Running head: IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES

Improving Kindergarten Reading Scores Through the Implementation of Literacy Workstations

Laurie Martin

University of New England

April 20, 2017

IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
2

Abstract

This action research project investigated the impact that literacy workstations, along with

teacher-led guided reading, could have on kindergarten students. Participants consisted of six

kindergarten students who ranged in five to six years of age, and were all girls. One of the

students was receiving Title 1 support at the time of the study. This project was guided by

implementing ideas from The Daily Five program, created by Gail Boushey and Joan Moser.

Students were gradually introduced to each of the five workstations until they were able to

participate at four of the workstations independently, and one with teacher support. The five

workstations included read to yourself, work on writing, partner reading, word work, and

teacher-led guided reading. The project documented literacy workstation data over a four-week

period of time. Data sources included student surveys, observations, and reviews of student

assessments including DRA 2 scores and Sight Word recognition scores. Findings revealed that

by implementing literacy workstations there was an overall positive effect on kindergarten

reading scores.
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
3

Table of Contents

Introduction..5

Problem Statement...5

Research Questions..6

Hypothesis6

Literature Review........6

Positive Effects of Independent Workstations.7

Grouping for Achievement..9

Layered Intervention9

Impact of Dramatic Play....10

Spelling and Reading Connection..11

Positive Effects of Literacy Clubs.....14

Summary....15

Methodology..15

Research Design.16

Read to Yourself....17

Work on Writing....17

Partner Reading..17

Word Work....17

Guided Reading.....18

Data Collection Plan..18

Data Analysis.19
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
4

Data Validity..19

Sample Selection....19

Results....20

Findings..20

Student Survey...20

DRA Scores...22

Sight Word Scores.22

Classroom Observations....23

Read to Yourself....23

Work on Writing....23

Partner Reading......24

Word Work....24

Guided Reading.....24

Discussion..24

Limitations.26

Summary and Further Research.27

Action Plan.....28

Conclusion.....29

References..30

Appendix32
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
5

Improving Kindergarten Reading Scores Through the Implementation of Literacy Workstations

The researcher works at a small island school on the coast of Maine. The school consists

of seventy students in grades Pre-Kindergarten through sixth-grade. The current kindergarten

class consists of six girls. The six kindergarten students are the sample selection throughout this

study. This action research project takes a critical look at how literacy workstations can improve

reading scores and which ones work best. Allowing for more one on one, and small group time

will give students more opportunities to ask questions and fully understand what is being taught.

It will also allow the researcher time to observe and differentiate instruction for the students as

needed.

Problem Statement

Students are entering kindergarten not knowing their letters, or how to write their name,

yet are expected to read at a level 3, or higher, according to the Developmental Reading

Assessment 2, also known as the DRA 2 (2017), an assessment used to monitor student growth in

reading, by the end of the kindergarten year. Over the past few years, many students have entered

first-grade below grade level, even with Title 1 support. Out of seventy students enrolled at the

school, in grades Pre-Kindergarten to grade six, twenty percent of the students are currently

receiving special education services. An additional ten percent are receiving Title 1 support.

Currently, out of the six students in kindergarten, one student knows 46/54 letters (this includes

the times new roman a and g) and knows 2/25 sight words, three students are reading at a level 1

DRA 2 (2017) and know 7-10/25 sight words, one student is reading at a level 2 DRA 2 (2017)

and knows 12/25 sight words, and one student is reading at a level 4 DRA 2 (2017) and knows

25/25 sight words. In order to improve reading scores, it is important to have a strong literacy

program starting in the early grades in order to give students a stronger literacy background so
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
6

that scores continue to rise over the years, and students enter each grade on, or above, grade

level.

Research Questions

While considering the possible causes for the low performance levels of the students in

the area of literacy, the question of workstations arose. This study attempts to determine how the

implementation of literacy workstations will improve Kindergarten reading scores. Additionally,

it will determine which workstations will be most beneficial in the process of improving reading

scores.

Hypothesis

Through the use of Reading Street (Pearson, 2017) and Fountas and Pinnell (Fountas &,

2016) program activities, implemented at reading, writing, sight word, and phonemic awareness

workstations, literacy scores will improve over time, and at a faster rate than in previous years.

Fewer students will be identified as needing Title 1 or special education services, and students

will enter first-grade on, or above, grade level.

Literature Review

Over the years, numerous studies have been conducted to investigate how to improve

reading scores during the early childhood years in order to have higher results in the later grades.

In this section, you will find the review that elaborates on successful reading interventions used

in early childhood programs through providing high-quality instruction. The purpose of this

study is to assess the impact that literacy workstations have on kindergarten students.

The research problem is that kindergarten students are entering first-grade below grade

level. Once these struggling readers get below grade level, this seems to carry over into the

following grades, thus impacting other subject areas such as math or science when expected to
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
7

read in order to learn.

Positive Effects of Independent Workstations

One program, created by Boushey and Moser (2012), Daily Five and CAF, is an

example of a structured literacy block that can be used in the classroom while teachers are

working with individuals or small groups. This is a flexible program. Each center allows for

differentiation within itself and should be altered as needed for each student or group of students.

Daily Five tasks are split up into five categories including Read to Self, Work on Writing, Partner

Reading, Word Work, and Listening to Reading. These five centers focus on comprehension,

accuracy, fluency, and expanding vocabulary. In order for students to fully understand the

process, and get the most out of it, they must, first and foremost, be taught independence. They

must also have good-fit books available to them and be able to set goals and have a clear

understanding of what they mean. Boushey and Moser (2012) agree that when students receive

an intervention and are taught at their level of understanding, throughout the intervention, their

achievement levels will increase and the gap between them, as struggling readers, and other

students performing on or above grade level, will decrease. Boushey and Moser, also known as

the two sisters, have written many books including The Daily Five (2014) and The CAF Book

(2009). The Daily 5 goal is to foster literacy independence in the elementary grades (Boushey &

Moser, 2014). The CAF Book goal is to support teacher practice in literacy assessment and

instruction (Boushey & Moser, 2009). The use of Daily Five allows for a gradual release of

responsibility, by the teachers, to the students, with an outcome of literacy independence.

In a study conducted by Eng (2012), The Daily Five (Boushey & Moser, 2012) was

implemented for an entire school year in a kindergarten classroom consisting of twenty-five

students. Eng introduced The Daily Five (Boushey & Moser, 2012) on the first day of school and
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
8

then slowly rolled out each task one week at a time. The researcher used the DRA 2, three times

throughout the year, for the reading assessment. The researcher also had data from the previous

year, which allows for comparisons between the groups. The students from the previous year

were not exposed to The Daily Five (Boushey & Moser, 2012). Engs study focused on whether

or not literacy stations and guided reading groups in the classroom increase reading levels (Eng,

2012). By implementing The Daily Five (Boushey & Moser, 2012), Eng was able to provide

high-quality reading instruction to individuals and small groups. The researcher was able to

differentiate for each student and scaffold with each students zone of proximal development.

This scaffolding process allowed for the researcher to gradually lead the students into becoming

successful and independent readers (Eng, 2012, p. 3). It also allowed the researcher to

continuously assess, and set goals, with each student, or group of students. During both years, the

year in which students were not exposed, and the year the students were exposed, to The Daily

Five (Boushey & Moser, 2012), all students showed growth according to the DRA 2. However,

during the year the students were exposed to The Daily Five (Boushey & Moser, 2012), students

improved significantly more than the students in the previous year. Therefore, it was proven that

meaningful literacy stations along with guided reading could help to improve kindergarten DRA

2 scores.

Fisher and Frey (2007) also believe that learners require a gradual increase in

responsibility. The researchers conducted a study by implementing a school-wide literacy

framework much like that of Boushey and Moser (2012). The researchers believe that learning is

social, conversations are a critical part of learning, and reading and writing instruction must be

integrated. While developing their instructional framework for a cohesive literacy plan, the

researchers decided that teacher modeling, independent learning, and collaborative learning were
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
9

all necessary. The researchers realized that while some independent work was necessary, in order

to follow through with the gradual release of responsibility model, the students were spending

too much time working alone. Therefore, they decided to integrate literacy learning centers

which lead to reciprocal teaching, literature circles, peer-response groups, partner reading,

Readers Theatre, and discussion groups (Fisher & Frey, 2007, p. 37). After conducting the study,

it was clear that students were getting more instruction time, which led to greater achievements.

Grouping for Achievement

A study conducted by Adelson and Carpenter (2011), was used to see if grouping for

achievement gains increased kindergarten reading growth for all students including students in a

gifted program as well as those who were not in a gifted program. Since achievement grouping

can be multifaceted, there is flexibility in how students can be grouped. For example students

can be grouped by class assignments in math and then grouped differently by class assignments

in reading. Students can also be grouped by ability or interest. This study focused on

achievement grouping within the classroom since that is where most achievement grouping is

done in elementary school. Adelson and Carpenter (2011) reported that opponents of ability

grouping believe that this can create teachers to have lower expectations of students, especially

those who are in the lower ability group. The study was proven to have positive effects on all

students. However, the benefits were proven to be greater for the higher ability students than for

the middle or lower ability students.

Layered Intervention

In another study conducted by OConnor (n.d.), layers of intervention were applied over a

two-year period of time with kindergarten and first-grade students. The researchers goal was to

reduce the amount of students who were performing below grade level. One hundred eighty-nine
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
10

students participated in this study. The participants were from eight different kindergarten

classrooms in three different schools. By the end of the second year, one hundred forty-six

participants were part of the study. Forty-three students moved out of the participating schools.

Throughout the study the participants were exposed to multiple levels of intervention. Layer one

consisted of practice with letter knowledge and phonological blending and segmenting. This was

meant for students entering kindergarten with very little pre-literacy skills. Layer two consisted

of more individualized instruction based on what was being taught in the classroom. Layer three

consisted of adding small group instruction focusing more on phonological segmenting and

blending combined with decodable word practice. Layer four consisted of blending, word

reading and spelling activities developed around known letter sounds (OConnor, n.d.. p. 4). Not

all students participated in all four layers. Only the students who needed more intervention were

chosen to move on to the different layers. All eight classes participated in layer one. From there,

students were chosen to move on. Even as other students moved on to different layers, all

students continued to receive layer one throughout kindergarten. Once students surpassed the

scores received by students in previous years, they were not chosen to move on to the next level.

Those who did not meet or exceed previous year scores continued on to the next layer of

intervention. Overall, the researcher found that the participants scored higher at each level than

other at-risk students who did not receive the same interventions in the past (OConnor, n.d., p.

10).

Impact of Dramatic Play

Ihmeideh (2015) conducted a study involving the impact of dramatic play in kindergarten

and how it impacts the development of childrens early writing skills. It is believed that children

learn best through play. Since most kindergarten classrooms involve a dramatic play area, and
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
11

students tend to enjoy that play as they pretend to take on the role of someone else, it has been

suggested that by having an abundance of literacy enriched materials, the students will naturally

improve their literacy skills. By talking to their peers, and pretending to be a doctor, father,

mother, pharmacist, dentist, farmer, server, or grocery clerk, exposure to new vocabulary will

increase the participants own vocabulary making it easier for them to comprehend text that is

read to them or by them. By providing paper and writing tools, the students will naturally use it

when modeling behaviors of the role they have taken on during their play. This study consisted

of forty-six participants in two kindergarten classrooms. The participants were divided into two

groups. The first group was the control group where they were taught in a normal classroom with

a dramatic play center but did not involve writing activities. The second group was the

experimental group, which had a dramatic play center with writing activities. Results showed

that there was a significant difference between the control group and the experimental group in

favor of the latter (Ihmeideh, 2015, p. 257). Thus proving that students who are exposed to

writing activities during dramatic play centers will show more literacy gains than those who are

not exposed to writing activities during these centers.

Spelling and Reading Connection

Phillips and Feng (2012) conducted a study focusing on methods for sight word

recognition in kindergarten. Like Noltemeyer et al. (2013), one technique the researchers used

was flashcard drills. Along with flashcard drills, the researchers used a method called reading

racetrack. This is a method that uses a racetrack drawn on a piece of paper with sight words

written along the racetrack. The students race to the end by reading the words correctly (Phillips

& Feng, 2012). The researchers found many other studies, which showed gains in sight word

recognition using flashcards and reading racetracks. They found other research focusing on sight
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
12

word recognition through use of technology. Other studies they looked at used a multisensory

approach that focuses on systematic and explicit instruction rather than using a basal reading

program. These studies showed that the multisensory approach was more successful than a basal

reading program. While using the flashcard method using five words: want, have, look, said, are,

from the Dolch sight list, Phillips and Feng (2012) found the results to be lower than the

multisensory approach with the reading racetrack method. The flashcard study consisted of

fifteen participants. Out of the fifteen students, the lower performing students knew 0-7 Dolch

words, the average performing students knew 8-25 Dolch words and the high performing

students knew 30-50 Dolch words. Two students knew 150-170 Dolch words. The study took

place over a two-week period with five new Dolch words. Out of the fifteen students, three had a

score of 0 new words, three had a score of 1 new word, five had a score of 2 new words, three

had a score of 3 new words, and one had a score of 5 new words. The students who had a score

of 0 were already receiving special education services. The students who received a score of 1

were performing at a lower level in the classroom, but not identified. The students who received

a score of 2 were average performing students, and the students who received a score of 3 or 5

were the higher performing students. While using reading racetrack method using a different five

words: here, they, good, come, who, from the Dolch word list, for a two-week period of time,

Phillips and Feng (2012) found the results to be higher than the flashcard method. One student

received a score of 2, two students received a score of 3, five students received a score of 4, and

seven students received a score of 5. The same students who received a score of 0 in the

flashcard method received a score of 3 in the racetrack method. Results showed that a

multisensory approach is more successful than a flashcard drill approach.

Noltemeyer, Joseph and Kunesh (2013) conducted a study with six kindergarten students,
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
13

placing them randomly in one of two groups. The focus of the study was to see how small group

phonics instruction would benefit the students with word recognition. The researchers found that

without early reading instruction the gap between struggling readers and peers who perform at a

higher level widens over time. Noltemeyer et al. (2013) also found evidence that by providing

early and intensive literacy instruction for students who are at-risk entering kindergarten, this

helps to improve the students reading scores in the higher grades. The researchers believe

students who are struggling to acquire basic skills, may struggle more in a larger group of

students. Noltemeyer et al. (2013) also suggest that by providing explicit and systematic phonics

instruction, the number of students identified as having a reading disability will decline. One of

the methods used in this study was flashcard drill and practice. This method provides students an

opportunity to continue practicing while getting immediate feedback until they can read the

words rapidly and correctly with automaticity (Noltemeyer et al., 2013, p. 122). After conducting

the five-week study, the results of the flashcard drill and practice study indicated that the students

performed higher immediately following the intervention. However, one week later, during the

follow-up session, the results were lower. This indicates that students can learn with explicit and

purposeful instruction, as long as the instruction continues.

Another study done by Otaiba, Puranik, Rouby, Greulich, Sidler and Lee (2010),

indicates that students who are poor spellers are also poor readers. Therefore, early spelling

intervention is critical for students in order to ensure they become successful readers. Otaiba et

al. (2010) involved nine schools consisting of twenty-nine kindergarten classrooms, in this study.

Two hundred eighty-eight students were part of the study. The researchers used assessments

measures such as spelling, reading, alphabetic knowledge, vocabulary, phonological awareness,

and letter writing fluency skills, along with a literacy questionnaire filled out by parents,
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
14

answering questions about home literacy, parental education, and demographic factors, to predict

end-of-year spelling ability. Students had to spell sight words, decodable real words, and

decodable pseudowords throughout the year. Assessments were given in the Fall and again in the

Spring. Otaiba et al. (2015) found that conventional literacy skills were accounted for at the

beginning of kindergarten, the effect of socioeconomic status and home experiences decreased.

However, this could be because of the explicit and systematic reading instruction the study group

received (Otaiba et al., 2015, p. 11). The researchers suggest that early spelling assessment data

can help teachers focus on how to group students for instruction. It is also suggested that students

should receive spelling instruction that shows them how to use their understanding of the English

language and its alphabetical principal and syllable structure rather than focusing on drill

practice (Otaiba et al., 2015, p. 12). This confirms the study done by Phillips and Feng (2012),

stating that practice drills do not result in as much growth as multisensory methods.

Positive Effects of Literacy Clubs

Purcell (n.d), conducted a study by creating a literacy club, in a first grade classroom.

This study involved both reading and writing and had a goal of developing a lifelong interest in

both areas. By being exposed to free voluntary reading time, students have better results in

reading comprehension, writing style, vocabulary, and spelling (Purcell, n.d., p. 3). Throughout

the literacy club the researcher was able to assess each student and scaffold where needed.

Through choral reading, readers theatre, guided reading, independent reading, shared reading,

students had many choices in how to read. By keeping the mini lessons short and fun, students

remained interested. Assessments were performance based rather than tests. Progress was

monitored throughout their drafts while writing. The researcher states that by implementing this

literacy club, allowing for all students to be part of the club, and by making it fun, students
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
15

become better readers and writers (Purcell, n.d., p. 11).

Summary

With increasing pressures for teachers to show growth in reading, the researcher is

investigating new reading programs and methods that will help in the process. After reading

through many studies related to how to improve reading scores in kindergarten, the researcher

has found that by providing purposeful instruction and differentiating for each child, significant

literacy growth should be the outcome. Through center activities, students will feel a sense of

independence and therefore gain confidence and motivation to succeed. By setting up centers in

this classroom the researcher will have more time for individual instruction, which will increase

literacy scores. This study supports how literacy workstations benefit struggling readers.

Methodology

Students have entered kindergarten not knowing their letters, or how to write their name,

yet are expected to read at a level 3, or higher, according to the DRA 2 (2017), by the end of the

kindergarten year. Over the past few years, many students have entered first-grade below grade

level, even with Title 1 support. Out of seventy students enrolled at the school, in grades Pre-

Kindergarten to sixth-grade, twenty percent of the students were receiving special education

services at the time of this study. An additional ten percent were receiving Title 1 support. Prior

to the intervention, student A was reading at a level 2 DRA 2 (2017) and knew 8/25 sight words,

student B was reading at a level 1 DRA 2 (2017) and knew 4/25 sight words, student C was

reading at a level 1 DRA 2 (2017) and knew 3/25 sight words, student D was reading at a level 1

DRA 2 (2017) and knew 2/25 sight words, student E was reading at a level 4 DRA 2 (2017) and

knew 25/25 sight words, and student F was reading at a level 2 DRA 2 (2017) and knew 9/25

sight words. Student C also only knew 46/54 letters (this included the times new roman a and g).
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
16

All other students knew all fifty-four letters. In order to improve reading scores, the researcher

was aware of the importance of having a strong literacy program starting in the early grades in

order to give students a stronger literacy background so that scores continue to rise over the

years, and students enter each grade on, or above, grade level.

While considering the possible causes for the low performance levels of the students in

the area of literacy, the question of workstations arose. This study was conducted to determine

how the implementation of literacy workstations could improve Kindergarten reading scores.

Additionally, it was conducted to determine which workstations would be most beneficial in

order to improve reading scores.

Through the use of Reading Street (Pearson, 2017) and Fountas and Pinnell (Fountas &,

2016) program activities, implemented at reading, writing, sight word, and phonemic awareness

workstations, literacy scores will improve over time, and at a faster rate than in previous years.

Fewer students will be identified as needing Title 1 or special education services, and students

will enter first-grade on, or above, grade level.

Research Design

According to Mills (2014), action research is any systematic inquiry conducted by

teacher researchers, principals, school counselors, or other stakeholders in the teaching/learning

environment to gather information about how their particular schools operate, how they teach,

and how well their students learn (p. 8). The purpose of this study was to determine how the

implementation of literacy workstations improved reading scores in kindergarten. Literacy

workstations were introduced to the participants at a gradual pace. Five workstations were

implemented into the daily literacy block. The literacy block was sixty to seventy-five minutes

per day. The workstations, based on The Daily Five (Boushey & Moser, 2012), included Read to
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
17

Yourself, Work on Writing, Partner Reading, Word Work, and teacher-led Guided Reading.

While the students were completing tasks at each of the first four workstations, the researcher

was reading with individuals or small groups at the Guided Reading workstation.

Read to yourself. This workstation was introduced on day one. The students participated

at this workstation for at least fifteen minutes per day. Each student had a book bin consisting of

books that could be read independently. Books were added to the bin throughout the four-week

period of time. As the researcher read with each student, the researcher determined which books

were added to each bin. During this workstation, students took their bin to a quiet spot, in the

classroom, and read silently to themselves.

Work on writing. This workstation was introduced on day three. Once this workstation

was introduced to the students they worked at each of the two stations during the literacy block.

Each workstation took about fifteen minutes for a total of thirty minutes. Students practiced their

writing skills at this station. They worked on letter formation, punctuation, spacing and

capitalization.

Partner reading. This workstation was introduced on day five. Once this workstation

was introduced the students worked at the three workstations during the literacy block. Each

workstation took about fifteen minutes for a total of forty-five minutes. Students chose a book

from their book bin to read to a partner. Once one student had read her book to her partner they

switched roles. The researcher modeled this process with another student before the students

participated in the activity. Students were encouraged to sit elbow-to-elbow and knee-to-knee

during this activity. They were also encouraged to be good listeners.

Word work. This workstation was introduced on day seven. Once this workstation was

introduced the students worked at all four workstations during the literacy block. Each
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
18

workstation took about fifteen minutes for a total of sixty minutes. Students worked on sight

word recognition at this workstation. They stamped, wrote, read, and built words at this station.

Guided reading. This took place simultaneous to the workstations. While the students

were working on tasks at the different workstations, at their own pace, the researcher read with

individual students, or small groups of students. All students read with the researcher each day

throughout the four-week project. In between reading with individuals, or small groups, the

researcher checked in at each workstation to make sure all students are on task. The researcher

provided scaffolding when necessary in order to keep the workstations running smoothly.

Data Collection Plan

A data collection matrix was developed for the kindergarten class in order to determine

how the implementation of literacy workstations improved reading scores (Table 1).

Table 1

Triangulation Matrix

Research Questions
How will workstations Which workstations are
improve reading scores? most beneficial?

Data
Source

1 Student Survey Student Survey

2 DRA 2 scores before WS DRA 2 scores before WS
3 DRA 2 scores after WS DRA 2 scores after WS
4 Sight word recognition before Sight word recognition before
WS WS
5 Sight word recognition after Sight word recognition after
WS WS
6 Observations (TR as AP) Observations (TR as AP)
Note: WS is workstations, TR is teacher researcher, and AP is active participant

Data for this action research project was collected over a four-week period of time. Data
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
19

collected included a student survey (Appendix A), DRA2 scores, and word recognition scores,

prior to the intervention and again after the conclusion of the study, as well as observations by

the teacher researcher as an active participant.

Data Analysis

According to Mills (2014), data analysis is an attempt by the teacher researcher to

summarize collected data in a dependable and accurate manner (p. 132). In this mixed methods

research approach, the researcher labeled the students as students A, B, C, D, E, & F to protect

confidentiality. The data collected, from student surveys, DRA 2 (2017) scores, sight word

scores, and classroom observations, have been displayed using bar graphs.

Data validity. After consulting with two colleagues about the data analysis plan, the

researcher determined that the data collected accurately measured the abilities and growth of

each student. The researcher met with the first and second grade teachers to propose the action

research plan that was used to improve literacy scores in kindergarten. After discussing the use of

tables versus bar graphs, it was determined that bar graphs would best represent the collected

data. It was also determined that DRA 2 (2017) and Fountas and Pinnell (2016) sight word scores

would be a good measure of growth since it was what the district was already using for

assessment measures. This would be an easy way for anyone in the district to look at and

understand the data at a glance. The researcher met with the first and second grade teachers

throughout the study to talk about the collected data and look at which workstations were most

beneficial for each student.

Sample Selection

The sample selection was a convenience sample comprised of six students in a

kindergarten classroom. All participants were white girls, and English was the primary language
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
20

for all. One student was receiving Title 1 services. The researcher chose the sample selection

based on availability. All six students in the kindergarten class were active participants. There

was no harm as a result of this research project. The students engaged in activities that they

would have been expected to partake in on any given day in the classroom. Parents were notified

of the research project and were asked to sign and return the opt-out form (Appendix B) if they

did not want their child to be part of the research project. None of the parents opted out.

Results

This action research project investigated the impact that literacy workstations, along with

teacher-led guided reading, could have on kindergarten students. Students were gradually

introduced to each of the five workstations until they were able to participate at four of the

workstation independently, and one with teacher support. The project documented literacy

workstation data over a four-week period of time. Data sources included student surveys, teacher

observations, and reviews of student assessments.

Findings

Student survey. The six students completed a reading survey (Appendix A), prior to the

intervention (RE) and again after the conclusion of the study (RG), with assistance from the

researcher. Data was analyzed comparing the correlation to DRA 2 (2017) and sight word scores

with reading enjoyment and growth. Figure 1 displays the results from each student based on

scoring one point for each smiley face. There were eight questions so the highest possible score

was eight points. Figure 2 displays the results from each question based on scoring one point for

each student who answered with a smiley face. There were six students who took the survey.

Therefore, the highest possible score was six. Results have been displayed using bar graphs.

Figure 1
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
21

Student Survey

8
7
6
5
4
3 RE
RG
2
1
0
Student A
Student B
Student C
Student D
Student E
Student F

Note: RE is reading enjoyment and RG is reading growth.

Figure 2

Student Survey

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

RE
Column1

Note: RE is reading enjoyment and RG is reading growth.

DRA scores. The researcher administered the DRA 2 (2017) prior to the intervention and
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
22

again after the conclusion of the study. This is a formal reading assessment that measures reading

engagement, fluency and comprehension. Results were compared using a bar graph (Figure 3).

Figure 3

DRA 2 Scores

4
DRA 2 BS
Column1
3

0
Student A Student B Student C Student D Student E Student F

Note: BS is beginning study and ES is ending study.

Sight word scores. The researcher completed a sight word assessment prior to the

intervention and again after the conclusion of the study, using the kindergarten Fountas and

Pinnell (2016) sight word list consisting of twenty-five words. Results have been compared using

a bar graph (Figure 4).

Figure 4
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
23

Sight Word Scores

30

25

20

15
SW BS
10 SW ES
Column1
5

Note: SW BS is Sight words beginning study and SW ES is sight words ending study.

Classroom observations. The researcher recorded and reviewed classroom observations

during the workstation blocks in order to develop new workstation curriculum based on the

needs of each student. Each workstation was a fifteen-minute block of time and was visited

daily for four weeks. Students were expected to remain focused and on task for the entire fifteen

minutes at each station for a total of seventy-five minutes.

Read to yourself. During this workstation the researcher observed the students as they

read to themselves. At the beginning of the four-week study, students were able to remain

focused for a maximum of five minutes before asking what they could do next. By the end of the

four-week study students were able to remain focused for the full fifteen minutes.

Work on writing. During this workstation the researcher observed the students as they

wrote in their journals. Students were expected to draw a picture and write a sentence that went

along with the picture. The expectation was to use capitalization, spacing and punctuation. At the

beginning of the four-week study the students needed to be reminded of each of these three tasks.

By the end of the four weeks, they were able to use capitalization and spacing consistently, and
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
24

independently. Punctuation was used with reminders by the researcher as the observer.

Partner reading. During this workstation the researcher observed the students as they

read books to their partners from their individual book bins. These bins contained books that

could be read independently by the students. The students remained focused within this

workstation, for the entire fifteen minutes, from the beginning of the study to the end. They were

able to take turns reading and listening to one another.

Word work. During this workstation the researcher observed the students as they

practiced sight words. This was done through cutting, gluing, tracing, creating, stamping and

writing. The students remained focused within this workstation, for the entire fifteen minutes,

from the beginning of the study to the end.

Guided reading. During this workstation the researcher observed the students as they

read out loud. The researcher met with each student on a daily basis and read developmentally

appropriate books with each student, or group of students. As the students were able to read a

new book independently, the book was added to that students book bin, which could later be

read during the Read to Yourself workstation or the Partner Reading workstation.

Discussion

Figure 1 shows an increase in student reading engagement over the course of the four-

week study by taking a look at each student. The eight questions were worded in a way that

would have a smiley face as a desired answer for a maximum total of eight smiley faces. Prior to

the intervention, students A, B and D scored four out of eight, students C and E scored six out of

eight, and student F scored seven out of eight. After the conclusion of the study, all six students

increased their score by one to three points. Three students scored eight points, two students

scored seven points and one student scored five points.

IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
25

Figure 2 shows an increase in student reading engagement over the course of the four-

week study by taking a look at each survey question. There were a total of eight questions with

six students answering the questions. The questions were worded in a way that would have a

smiley face as the desired answer. The maximum number of smiley faces that could be scored for

this graph was six. At the beginning of the study all six students answered with a smiley face to

the first three questions. They all loved to read, enjoyed reading at home and enjoyed reading at

school. Half of the students said they enjoy checking books out of the school library and that

they go to the library with their parents, while the other half do not enjoy it and do not visit the

library with their parents. One student said she enjoyed reading out loud and understands

everything she reads, while the other five said they did not enjoy reading out loud and they did

not understand everything they read. Five students said they enjoyed having someone else read

to them while one student did not. At the end of the study all six students answered with a smiley

face to the first three questions as well as the last question. The most significant changes were

the attitudes about reading out loud and understanding everything they read. Over the course of

the study the researcher noticed that by having book bins with books the students could read

independently helped change their confidence and enthusiasm for reading. The questions about

enjoying the library and visiting with their parents showed increased scores as well. However,

the scores were not as significant. The questions that had a score of six at the beginning of the

study remained at six at the end of the study.

Figure 3 shows an increase in the DRA 2 (2017) scores over the course of the four-week

study for all six students. All students increased their scores by one to two reading levels.

Students D and E increased their reading levels by two levels. Student D was one of the three

students performing below grade level at the beginning of the study while student E was
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
26

performing above grade level at the beginning of the study. All other students increased their

DRA 2 (2017) score by one level in four weeks. All students are on, or above, grade level at this

point in the year.

Figure 4 shows an increase sight word scores over the course of the four-week study for

all six students. Students increased their scores by one to eight words. Student E continued to

know all twenty-five words and has moved on to the first grade sight words. She knows more

than twenty-five sight words. However, the first grade list was not part of this study. Therefore,

the researcher did not include those results in this study. There was no correlation between the

number of words the students knew prior to the intervention and the number of sight words they

knew after the conclusion of the study. However, there was a correlation between the number of

sight words the students knew after the conclusion of the study and the DRA 2 (2017) level they

were on. The more words the students knew, the higher DRA 2 (2017) level they were on.

The data confirms that by implementing literacy workstations there was an overall positive

effect on kindergarten reading scores.

Limitations

There were a few limitations during this study. Due to the weather, there were three snow

days and one two-hour delay. There were also two half-days due to parent teacher conferences.

Student A was absent for two days due to illness, student B was travelling with her family for

three of the four weeks due to her fathers job, student C was absent for five days, and tardy four

days, due to over sleeping and refusal to attend school, student D was absent for three days due

to her family going on vacation, and student F was absent for one day for an appointment.

Student E was present everyday during the four weeks. There were two days in which only two

students were present and three days in which only three students were present. Throughout the
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
27

study all six students were never present at the same time. Although this was a great opportunity

for the students who were present, to get more one on one support, the students who were absent

for longer durations did not receive as much instruction as they could have if they were present

for the full four weeks. With the shortened exposure to the intervention, those students did not

make the same gains as the students who were present more often. However, research shows that

they can make gains in a short period of time within a structured setting. Literacy workstations

along with teacher-led guided reading helped to improve literacy scores for all students in this

study group.

Summary and Further Research

In summary, this action research project confirms part of the researchers hypothesis to be

true. Kindergarten literacy scores did improve over time for all students. However, in order to

fully confirm the researchers hypothesis, it will be necessary for the researcher to continue the

study throughout the remainder of the year. The end-of-year DRA 2 (2017) benchmark for

Kindergarten students is a level three or four. Two of the students, student B and student C, are

performing at a level two. In order to confirm the remainder of the researchers hypothesis, that

all Kindergarten students will enter first grade on, or above, grade level, those two students will

need to improve their score by at least one more level before the end of the school year.

Therefore, the researcher will need more time to prove this. Further research would include

comparing this group of students to previous groups, who did not have exposure to the

workstation intervention, comparing boys to girls, comparing scores to number of days present,

and repeating the study in future years to compare data from one year to the next. The researcher

would also like to repeat the study using math and science workstations.

Action Plan
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
28

The purpose of this research was to determine whether the implementation of

workstations in a kindergarten classroom would improve reading scores. The researcher found

that all workstations were equally beneficial when working toward the goal of improving reading

scores. However, the teacher-led guided reading has given each student individual time to work

on skills that need more focus, which has been especially important in this study. The researcher

would like to continue using the workstations throughout the remainder of the school year in

order to gain more data. Students are comfortable with the workstations and are gaining

confidence in their abilities to complete tasks on their own while continuously showing growth.

Therefore, the researcher would like to keep the rhythm and routine consistent throughout the

remainder of the year. The researcher would also like to share the information and data, from the

study, with other classroom teachers and administration during a staff meeting. By sharing the

information and data with other classroom teachers within the school district, the researcher

hopes to have workstations implemented into the daily routines of other classrooms in the

district. This will provide consistency from one grade to another while making learning

meaningful and fun. The researcher plans to continue using the workstations during the

following school year in order to collect data for a longer period of time and use it to compare to

the current data. Introducing the workstations at the beginning of each year will allow more time

to focus on each workstation allowing the students to master one workstation before being

introduced to the next. This will offer clear expectations from the beginning of the year as well

as a consistent flow in the classroom. In addition, the researcher would like to develop a plan to

implement workstations in other content areas such as math and science allowing for a smooth

integration of all subjects.

Conclusion
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
29

In conclusion, this action research project proved that literacy workstations had a positive

impact on the students and helped to improve Kindergarten reading scores. All five workstations

helped all students improve their reading scores. All students benefited from participating in this

project. When comparing the scores from the beginning to the end of the action research project,

all students showed growth. The researcher is confident with the process of the research project

and would like to continue using the process in future classroom settings.

References
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
30

Adelson, J., & Carpenter, B. (2011). Grouping for achievement gains: For whom does

achievement grouping increase kindergarten reading growth? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55,

265-278.

Boushey, G., & Moser, J. (2012). Big ideas behind daily 5 and cafe. Reading Teacher, 66, 172-

178.

Boushey, G., & Moser, J. (2009). The caf book:Engaging all students in daily literacy

assessment and instruction. Portland, Me/USA: Stenhouse.

Boushey, G., & Moser, J. (2014). The daily 5:Fostering literacy in the elementary grades (2nd

ed.). Portland, Me/USA: Stenhouse.

Developmental Reading Assessment, 2nd Edition (DRA2): A Reading Curriculum by Pearson.

(2017). Pearsonschool.com. Retrieved 22 January 2017, from

http://www.pearsonschool.com/index.cfm?locator=PSZw5u&PMDbS

Eng, C. (2012). Improving student reading levels through literacy workstations and guided

reading. Retrieved January 30, 2017, from

http://www.fortbendisd.com/cms/lib09/TX01917858/Centricity/Domain/71/Action%20R

esearch/improving-student-reading-levels-through-literacy-workstations-and-guided

reading.pdf

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Implementing a school wide literacy framework: Improving

achievement in an urban elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 61, 32-43.

Fountas & pinnell literacy. (2016). Retrieved October 9, 2016, from http://fountasandpinnell.com
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
31

Ihmeideh, F. (2015). The impact of dramatic play centre on promoting the development of

children's early writing skills. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Mills, G. E. (2014). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ/USA: Pearson.

Noltemeyer, A. L., Laurice, J. M., & Claire, K. E. (2013). Effects of supplemental small group

phonics instruction on kindergartens' word recognition performance. Retrieved from

ERIC database.

O'Connor, R. (n.d.). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade.

Retrieved from ERIC-EBSCO database.

Otaiba, S., Puranik, C., Rouby, A., Greulich, L., Sidler, J., & Lee, J. (2010). Predicting

kindergarteners' end-of-year spelling ability based on their reading alphabetic and

phonological awareness skills as well as prior literacy experiences. Retrieved from ERIC

database.

Phillips, W. E., & Feng, J. (2012). Methods for sight word recognition in kindergarten:

Traditional flashcard method vs multi sensory approach. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Purcell, J. (n.d.). Creating a literacy club in a first grade classroom: One teacher's balanced

literacy approach. Retrieved from ERIC database.

IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
32

StudentSurvey

AppendixA

I love to read I enjoy reading at home

I enjoy reading at school I enjoy checking books out of

the school library

I go to the library with my I understand everything I

parents read
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
33

I like reading out loud I like it when someone reads

to me

OptOutForm

AppendixB

Dear Kindergarten Families,

As part of my masters program through the University of New England, I am conducting

an action research project. This project will investigate the impact that literacy workstations,

along with teacher-led guided reading, could have on kindergarten students and will be guided by

implementing ideas from The Daily Five program, created by Gail Boushey and Joan Moser.

Students will gradually be introduced to each of the five workstations until they are able to

participate at each workstation independently. The project will document literacy workstation

data over a four-week period of time. Data sources will include student surveys, teacher

observations, and reviews of student assessments. I will not be using the students names in this

study. If you do not want to have your child participate in the study please sign the opt-out form

below and return it by Friday, February 17, 2017. The data collection will begin on February 27,
IMPROVING KINDERGARTEN READING SCORES
34

2017. If you have any questions or concerns before making your decision please feel free to

reach out to me via email, our classroom Facebook page or call me at school.

Thank you,
Laurie Martin

I do not give permission for my child ________________________________ to participate in

the Action Research Project conducted by Laurie Martin.
________________________________________ ___________________

Parent/Guardian Signature Date