the group disagreed with

Wyatt. She said all the words fit together, and could be group in the same category. Wyatt

explained to Aubrielle that they do not fit together because and is not a short i word and it does
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

not follow the pattern. After this discussion students were asked to search the text to find other

CVC short i words in the text and record their responses on a short vowel mat. Aubrielle browsed

the selected text and found short i words such as, win, spin, did, Jill, Kim and Tim.

In another instance on February 16, 2017, the teacher showed the students nine short i

word family picture cards with preprinted words like sit, pit, lit, jig and pig. The students

involved in the study were asked to decode each word and choose the word to correctly match

the picture. The students worked in groups of two to decode and record words ending with the

endings -in and -ig. During the same lesson, Madeline, asked for help from the other members in

the group with the -ig word family. The picture on this card was an elephant. The choices,

Madeline had to choose from were, wig, big, fig, and dig. Madelines peer buddy decoded and

said each of the words on the card, yet Madeline could not make the connection between the

word big and elephant. Madeline was unable to independently decode the words list on the card

she worked to complete with her peer buddy. Although, Madeline still struggled to make the

connection she needed, her peer buddy could explain the process. The peer buddys explanation

to Madeline showed he understood what was happening during the activity.

Students Make Connections Between Activities. On February 21, 2017, the teacher asked the

students to describe the sounds of short i, following the consonant vowel consonant word pattern.

The students involved in this discussion were asked to think about some of our previous sessions.

Madeline gave examples of short i words using words from the short i word family picture cards.

She gave examples such as fig and pig. When it was, Wyatts turn to share with the group, his

words were slid and lid. These examples of short i words came from the reading passage, The

Park. Aiden asked to give an example of a short i word and he said the word big. The last

member of the group to contribute to the discussion was Azariah. The examples she gave
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

followed the consonant vowel consonant pattern and the words were big and jig. These were

also from the short i picture word cards. During the last week of the intervention the researcher

observed the students making connections between activities completed during explicit small

group instruction.

Students use verbal skills to demonstrate comprehension of activities. Throughout this

research, the teacher provided the students with several opportunities for explicit small group

instruction. On, February 23, 2017, the teacher administered a dictation quiz to determine the

students ability to recognize single syllable words in context as the teacher was speaking. This

assessment was also intended to determine if students could correctly record the corresponding

letter sounds while maintaining the CVC word pattern as explained during explicit small group

instruction. Before giving the students this assessment, the teacher reminded the students to use

their knowledge of word patterns to correctly write the words in each sentence. After the

assessment was completed the teacher met with the students to discuss the sentences they had

written on their papers. Wyatt, one of the participants in the study, had written CVC under the

word bit and hen. During his one to one conference Wyatt was asked why he decided to write

CVC under those two words on his paper. He said, writing the letters CVC under the words

helped him remember the sounds he heard in the words. He explained, he knew the words on the

assessment were using this pattern. Wyatt followed the directions given by the teacher before the

assessment as he recorded each of the dictation sentences.

In another instance and using the same assessment, Julian another participant in the study

involved in the study, had a different response to instruction. On his dictation assessment, he

wrote the word well for the word will. The short e and short i vowel sounds are easily confused

among students at this grade level. The teacher decided to discuss the differences with Julian
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

during his one to one conference. Julian explained these words sound the same and he could not

correctly write the word although he followed the word pattern. The teacher spelled the word

will and the word well to help Julian visualize the difference. Julian took his time to blend the

sounds in each of the words, and he could hear the difference. The teacher then wrote the word

will and showed it to Julian. He used decoding and blending skills to say the single syllable word

will. The teacher repeated the same process for the word well. Again, Julian used decoding and

blending skills to say the single syllable word well. After his conference, Julian said he better

understood the difference between the two words, and the importance of taking his time. In this

instance, just one of the students could transfer the skills discussed during explicit small group

instruction, to activities meant to be completed independently.

Literacy Assessment. The literacy assessment is a term used at Don Steed Elementary. The

location in which the study took place, used to describe an assessment that can cover different

skills associated with teaching English Language Arts. For this study, the students were given a

literacy assessment that would evaluate the learners ability to decode single syllable words to

determine the medial vowel sound. This assessment also required the students to think of

different consonant vowel consonant words to record as part of their written responses. The

students could demonstrate some understanding and application of decoding for the written

responses. Aiden used words from a close reading passage used in this study. Madeline could

look at a chart hanging in the classroom and decode words from the chart to help her correctly

complete the assignment. Wyatt used words from an activity separate from this story for

examples on his assessment, he used the words slug and net to represent the corresponding vowel

sounds. Azariah recalled information from the close reading passage, Get Better Ned!, and wrote

the word Ned as her example of a short e word. Aubrielle struggled a litter more than the others,
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

she wrote grere for gray as CVC word. This assessment provided the teacher with useful data

for planning future lessons and documenting the students ability to apply skills following

explicit instruction.

Conclusion

Decoding is an essential task for any language based on the alphabetic code, including

the skill to isolate phonemes that make up words and the ability to blend individual phonemes

into whole words (Williams, 1980). This project also focused on the participants ability to

recognize word patterns in various contexts of learning. This study was planned to answer the

following question, how will explicit whole language phonics instruction impacts the learners

ability to recognize single syllable words? Due to the limited amount of allowed for this study,

the results are inconclusive. The pre-and post-test assessment indicated there was no significant

increase in the participants ability to recognize single syllable words. This could be a result of

the limited practice sessions between MOY assessment and the progress monitoring session.

There were also interruptions to the instructional day that could have negatively influenced the

results of this study. The interruptions occurred during whole and small group instruction.

Although this study did not last the intended six to eight weeks, the researcher could document,

the students engagement at each of the lessons. The participants contributed to group

discussions and worked as a group to complete all activities except for the dictation quiz and the

progress monitoring assessment. If the study had lasted the intended amount of time, the results

for the study may have had a different outcome.

This study was also limited by the number of participants in the group. Using such a

small number of students made it impossible to make generalization about students responses to

whole to part phonics instruction in first grade. There were no other first grade classes available
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

to use as the control group for this action research project. The class involved in the study could

not have included all the students due to the lack of parent participation in the classroom.

Recommendations for Future Use by Educators in the Classroom

Whole- to- parts phonics instruction has the potential to be a beneficial way to provide

engaging phonics instructions to all students. Phonics is one part of reading and writing

experiences, that should be included as part of students cueing systems (Dahl & Scharer, 2000).

With proper planning, the teaching approach, allows teachers to create activities that will

encourage and promote discussion among the students (Dahl & Scharer, 2000). Activities like the

close passage reading described in this study can be written on poster board to be completed by

small groups of students. Students can be partnered together to practice decoding and word

recognition out of context using a dry erase board to record responses. The students involved in

this study found this activity to be highly engaging. During this activity, there were conversations

about vocabulary and the meaning of words as it related to picture clues, discussions about ways

to use the process of elimination to find the correct answer and using words patterns to decode

the words they were shown on the picture cards.

Using whole to part phonics instruction encourages teachers to present the same

instructional information in different formats (Dahl & Scharer, 2000). Students are encouraged to

interact with text containing familiar and unfamiliar words, when they are given predictable text.

In this study, students were given texts that focused on specific vowel sounds while following the

consonant vowel consonant word pattern. The participants in this study were either introverts and

extremely shy or extroverts. When presented with text containing predictable word patterns, the

shyest students volunteered to read aloud to the group, or to partners.

WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

When planning to use the whole language approach to teaching phonics, teachers should

consider the amount of time they will be able to devote to implementing the process (Cooke et

al., 2008). The teacher needs to allow time for students to get into a consistent routine daily

routine for the length of the school year to determine the true effectiveness of the whole language

approach to phonics instructions. Unfortunately, this study lasted a span of just three weeks and

the meeting times for direct and explicit instruction varied each day based on events beyond the

teachers control. Although the study was brief, the teacher could see an increase in participation

that was not present in the students before the study. They displayed a willingness to complete

assignments, engage in discussions, and explore the text with predictable word patterns.

Using the teacher- centered, whole language approach to phonics instruction is an area of

study that should be further investigated by researchers. Currently, there are few studies that exist

with conclusive evidence to support the benefits of this kind of instruction. However, there is no

one specific way to teach phonics that works best for all students (Catts & Swank, 1994). The

teacher must analysis the data collected from assessments, observations, and work samples to

determine which model of the whole language approach will work best for each group of

students assigned to the teachers class.

Although the teacher could provide the students with direct whole groups lesson and

explicit small group instruction using the strategy whole to parts phonics instructions, the results

of this study are inconclusive. The researcher was not able to collect enough data to support the

usefulness of whole language phonics instruction in a classroom with struggling first- grade

readers.
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Reflection

In the fall of 2013, I made the decision to attend graduate school at East Carolina

University. The course I found to be most challenging was Introduction to Research because of

the amount of writing, I had to do to complete the course. Until that point I never had the

opportunity to write and develop a literature review or a research paper. The thought of writing

that paper made me feel as if I would never get to my final course in this degree program and be

able to continue work as a full-time teacher. In addition to feeling defeated by taking a course

about research, I also had to manage, transitions happening at work. That was the same year, I

started teaching first grade and was abruptly moved to third grade in the middle of the semester

of the same school year. With help and support from the staff at East Carolina University and

writing center, I completed the project for the course called Introduction to Research. Now, I am

at the final stages of my degree program at East Carolina University.

I have learned many things from READ 6406. One of the most important points of

learning for me has been interacting with colleagues and peers. As a self-contained classroom

teacher, I do not always get the opportunity to interact with my peers and co-workers in a way

that allows me to learn from others in a positive constructive environment. Initially, I thought

discussion board post and responses were time fillers for online courses, but as I reflect on the

process of learning I can see its benefits. I learned to have a support system among colleagues

and peers can reduce the isolation I sometimes feel as classroom teacher.

The big push at my school is for teachers to analyze data from many different sources.

However, the instructions for analyzing data can be unclear at times. I understand that data

should drive instruction, but the question always remains how I can interrupt the data to get the

most out the information for my group of students. I thought about the training I had in READ
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

6406, and it was at that time I began to review the textbook, Improving Schools Through Action

Research written by Hendricks. This textbook helped me to understand how to focus questions

about the data I was collecting to prepare more effective instructions.

I worked to apply what I learned in READ 6406 to align with the research done for this

project. While waiting for IRB approval, I prepared questions based on the role of teacher

instruction and the outcome of learning I expected for the participants involved in the study. The

questions created and used by the teacher during this research project can be found in Appendix

E, Appendix F and Appendix G. These questions were used during explicit small group

instruction to guide the responses of the students. The small group sessions gave the students

time to think and respond to the questions I asked and the comments made by the other members

of the group. As I recorded their interactions, I listened and evaluated the participants responses

to my instruction and the explanations they gave each other. Analyzing data became a part of my

daily routine as I reflected upon the events that took place during direct whole group instruction

and explicit small group instruction with the participants involved in this action research project.

Planning my research project was challenging, but I had to rely on the training I received

in READ 6406 to expand my content knowledge and teacher practices. As I looked at the group

of students assigned to my class, I did not know what to focus on for the purpose of this study.

Most of the students were functioning at less than a level B based on Mclass Text Reading and

Comprehension or TRC data. Many of the students could not write all the letters in the alphabet

or match the letters to the corresponding sounds. I came to this conclusion based on teacher

observations and Mclass Nonsense Word Fluency data. I felt like I was on data overload with

more questions than answers in terms of what to do with all the data. As I continued to plan for

this project, I thought about the text I read in READ 6406, Improving Schools Through Action
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Research. The book gives examples of research questions and suggestions on ways to streamline

the available data is it relates to specific areas of research. After reviewing this text, I started to

look for patterns of strengths and weakness among my students learning to focus on just one area

of learning. I realized I could not increase reading comprehension without addressing the skills

needed to increase reading fluency. It was at that time, I decided to focus on an instructional

strategy that could increase phonological skills in a meaningful way for students. After some

research, I chose to model my research project after articles based on whole to parts phonics

instruction. I believe whole to part phonics instruction was a helpful instructional strategy for my

students because students learned to decode familiar and unfamiliar words using different

strategies. The lessons were planned to be engaging and occurred with meaningful predictable

text. As with any instructional practice, whole- to- part phonics instruction also included time for

students to demonstrate learning using practice drills.

During the project, I saw enthusiasm among the participants in the study and from

the other class members not involved. Learning to decode words should include

engaging hands-on activities that make learning meaningful and exciting for the learner.

Although this project was brief, I could see the benefits of scaffolding or layering

information to build upon new skills. The instructional support I provided to the students

encouraged conversations that allowed students to use what they had as part of their

background knowledge or schema to help them better understand what they were

learning. Taking the necessary steps to complete this project provided with me the

opportunity to reflect on my instructional practices and planning, in addition the content

knowledge I gained about decoding, phonological awareness and the context in which the

learning took place.

WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

References

Allington,R.,Collins-Block, C., Cronin, J., Nelson, E., Pressly, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., &

Woo, D., (2009). A study of effective first grade literacy instruction. Scientific Studies of

Reading, 5(1), (35-38).

Ayalya, S.M., OConnor, R., (2013). The effects of video self-modeling on the decoding skills of

children at risk for reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(3),

142-154.

Baer, D. R., Johnston,F., Invernizzi, M., &Templeton, S. (2004). Words their way: word study

for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson.

Barquero, L.A., Fuchs, L.S., Toste, J.R., (2014). (Understanding unresponsiveness to Tier 2

Reading intervention: exploring the classifications and profiles of adequate and

inadequate responders in first grade). Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 37(4), 192-203.

doi: 1011771073194871358336.

Beverly, L.B., Buck, L.K., & Beverly, L.B., (2009). First-Grade reading gains following

enrichment:Phonics plus decodable texts compared to authentic literature read aloud.

Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com

Cook, M., Slee, J., & Young, C. (2014). How is contextualized spelling used to support reading

in first grade core reading programs? Retrieved from: https://www.highbeam.com

Compton, D.,Connor,C.M.,Dimino,J.,Gersten,R.,Linan-Thompson,S.,Santoro,L., & Tilly, W.D.

(2008). Best practice for rti: intensive systematic strategies for some tier 2 students.

Retrieved from: http://www.readingrockets.org/

Dahl, L.K.,Grogan, P.R., Lawson,L.L., Scharer, L.P.,(1999). Phonics instruction and student

achievement in whole language first-grade classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly,

WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

34(3), 312-341. doi:10.137/xlm0000080.

Duke,N.,& Block,M. (2012). Improving reading in first grade. Future of Reading, 22(2), (55-72).

Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23057131.

Williams, J.P., (1980). Teaching decoding with an emphasis on phoneme analysis and phoneme

blending. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(1), 1-15.

WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Appendix A

Principal Letter of Support

College of Education
Department of Literacy Studies, English Education and
History Education
East Carolina University
Speight Building Greenville, NC 27858-4353
252-328-6181 office 252-328-2585 fax
www.coe.ecu.edu

Kim Gray
Don Steed Elementary School
800 Philippi Church Road
Raeford, North Carolina, 28376

January 17, 2017

Dear Mrs. Gray,

LaMar Torres is working on her Masters of Arts in Reading Education at East Carolina
University. She is completing READ 6406 Preliminary Investigations into Literacy
Education, a required course where students plan individual action research projects
to be completed and presented in another course later in their program. As part of
a course assignment, LaMar Torres, has developed an action research project to be
conducted over a 5-6 week period at Don Steed Elementary School. This project
must be submitted and approved by ECUs Institutional Review Board (IRB) before it
can be implemented. LaMar Torres is required to obtain your permission to conduct
the project at Don Steed Elementary. She is required to provide the IRB with a copy
of your permission before the IRB will review and/or approve the project.
Please review the attached action research project and sign the bottom of this form
if completing this action research project titled, Increased Word Recognition with
Whole to Part Phonics Instruction for Struggling Readers, meets with your approval.
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Sincerely,

Caitlin L. Ryan, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Reading Education
ryanca@ecu.edu
252-737-4352

Principals Signature and Date:

I have received and reviewed a copy of _________LaMar Torres_____________ proposed

action research project and give permission for her to conduct this action research
project at Don Steed Elementary.

__________________________________ ____________________
Signature Date
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Appendix B

Intervention Parental Consent Form

Dear Parents/Guardian,
I am presently working on my Master of Arts in Reading Education at East Carolina University.
As part of my degree requirements, I am planning an educational research project to take place in
my classroom that will help me to learn more about teaching methods to increase word
recognition of single syllable words among first graders. The fundamental goal of this research
study is to provide students with strategies that will help them learn to decode unfamiliar words.
As part of this research project in my classroom, your child will participate in various word sorts
and close reading passage activities over the next six to eight weeks that will allow me to track
patterns of strengths and weaknesses among word patterns. As this study is for educational
research purposes only, the results of your childs participation will not affect your childs grade.
I am requesting permission form you to use your childs data in my research study. Please know
that participation is entirely voluntary.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at school at (910) 875-1125
or by emailing me at ltorres@hcs.k12.nc.us. If you have any questions about your childs rights
as someone taking part in research, you may call the Office of Research Integrity & Compliance
(ORIC) at phone number 252-744-2914 (days, 8:00 am-5:00pm). If you would like to report a
complaint or concern about this research study, you may call the director of the OHRI, at 252-
744-1971.
If you permit your childs data to be used in my study, please return the attached form by
February 3, 2017. Thank you for your interest in my educational research study.

Your Partner in Education,

LaMar Torres

As the parent or guardian of ______________________________________,

(write your students name)
I grant my permission for Ms. Torres to use my childs data in her educational research
project regarding increased word recognition. I fully understand that my childs data will
be kept completely confidential and will only be used for the purposes of Ms. Torres
research study. I also understand that I or my child may at anytime decide to withdraw
my/our permission and that my childs grade will not be affected by withdrawing from the
study.
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

I do NOT grant my permission for Ms. Torres to use my childs data in her educational
research project regarding increased word recognition.
Signature of Parent/Guardian: ______________________ Date___________
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Appendix C

Student Consent Form

Verbal Assent

In our class, we will be working on phonics skills. We will work together to use thinking maps,
short stories, and word sorts. Do you want to use thinking maps, shorts stories, and words sort to
work on phonics skills? If you have any questions or dont want to participate, please let me
know.

_______________________ _____
Signature of person obtaining assent Date

Participants Date Participant Participant

Name assent agreed to refused to
script was participate participate
read
WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Appendix D

Sorting Mat

CVC Sorting Mat

Short Vowel Sound with Different Short Vowel Sound Words that Do Not Fit the
CVC word pattern with CVC word pattern CVC word pattern or short
vowel sound
1. 1. 1.
2. 2. 2.
3. 3. 3.
4. 4. 4.
5. 5. 5.
6. 6. 6.
7. 7. 7.

Appendix E

Teacher -Generated Questions List I

Group Discussion Questions for the Vowel Mat

WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

1. What sound(s) seems to repeat itself the most in this story?

2. Lets choose four words to say aloud.
3. Now, lets think about those words and say the beginning, medial and final sounds for

the first word? What do we hear? (Repeat)

4. How can we describe the repeating sounds in this story?
5. When we look at the words we have on our vowel mat what word pattern(s) do we

notice?

Appendix F

Teacher- Generated Questions List II

Group Discussion Questions for the CVC Sorting Mat

WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

1. Looking at all the words we wrote on our vowel mats, how can you put these words

into groups or categories (cvc word patterns, short vowel sounds)? Try to think of at

least 2- 3 ways.
2. How can you describe some differences between our groups of words?
3. Not all words will follow every rule or fit into our word pattern. What should we do

with words that dont follow the rules we make, or, the observations we have made?
4. Can you think of any other words you have seen before that follow the rules we have

made? How are they like words from the story?

Appendix G

Teacher -Generated Questions List III

Group Discussion Questions for Passage Read Aloud

1. Review the short vowel sound from the previous day. Looking at your sorting

mat can you give me some examples?

WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

2. Todays word from the passage will follow the same sound and CVC word

pattern. I am going to read the passage to you. Then you will read it to your

shoulder buddy.
3. Which words from the passage followed the same CVC word pattern we

discussed earlier?

Appendix H

Close Passage Word Cards for Short Stories /Poems

1. Pet at the Vet Word Cards

Pet Vet Get Yet Wet

Pet Vet Let Yet Wet
Pet Vet

2. The Park Word Cards

WHOLE TO PART PHONICS INSTRUCTION

Sid Sid Sid Did Slid

Hid Hid Hid Kid Slid

3. Under the Rug Word Cards

Under Bugs Slugs Mug Rug

Tug Tug Rug Mug Rug

Short
vowel
words
Short
vowel
words

Appendix I

Short Vowel Mat

Short
vowel
words