NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED455539
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2001-Jul
Pages: 53
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
A Comparison of First Grade Children That Receive Instruction in the "Working with Words" Block of the "Four Blocks" Literacy Model and First Graders Who Have Not Received This Instruction.
Morris, Dawn
A child's ability to read is at the very foundation of his or her learning in school and plays a significant role in scholastic success. Although no one literacy model can ever represent the range of diverse learners in our schools, Cunningham, Hall, and Defee's literacy model known as Four-Block attempts to meet the needs of as many learners as possible through their multilevel, hands-on, developmentally appropriate literacy model. During a 6-week period of time, the researcher worked with 22 students in the experimental group using the book "Making Words" (Cunningham). This book implements the "Working with Words" block of the Four-Blocks literacy model created by Cunningham, Hall, and Defee. Using "Making Words" the researcher worked 15 minutes each day with the experimental group on the various multi-level, hands-on, and developmentally appropriate spelling and phonics activities. The children in the control classroom received phonics instructions in various forms, but did not receive the 15 minutes a day instruction from the "Making Words" activity book. After the period of 6-weeks, the researcher tested the 22 children in the experimental classroom and the 20 children in the control classroom by giving them an Informal Reading Inventory. Then the researcher compared the data from each classroom. An independent t-test compared the instructional reading levels of both the experimental and control first grade classrooms. In the "Working with Words" block of the Four Blocks reading program, "Making Words" was used. After the experimental classroom was exposed to the "Working with Words" block, no difference was found at the .05 level of significance from the control group in their average instructional reading levels tested by an Informal Reading Inventory. The researcher retained the null hypothesis. (Contains 32 references and a table of data. Permission letters are attached.) (RS)
Publication Type: Dissertations/Theses
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A