DIFFERENTIATED READING CENTERS 1

Reflection on Creating Differentiated Reading Centers in First Grade

Sarah J. Koonce

University of St. Mary

DIFFERENTIATED READING CENTERS 2

Creating Differentiated Reading Centers in the First Grade Classroom

Area of Focus

The issue is that the first grade reading curriculum at Holy Rosary Catholic School does

not meeting the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for teaching early literacy skills, which is

evident in our STAR Early Literacy Scores and CORE Phonics Survey. Only one student in the

first grade class knew their long and short vowel sounds when tested in the fall CORE Phonics

Survey. This is a kindergarten standard CCSS. It is important that the students at our school meet

CCSS so that students do not fall behind the rest of the state in their reading ability. These

standards are to be used as a minimum threshold by every school district in the state in order to

establish some consistency in academic content statewide (Idaho State Department of Education

2016). 37% of students scored benchmark in the fall 2015 STAR test with, 63% below

benchmark in early literacy skills. STAR Early Literacy is the most widely used computer-based

diagnostic assessment for determining early literacy and numeracy progress for emerging readers

in grades PreK-3 (Renaissance Learning Inc. 2014).

With this in mind I then studied creating differentiated instruction for reading.

Differentiated instruction is matching instruction to meet the different needs of learners in a

given classroom. The range of instructional need within one classroom is large. In order to

accommodate these instructional needs, it is recommended that teachers plan for: small group,

differentiated instruction and ample student practice opportunities in the form of Reading

Centers (Kosanovich, Ladinsky, Nelson, Torgensen 2007).

My Area of Focus My Area of Focus statement asked; If I implement a differentiated

reading center schedule, will the time that students spend actively engaged in learning increase,

which will be measured by an increase in the number of centers that students attend each day,
DIFFERENTIATED READING CENTERS 3

and an increase in the number of times that I meet with small reading groups each week? I

introduced a differentiated reading schedule to increase the number of learning centers that

students went to each day, and increase the number of days that I met with small groups for

reading instruction. Over the course of two weeks students were able to go to more reading

centers with the use of their individual center schedule. I was also able to meet with the small

reading groups every day. I implemented the use of a timer projected on the board for students

who needed a little extra motivation. I also set up an all done center with activities for students

who finish their work very quickly. Students especially enjoyed the addition of a listening center

on the iPads using the website Just Books Read Aloud. In the future I would like to add a time

during the week to meet with students about their writing. Currently, I meet with students in

small groups for reading and word work. I believe that meeting with small groups about their

writing would better meet the needs of the students to help improve their writing skills.

National Teaching Standards

This action research project met all five of the National Teaching Standards. Studying the

CCSS and identifying a need for improving reading curriculum shows a commitment to students

and their learning. I researched the reading standards that I needed to meet and how to create

differentiated reading groups to teach these standards. I created a reading center schedule to

manage student learning. I also documented groups students attended and the small groups that I

met with to monitor student learning. I systematically thought about the issue of reading

curriculum in my class, researched how to create differentiated reading groups to improve

students learning, implemented a small reading group center schedule in my classroom, and plan

to continue improving reading centers with the addition of small group writing instruction. I am a

member of my class learning community at the University of St. Mary. I also joined the
DIFFERENTIATED READING CENTERS 4

curriculum planning committee which is researching new reading curriculum for the school for

next year, and shared my research from this class with them.

University of St. Mary Conceptual Framework and Graduate Program Outcome

The USM Graduate Conceptual Framework states that the aim of the Knowledge in

Action model is to help students identify and improve their practical arguments. This should

result in improved classroom practices and greater student achievement (University of St. Mary).

An essential act of our profession is the crafting of curriculum and learning experiences to meet

specified purposes (McTighe, Wiggins 2005). This class helped me to think about Understanding

by Design backwards lesson plan design. Once I started looking at the standards and worked

backwards, I realized that I needed to do something to increase student achievement in reading. I

was able to create a research based Action Research plan to improve classroom practices by

creating a differentiated reading center schedule. This process improved my classroom practices

in curriculum, differentiation, and increased student achievement.

University of St. Mary Graduate Program Outcomes

This process relates to the first USM Graduate Program Outcome which states that

candidates draw from their knowledge of education theory and research to undergird the formal

and informal education processes that impact P-12 students' learning and the learning

environment. I researched how to implement a differentiated reading group schedule that

impacted my first grade students learning and learning environment. It also related to the second

point which states that candidates demonstrate knowledge of diverse learners, including all forms

of exceptionality, and create instructional opportunities that meet the needs of all learners.

Having an all done center meets the needs of students who finish quickly and still need to be

actively engaged in learning. Setting up a timer on a projector helped motivate the slower
DIFFERENTIATED READING CENTERS 5

students. I was also able to meet with small reading groups each day to give students

individualized, one on one reading instruction. This project also met the fourth GPO which states

that candidates apply their knowledge of curriculum content and design to support learners

construction of knowledge. I studied the CCSS to design reading centers that were modeled from

the Toolbox from our textbook, Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom. This design

helped me create centers to support learners construction of knowledge. The fifth point states

that candidates will implement appropriate instructional models, strategies and technologies to

enhance the learning of all students. I implemented a new instructional model from the book

Leading and Managing a Differentiated Classroom, and used many strategies that helped me to

set up a small group reading center schedule. I also set up new technology in the form of

listening centers using iPad technology using the website Just Books Read Aloud, all of which

supported students construction of reading knowledge. Point number six states that candidates

will utilize measurements and evaluation accurately and systematically to monitor and promote

learning. The strength of educational research lies in its triangulation, collecting information in

many ways rather than relying solely on one (Mills 2014). I gathered both quantitative and

qualitative data to triangulate and evaluate how I could make the centers run more smoothly each

day. And finally, point number eight is what this entire paper is about; stating that candidates

demonstrate the ability to be reflective practitioners by identifying a problem, examining

research, advocating a plan, and measuring and evaluating outcomes.

DIFFERENTIATED READING CENTERS 6

References

Idaho State Department of Education. (2016). English Language Art Idaho Core State Standards.

http://sde.idaho.gov/academic/shared/ela-literacy/annotated/k-grade-2/English-Language-

Arts-Content-Standards-Grade-1.pdf.

Imbeau, M. B., Tomlinson C.A. (2010). Leading and Managing A Differentiated

Classroom. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Kosanovich, M., Ladinsky, K., Nelson, L., Torgensen, J. (2007). Differentiated Reading

Instruction: Small Group Alternative Lesson Structures for All Students.

Guidance Document for Florida Reading First Schools. Florida Center for Reading

Research.

McTighe, J., Wiggins, G. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alaxandria, Virginia: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mills, G.E. (2014). Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher (5th Ed.).

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

National Board of Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What Teachers Should Know and Be

Able to Do. Arlington, VA.

University of St. Mary. (2011) Conceptual Framework for Graduate Programs. Leavenworth,

KS.