The Effects of Word Box Instruction on Word Identification and Spelling Performance of
Consonant-Vowel-Consonant Words of First Grade Students who are at Risk Learners
THESIS
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in
the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Brittany Kanotz
Graduate Program in Education
The Ohio State University
2014
Master’s Examination Committee:
Sheila Morgan, Advisor
Laurice Joseph
Copyrighted by
Brittany Kanotz
2014
3
Abstract
This study examined the effects of word box instruction on word identification and
spelling performance of CVC (consonant-vowel-consonant) words of first grade students
who are at risk learners. Word identification was measured via oral responses and
spelling performance was measured by correct letter sequence. Students were between
the ages of five and six, and all three participants were identified as at risk learners in
reading. A multiple-probe across participants design was used to evaluate intervention
effectiveness. Finding indicated students reading and spelling performance of CVC
words improved as a result of the intervention.
ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Sheila Alber Morgan, for her guidance,
support, and encouragement, which made this thesis possible. She has been a wonderful
mentor helping me create a study that I am very proud of. I wish to thank Dr. Laurice
Joseph, who is a leading researcher in word box instruction. I was honored and humbled
to work with her and appreciative of her advice and time. I am grateful to Christina
Rouse and Mary Sawyer for their dedication and commitment in the planning of my
study, editing my writing, and being a wonderful support system. Acknowledgements
would not be complete without a special thank you to my family and friends. They have
helped encourage me on this journey and have pushed me to reach my educational goals.
iii
Vita
2005-2009………………………………… B.S. Early Childhood Education
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio
2009- present……………………………… Teacher
Millennium Community School
Columbus, Ohio
FIELDS FOR STUDY
Major Field: Education
Area of Emphasis: Special Education, Mild to Moderate Needs, Early Childhood
Education
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………….……....……….ii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………….……...………...iii
Vita……………………………………………………………………………....….……...iv
Table of Contents………………………………………………..……………….…………v
List of Tables……………………………………………………..…………….…..………vi
List of Figures…………………………..…………………………..……………………..vii
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………….….…….………...…1
Chapter 2: Methods……………………………………………………….…….……….…16
Chapter 3: Results………………………………………………………..…………….…..27
Chapter 4: Discussion………………………………………………….………….…….…47
References………………………………………………..…………………….…………..56
Appendix A: Word Box………………………………….……………….…………..……59
Appendix B: CVC Words……………………………………………….…………………60
Appendix C: Procedural Fidelity Check List………………………………….…...............61
Appendix D: Social Validity Questionnaires………….…………………...............………63
v
List of Tables
Table 1. Participant Demographics……………………………………………………………….26
Table 2. IOA………………………………..………………………………………………...…..37
Table 3. Procedural Fidelity……………………………………………………………………...38
Table 4. Maintenance…………………………………………………………………………….41
Table 5. Summary of Participants Reading Results…………………………………………...…43
Table 6. Summary of Participants Spelling Results……………………………………………...44
Table 7. Social Validity Student Results……………………..…………..……………………....45
Table 8. Social Validity Teacher Results…………………………………….…………………..46
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of Words Read Correctly………………...……………….…………..39
Figure 2. Number of Words Spelled Correctly ………………………………………….40
vii
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW
Reading: A Necessary Life Skill
Teaching a child to read is one of the most important life skills an educator can
pass on to a child. However, many students within our society are failing to learn to read.
Described as the gateway to all other achievements by the American Federation of
Teachers (2007), reading is an essential component to success. Leading literacy
researchers have estimated tens of millions of adults lack the essential literacy skills
required for normal daily activities (Bursuck and Damer, 2011). One major piece of these
basic literary skills is phonemic awareness.
Phonemic awareness is one of the five components of reading in addition to
vocabulary, comprehension, phonological awareness, and fluency (National Reading
Panel, 2000). All of these factors play an essential role in a child’s reading development,
but phonemic awareness needs to be the focus of literary development from the start.
Phonemic awareness is when a person is able to hear and manipulate individual letter
sounds in spoken words (Bursuck & Damer, 2011). Students are taught this skill in
preschool and kindergarten as an emergent literacy skill to allow a smooth transition into
reading. Students who do not develop phonemic awareness in their primary years are at
1
risk of performing below grade level in other reading skills including phonics, fluency,
and further literacy components (Wagner et al., 1997).
Phonemic Awareness Instructional Practices
There are several ways to incorporate phonemic awareness activities into the
classroom in order to help students become successful with hearing and manipulating
individual phonemes. One simple way teachers have taught phonemic awareness within
the classroom is through rhyming activities. Teachers incorporate rhyming activities in
their classrooms through read alouds, sorting rhymes, explicit instruction on rhymes, and
matching and producing rhymes. The ability to hear the similarities and difference
between the words strengthens students’ phonemic awareness abilities and helps them
become familiar with many common word patterns.
Another phonemic awareness strategy that has been common in the primary
grades are blending and segmenting activities. Blending a word is when a child is given
individual phonemes and is able to say the entire word. Segmenting is when a child is
given the whole word and is able to say each individual phoneme within the word.
Teachers have used activities such as clapping syllables in a word, blending syllables or
onsets and rimes into words, or segmenting words into onsets and rimes. Blending and
segmenting activities have enabled students to develop early literacy and reading skills.
Segmenting is the primary component of word box instruction. During word box
instruction, students are segmenting each individual phoneme in the word, which helps
them blend the word after hearing it segmented over multiple phases. In word sort
instruction students are categorizing words based upon certain criteria, which is similar to
2
matching and sorting rhyming words. Word sort and word box instruction both
incorporate other phonemic awareness strategies into the process. Previous research has
examined the use of word sort and word box instructional strategies and their
corresponding effects on phonemic awareness. Word box and word sort instruction are
two phonics-based methods that help children make the connection between the written
letter and spoken sound (Joseph, 2002b).
Word boxes. Word boxes, also known as sound boxes or Elkonin boxes, consist
of a rectangle that is divided into sections, depending on the number of phonemes in the
word. For example, the word “cat” would be represented by a rectangle divided into three
sections. Once the box is created, students are then guided through a three-step process.
Using the word, students segment sounds, match letters to sounds, and then write letters.
Sound boxes not only require students to use auditory skills, but the sound boxes
incorporate a kinesthetic component that allows students to become more proficient with
manipulating individual phonemes (McCarthy, 2008).
Word sorts. Word sorts are similar to word boxes, but word sorts focus on
categorizing common phonological and orthographic components. Joseph (2002b) shared
that words sorts consist of a set of words that share a common spelling or sound pattern.
Students are then guided through three steps: 1) placing chips below category words
according to similar sound patterns; 2) sorting words printed on note cards below
category words according to similar spelling patterns; 3) spelling words below category
words according to similar spelling and sound patterns (p.219-220). Word sorts, like
word boxes, are an instructional strategy used by educators to help children develop
3
phonemic awareness. Word sorts enable students to explore words and observe their
individual phonemes while distinguishing sound and letter patterns (Joseph, 2008).
Previous Research
Overall, studies evaluating word sort and word box instructional practices have
found them to be effective in improving students reading and spelling performance. In
the studies below, researches examine the effects of these phonemic awareness
techniques using different variables, measures, and students ranging from preschool to
high school with diverse learning abilities.
Ball and Blachman (1991) studied the effects of phonemic awareness instruction
on early word recognition and developmental spelling with 30 kindergarten students. The
students were pre-assessed with the Peabody Picture and Vocabulary Test-Revised and
the Word Identification Subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test as pre-tests.
Students were then randomly placed into three groups: phoneme awareness training
group, language activities group, and a control group.
Students placed in the phoneme awareness group and language group met four
times a week for 20-minute lessons in small groups of five over a seven-week period. The
lesson for the phoneme awareness group consisted of three activities including: (1) a “say
it-and-move-it” activity, which is very similar to word box instruction, (2) a
segmentation-related activity, and (3) letter-naming and letter-sound instruction. Students
who were placed in the language group participated in lessons including: (1) vocabulary
building activities, (2) listening to stories, (3) categorizing skills, and (4) letter-sound and
letter-naming activities. The control group received no intervention and instead
4
participated in traditional classroom instruction.
At the end of the intervention students took the same tests prior to the study, and
were also asked to read 20 and spell five CVC patterned words. Results showed that
students who received specific segmentation training performed better on phoneme
segmentation posttests than the students placed in the language activities group and the
control group. The study concluded that children can be taught to segment words into
phonemes, and when this skill is coupled with letter-naming and letter-sound instruction,
students display early reading and writing skills
Similarly, Joseph (1999) used the same phonemic awareness strategy, word box
instruction, and extended the research by implementing the strategy with elementary
students identified with learning disabilities. In this study the author examines whether
word box instruction would be effective for improving word identification and spelling
performance of children with learning disabilities. The word box instructional method
was implemented with six urban elementary students, ranging from second to fourth
grade, who were identified as having a specific learning disability in basic reading skills.
Students were receiving services in a resource room for part of the day, as well as active
members in the general education classes for specific subjects.
Throughout the study, word box sessions lasted 20 minutes over 21 daily sessions.
The author met with each student one-on-one and provided guidance and feedback as
necessary. The instructor went through each phase of the word box instruction, beginning
with chips, moving to magnetic letters, and then ending with writing the letters. Once
word box instruction was completed, the instructor administered 10-item word
5
identification and spelling probes
Finding from this study reported word box instruction was effective in improving
and maintaining all students’ word identification and spelling performance. After several
word box instruction sessions, students began to say each phoneme in the correct order
prior to saying the word as a whole. Maintenance and generalization measures
demonstrated all students could successfully identify and spelled words in another
context one month after instruction and intervention was terminated.
Another study conducted by Joseph (2000a) also examined word box instruction,
and in addition compared this strategy to word sort instruction. Specifically, the author
compared word box instruction, word sort instruction, and traditional classroom
instruction to compare student’s phonemic awareness, spelling, and word identification.
The participants included in this study were forty-two first grade students from two
classrooms. The participants were placed in one of the three experimental conditions
totaling 14 students per group.
Words chosen for the study were CVC patterned words because students had not
met mastery with reading or spelling. Children who participated in the word box and
word sort instruction received 50 lessons total, which consisted of 20-minute daily
lessons. The general education teacher taught the students in the control group with
traditional lessons focusing on phonograms. These lessons included choral reading and
workbook activities that related to the phonograms being taught.
Findings from the Joseph (2000a) study were measured in a separate classroom
where students were able to work in an environment that was free of distractions. The
6
author assessed the student’s final performance using four posttest measures: (1)
phonemic awareness, (2) word identification, (3) pseudo word naming, and (4) spelling
measures. Results indicated word box instruction and word sort instruction were
successful strategies for improving skills in phonemic awareness, spelling, and word
identification compared to the control group. In addition, when word sort instruction was
compared to word box instruction, there were very little differences in the students
performance. The study suggested that future research should compare phonics
approaches using a larger sample size of participants with high frequency words rather
than CVC words so generalization can be concluded
Joseph (2000b) continued the word box instruction research when this second
study incorporated the phonemic awareness method using a larger sample size of
students, an entire class of first graders. This particular study explored the effectiveness
of word box instruction on the word identification and spelling performance of fortyeight first grade students. Students were given a spelling and word identification pre-test
consisting of 30 CVC patterned words that were selected from a list of 200 words.
During the intervention students were either placed in the word box instruction
group or the traditional phonics instruction group. Both groups of 24 children used the
same 30 words from the pretests during their instruction. Groups met daily in separate
classrooms for 20 minutes over a four-week period. In both conditions, CVC words were
taught in order of introducing the middle /a/ vowel sound first, then /e/, /i/, /o/ and /u/.
The word box instruction consisted of three phases: (1) phonemic awareness, (2) letter to
sound matching, and (3) a spelling phase. The traditional phonics instruction group used
7
methods such as choral reading, choral responding, and completing worksheets that
contained the CVC words presented in the activities.
Findings from Joseph (2000b) demonstrated students in the word box instruction
group outperformed students in the traditional phonics approach for both spelling and
word identification. This study also provided evidence that word box instruction can be
effective while using a large group of students, as oppose to the one-on-one approach.
The study suggests that future research should examine words outside of the CVC word
pattern and investigate the effects of word box instruction on reading and writing words
in connected text form.
Joseph and Maslanka (2002) continued to research the effects of sound box
instruction, this time comparing it to another phonemic awareness approach, sound sort
instruction on the phonological awareness of preschool children. All pretest and posttests
measures consisted of the same five components: rhyme, segmentation, isolation,
blending, and detecting similar and different beginning and ending sounds.
The twenty preschool students, ranging from ages 3-4 years old, were split into
two groups, one group received sound sort instruction and the others received sound box
instruction. Both groups met for 15 minutes per day, over a 26 consecutive days. The
study was conducted in the student’s classroom, but the students worked with the
interventionist in groups of 5 at a small table in the back of the room. Pictures used for
both activities were taken from Words their Way, Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary,
and Spelling (Joseph & Maslanka, 2002, p. 279).
Findings from this study concluded that sound box instruction was more
8
successful than the sound sort instruction with improving the skills of segmenting and
isolating medial sounds. In all other areas (i.e., rhyme, blending, detecting similar and
different beginning and ending sounds) there was no significant different between the two
types of instruction. The study suggests that future research should include children from
lower socioeconomic levels and diverse cultures since the students in this current study
were from parents of middle to high socioeconomic levels and Caucasian. Another future
topic of study recommended by Joseph and Maslanka (2002) was to implement the same
techniques, but to add a control group who would not receive any specialized
phonological awareness techniques or instruction.
Joseph continued to extend the research on the word box instruction by
implementing the method with a different population of students, primary aged students
with mild intellectual disabilities. The purpose of this was to investigate the combination
of word box and word sort instruction on spelling and word identification performance
for children ages nine and ten with intellectual disabilities in an urban school setting. The
author chose the participants after observing students difficulty in reading and spelling
CVC words, work samples, and the results of screening for reading proficiency with
CVC words.
Prior to the intervention, the author composed a screening process which
consisted of students reading 100 CVC words over a five day period, 20 words per day,
one-on-one with the author, followed by a whole group evaluation on spelling of the
same 100 words. Words spelled or read correctly were eliminated from the study. After
the screenings were administered, the author held the interventions in the classroom at a
9
small table one-on-one with each student daily over a 40-minute period. The depended
variable was the number of correctly read or spelled words. Reading responses were
counted as correct if they were read accurately within 60 seconds, and writing responses
were counted correct if the entire word was spelled accurately. The word box part of the
study was broken into three sections: (1) Using counters to say each sound in the CVC
word, (2) Counters were replaced with magnetic letters, following the same procedure as
step one, and (3) Students wrote the correct letter in each box. The word sort activity
followed the word box instruction, implementing the same words.
Findings from this study indicated that all students demonstrated increased
performance in reading and spelling CVC words with the combination of word box and
word sort instruction. One participants performance was more immediate, in comparison
to the other two participants, who had more of a gradual change in responding. Results
from this study were consistent with other studies comparing the effects of word box
instruction and word sort instruction on decoding and spelling performance CVC words.
Joseph (2002a) suggested that future research should include setting mastery criteria to
increase the number of words taught to students per session to further increase the
amount of words taught by the end of the intervention.
Similarly, Davualt and Joseph (2004) examined word box instruction, but adapted
their research by coupling it with repeated readings. This study evaluated the effects of
implementing two instructional techniques, word box instruction and repeated readings,
to increase the reading fluency performance of high school students with intellectual
disabilities. Students selected for the study were three high school students receiving
10
special education services for reading and language arts and were currently reading at the
level of a first or second grade student.
Prior to the intervention, students were given the DIBELS assessment to
determine their independent reading levels. During the intervention students met one-onone with the author for 15-25 minutes five days a week. The first part of each session
students were to read reading passages one grade level above their independent reading
levels within one minute. While reading, the instructor recorded all incorrect words, and
then wrote those words on index cards to teach through word box instruction. At the end
of the lesson, the students were instructed to reread the passage again within one minute.
During each session, a new reading passage was presented to the student.
Findings from Davault and Joseph (2004) indicated repeated readings paired with
word box instruction increases reading fluency. By the end of the study, all three students
were reading two grade levels above their independent reading level. Additionally, this
study demonstrated that the two instructional techniques showed great significance in
helping high school students with severe reading delays. The study suggests that future
research should include adding a comprehension piece to the intervention and pairing
repeated readings with other types of corrective feedback methods such as the “I do, we
do, you do” method. During this strategy students are explicitly taught with instructor
guidance, given guided practice, and then given an opportunity for independent practice.
Another type of corrective feedback is direct or explicit feedback, which is when the
teacher identifies the error and provides the correct response, as oppose to indirect
feedback, in which the teacher identifies that an error has been made, but does not
11
identify the correct response.
Conclusions
After reviewing the positive results of previous research on the instructional
practices of word box and word sort instruction, there are several strong conclusions.
First, word box instruction is an effective approach to teaching students how to identify
and spell words. Specifically, when Elkonin boxes are implemented students are able to
hear the individual phonemes in words, segment words, and make the connection
between the spoken phoneme and the corresponding grapheme (Clay, 1993). Students in
each study showed a positive outcome after word box instruction was implemented.
Another conclusion based upon the studies discussed was that word sorts have
positive effects on the phonemic awareness of students of varying ages and a variety of
ability levels. Furthermore, experts report that a child’s phonemic awareness capabilities
are a valid measure of how a child will succeed in reading (Conderman & Flett, 2002).
Word sorts have helped students gain an understanding of phonemes, furthering students’
abilities to identify and spell words.
A final conclusion that can be made based upon previous research is that using the
phonemic awareness instructional strategies, word boxes and words sorts, increase
students’ word recognition and writing skills. Despite the differences of each study (i.e.,
participant size, participants abilities, measures, variables), the phonemic awareness
methods of word box and word sort instruction have shown to help students who are
performing below grade level in reading by developing their phonemic awareness skills
(Keesey, 2012).
12
Limitations and Implications for Future Research
After examining previous research on word box and word sort instructional
practices to increase phonemic awareness, there are several limitations. One for instance
is the age level of students who were participants of the studies. More than half of the
students who participated in the studies were in preschool through grade three, all
primary grade levels. These two instructional strategies show a profound impact on
phonemic awareness within the elementary grade levels, but there is not enough evidence
to back up the support within middle and high school students.
Another limitation was the population of students used within each study. The
majority of the studies consisted of Caucasian students. It would be interesting to not
only study the effects of these approaches with children from different cultural
backgrounds, but also from various socioeconomic backgrounds as well.
Finally, one last limitation of the studies was the words used within each of the
interventions. A lot of the authors used CVC patterned words to carry out their
interventions. Future research should incorporate other types of word patterns such as
CCVC (flag, step, drop, stop), vowel teams (/ea/, /ie/, /oa/), and high frequency words,
which are words that appear frequently in text (and, the, is).
Addressing some of the limitations from this previous research should extend
word sort and word box instruction on phonemic awareness to more diverse populations.
For example, using word sort and word boxes to promote phonemic awareness with
middle school or high schools students with mild/moderate disabilities would be a very
beneficial to extend the research on these instructional practices. Researches can also use
13
the same techniques of word box and word sorts by using high frequency words instead
of CVC patterned words.
It is clear that phonemic awareness instructional strategies and techniques would
benefit from addressing the limitations of previous research to support future research.
Successful phonemic awareness instruction helps children to effectively and proficiently
detect and manipulate sounds in spoken and written language (Beller, 2006). Some
questions that are still unanswered by the research are: (1) What are the effects of word
box and sound sort instruction with students in middle and high school with sever reading
disabilities? (2) How can these instructional strategies benefit students from various
socioeconomic levels? (3) Are these phonological awareness strategies effective when
incorporating words that do not follow the CVC pattern? By focusing on these questions,
it is hoped the research will aid authors, researchers, and educators in choosing the best
techniques to promote phonemic awareness.
The purpose of the current study was to examine the effects of word box instruction
on word identification and spelling performance of CVC words of first grade students
who are at risk learners. Research suggest that the use of word box instruction can
improve the reading and spelling performance of CVC words for students with
disabilities; therefore, word box instruction was selected for this intervention. Word
box instruction can help students, who are at risk learners struggle with phonemic
awareness, learn and segment phonemes into words to become better readers and
spellers. The goal of this study was to extend previous research on word box
instruction by examining the effects of word box instruction with at risk learners.
14
The following research questions were posed:
1.
What are the effects of word box instruction on word identification of CVC
words of first grade students who are at risk learners?
2. What are the effects of word box instruction on spelling performance of CVC
words of first grade students who are at risk learners?
3. What are the teacher and student opinions of word box instruction?
15
CHAPTER 2
METHODS
This chapter presents the methods that were used in this study. The participants
and setting are explained as well as identifying the observer and experimenter. In
addition, this chapter presents the materials used, definition and measurement of
dependent variables, IOA, procedural reliability, experimental design, and procedures.
Participants and Setting Three first-grade students participated in the study. Students ranged from ages six
to seven years old, including two males and one female. All students were African
American and attended a charter school in Columbus, Ohio, where 100% of the school
population received free and reduced breakfast and lunch. The experimenter obtained
permission consent from all parents prior to the start of the study.
All students were performing below grade level in reading and were considered
“at risk”. According to the Diagnostic Reading Assessment, given during the beginning
of the school year, all students were reading at a level one, which correlated to a
beginning kindergarten reading level. Students were administered the Stanford
Achievement test in November and all students scored a grade equivalence of K.1-K.3 in
reading (see Table 1 for student demographics and scores).
All baseline, intervention, and post-intervention sessions were conducted in the
16
title room, which was located in the second/third grade wing of the school building. The
room was divided in half with a wall partition, one half used for math instruction, and the
other half used for reading instruction. The reading half of the room contained a kidney
shaped table used for small group instruction, bookshelves, a computer center, and a
teacher’s desk. The classroom provided an environment that was mostly free from noise
and distractions. Students attended school from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM and received
instruction in a first grade classroom throughout the day.
The researcher served as the interventionist, and the intervention was
implemented at a kidney shaped table in the corner of the room. During individual
intervention sessions, the participant sat next to the interventionist. Materials were
positioned in front of them so the participant could see the teacher modeling taught skills.
All sessions during baseline, intervention, and post-intervention conditions took place
between 8:45 AM and 1:00 PM.
Experimenter
The experimenter was a second year master’s student in the Mild/Moderate
Intervention Specialist program at The Ohio State University. She held a bachelor’s
degree in Early Childhood Education from Kent State University and was a classroom
teacher of four years working with kindergarten students. She was the Title One Reading
teacher at the school where the research was conducted.
Observers
The primary data collectors were two doctoral students in the Special Education
Program at The Ohio State University. They both collected interobserver agreement data
17
and procedural fidelity data for all sessions required across all phases of the study for
each participant.
Materials
A researcher-created “word box” was utilized throughout the intervention (see
Appendix A). The word boxes created for all students were on 3x5 index cards. The cards
had a rectangle divided into three sections, separated by two vertical lines.
Other materials included yellow and red 1” diameter circular chips, plastic lowercase letters, pre-written word lists, lined and numbered paper for spelling probes, pencils,
dry erase markers, erasers, and flashcards containing consonant-vowel-consonant words
(CVC words) (see Appendix B).
Assessment
Screening in baseline. All students were screened prior to the administration of
the intervention of each CVC phase (i.e., vowel /a/, vowel /e/, vowel /i/, vowel /o/, vowel
/u/) to eliminate CVC words students have already mastered. Students met with the
researcher individually and were asked to read aloud and spell words that contained the
same vowel in the CVC patterned word prior to that specific phase. For example, during
phase one, students were only assessed on words containing the middle vowel /a/. Words
were counted as mastered if students were able to read the word. If students were able to
read the word, this word was not included in the intervention phase.
Definition and Measurement of Dependent Variables
Data was collected on two dependent variables for each student. The dependent
variables were the number of correctly spelled CVC words (i.e., vowel /a/, vowel /e/,
18
vowel /i/, vowel /o/, vowel /u/) and the number of correctly read CVC words (i.e., vowel
/a/, vowel /e/, vowel /i/, vowel /o/, vowel /u/). Criteria levels for success were set for 9
out of 9 words read correctly in two consecutive sessions.
Correctly spelled CVC words. The number of correctly spelled CVC words was
defined as the number of words the student wrote with correct spelling during the spelling
probe. Spelling probes consisted of the same CVC patterned words used in the preassessment and intervention instruction. The instructor said the word in isolation, in a
sentence, and then in isolation again. The instructor repeated the word only once after the
initial time upon student request. Responses were counted as correct if the entire word
was spelled in correct letter sequence. Responses were counted as incorrect if only part
of the word was spelled correctly, a different word was spelled, or if the student made no
response.
Correctly read CVC words. The number of correctly read CVC words was
defined as the number of words with CVC patterns that the student correctly read.
Reading probes consisted of the same CVC patterned words used in the baseline
screening and intervention instruction. The CVC words were written in black marker on
index cards. Responses were counted as correct if the CVC word was read aloud
correctly within three seconds of seeing the card. Responses were counted as incorrect if
the student pronounced only part of the word or substituted a word for the target word.
Definition and Measurement of Independent Variable
The independent variable used for the intervention was word box instruction.
Word box instruction is an instructional method that is used to help build phonemic
19
awareness skills in beginning readers. Word box instruction includes three phases, in
which each phase is taught using a model (I do), teacher guided with corrective feedback
(we do), and independent practice (you do). During each phase, the student was presented
with a card that had a rectangle divided into three sections. In the first stage, students
moved a chip into each box segmenting each sound in the CVC word. In the second stage
the chips were replaced with magnetic letters to say each phoneme. In the final stage,
students wrote each phoneme in each section of the box. Inter-observer agreement (IOA).
Two trained observers independently collected data for 33% of baseline and
intervention sessions. IOA was calculated for all dependent variables (reading and
spelling) during baseline and intervention conditions. Permanent products (i.e., spelling
probes and video recordings) were used to collect data on CVC words written correctly
for spelling and CVC words read out loud correctly for reading. The experimenter made
copies of one-third of both baseline and intervention spelling probes before scoring them
for the independent observer’s use. The trained observers were also provided with video
recordings. An agreement on spelling probes was defined as both observers
independently recording a word spelled correctly or incorrectly. A disagreement was
defined as one observer scoring a word correct and the other observer scoring the word
incorrect. An agreement on CVC words read aloud was defined as both observers
independently recording a CVC word read correctly or incorrectly aloud. A disagreement
was defined as one observer scoring a CVC word read correctly and the other observer
scoring the CVC word read as incorrect. Agreements per dependent variable were then
20
divided by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100.
Procedural Fidelity Baseline, intervention, and post-intervention sessions with all participants were
video recorded in order to assess the integrity with which the interventionist implemented
the intervention. The experimenter created a procedural integrity checklist (Appendix C),
which was used throughout every session to ensure the fidelity of intervention
procedures. The checklist consisted of 21 steps, which guided each session. In steps one
and two the experimenter passed out the materials to the students and explained clear
directions and expectations. Steps three through fourteen were used to make sure the
correct phase of the intervention was being implemented and corrective feedback was
given throughout. The last six steps ensured the reading and writing probes were
administered with fidelity. In addition to the experimenter utilized the checklist to selfmonitor implementation of procedures. The two trained observers independently scored
at least 33% of intervention sessions using the procedural fidelity checklist and video
recordings of sessions.
Social Validity Social validity was measured through questionnaires administered to both the
students who participated in the intervention (see Appendix D) and the students’ primary
classroom teachers (see Appendix D). The questionnaire administered to the student
participants was read to each child independently by the students’ classroom teacher
when the study was complete. Each question was read aloud, and the student responded
by filling in either a smiley face or a sad face, depending on whether or not they agreed
21
with the statement. The questions on the questionnaire addressed whether the students
liked the intervention, whether they felt it helped them become better readers, whether
they felt it helped them become better at spelling, and whether they felt it would be good
for other students. The students’ primary classroom teachers were given a questionnaire
with statements referring to the procedures and outcomes of the intervention. Teachers
responded to questions about whether they noticed an increase in their students’ spelling
and reading performance, and whether they felt a change in their students’ attitudes about
reading and writing. Experimental Design To evaluate intervention effects experimentally, a multiple probe design across
students was employed. The design allowed the instructor to examine changes across
baseline, instruction, and maintenance conditions on spelling and reading probes.
Procedures Baseline screening. During baseline conditions spelling and reading probes
(screening) were administered to students to assess current levels of spelling and reading
of CVC words. Each probe consisted of nine CVC patterned words (i.e., vowel /a/, vowel
/e/, vowel /i/, vowel /o/, vowel /u/) containing the same vowel. The probes were
administered in the same format as the ones created and implemented during the
intervention. All probes were given to students using the same language and wording as
the ones used during the intervention. If a student read one word correctly during the
screening in baseline, the word was removed from the list, replaced with a new word, and
another probe was administered the following session. This process was used to ensure
22
that students did not have prior knowledge with the various CVC words during
intervention.
Word Box Instruction Intervention. During the intervention, the instructor met
with each student individually for 10 to 15 minute sessions at different times throughout
the day. The words used during the intervention were compiled from the same list used to
create the baseline probes. The CVC words introduced to students started with the middle
/a/ vowel sound and then /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/. Words were not used during intervention if
the students spelled or read these words correct during the baseline screening probes for
each type of CVC word patterns. At the beginning of the lesson the student was presented
with a word box card, three colored chips, plastic letters, a dry eraser marker, and an
eraser. There were a total of three stages for each CVC word instructed within the
intervention including: (1) working with chips, (2) working with plastic letters, and (3)
writing the actual letters in the word box using a dry-erase marker. Once the student
placed all materials in front of their working space, the instructor modeled (I do), guided
instruction (we do), and then allowed independent practice (you do) during each stage of
the instruction.
Stage one of the intervention (use of chips) focused on phonemic awareness.
Students placed their notecard and chips on the desk. First, students watched as the
instructor modeled the strategy using the chips. One chip was placed under each
rectangle, as the instructor stretched out each phoneme in the word, a chip was moved up
into the rectangular box for the phoneme spoken. Next, the teacher and the student
repeated the word slowly and together moved their own chips in their word box. Finally,
23
the student independently articulated the word slowly and moved the chips into the box
as each phoneme was spoken.
During stage two of the intervention (use of plastic letters), students replaced the
chips with plastic letters. The letters given to the students corresponded with the
phonemes in the word being instructed. The same direct instruction procedures (I do, we,
do, you do) were utilized as in the first stage of the intervention. In the final stage of the
instruction (written letters), the plastic letters were replaced with written letters. Again,
the same direct instruction procedures (I do, we, do, you do) were utilized as in the first
stage of the intervention.
All students during the intervention were given positive feedback and corrective
feedback when necessary. If a student made an error, the teacher implemented the, “I dowe do-you do” strategy again from the beginning of that stage (chips, plastic letters, or
written letters). During the last five minutes of each session students were presented with
the same type of reading and spelling probes, to measure the dependent variables, given
during baseline.
Generalization. To see if students were able to generalize their skills with CVC
words and patterns, generalization data were taken during the intervention. Once the
student met the reading criteria, nine words read correctly in two consecutive sessions,
the instructor administered a generalization probe with nine untrained words, containing
the same vowel sound. For example, when measuring generalization for the vowel /a/, the
experimenter showed the student nine untrained /a/ CVC words for the reading probe,
and then read aloud the same nine /a/ words for the spelling probe. The probe was
24
administered the same way as the ones used in baseline and intervention.
Maintenance. To ensure students success with mastering the skills taught during
the intervention, maintenance data were collected during and after the intervention.
During the intervention the experimenter probed the student on the previously taught
vowel words one week after instruction ended, and then once every other week. For
example, when measuring maintenance for the vowel /a/, the experimenter referred back
to the same nine taught words during intervention and used those words for both the
reading and spelling probe.
25
Chapter 2 Table
Table 1. Participant Demographics and Scores.
Participant
Age
Grade
Race
DRA Level
Stanford Achievement Score
Matthew
7
1
African American
1
K.3
Lauren
6
1
African American
1
K.1
Liam
6
1
African American
1
K.1
26
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
IOA
IOA was calculated for all dependent variables (reading and spelling) during
baseline and intervention sessions by the two trained observers for 33% of all sessions.
IOA was calculated using the total number of agreements per dependent variable divided
by the total number of agreements plus disagreements multiplied by 100. See full results
in Table 2.
Matthew IOA (baseline, spelling intervention, and reading intervention) – 97.5%
Lauren IOA (baseline, spelling intervention, and reading intervention) – 100%
Liam IOA (baseline, spelling intervention, and reading intervention) – 100%
Procedural Fidelity
Procedural fidelity was measured independently by the two trained observers
using a checklist that task analyzed each step of the baseline and word box instruction
procedures. Procedural integrity was calculated by dividing the number of steps
completed accurately in the correct sequence by the total number of steps and then
multiplied by 100. Procedural fidelity was taken on 33% of all sessions. See full results
in Table 3.
Matthew procedural fidelity (baseline, spelling intervention, and reading
intervention) - 99%
27
Lauren procedural fidelity (baseline, spelling intervention, and reading
intervention) – 100%
Liam procedural fidelity (baseline, spelling intervention, and reading intervention)
– 100%
Summary of Results
Figure 1 shows the number of words read correctly (out of 9) and Figure 2 shows
the number of words spelled correctly (out of 9) for all three participants for each session
across all phases of the study. Figure 1 and 2 display generalization data and Table 4
displays maintenance data. Generalization and maintenance probes were conducted upon
student’s completion of each vowel phase (/a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/) of word box instruction.
See full results for a summary of scores in Table 5 and 6 for all participants.
Reading.
Matthew. Prior to implementing of each intervention phase, overall baseline data
were generally stable. The number of words read correctly ranged between zero and five
with a mean of 1.3 (14%) correct responses, displaying some variability. The amount of
baseline sessions for Matthew ranged from two to five sessions before reaching
intervention for each phase (/a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, /u/).
During baseline screening for CVC words containing /a/, Matthew’s scores
ranged from two to five correctly read words with an average of 3.5 (38%) correct
responses. As intervention for CVC words containing /a/ began, there was a significant
change in level from baseline to intervention. Matthew displayed a consistent score of
one word read correctly over four consecutive sessions, and then began to show a
28
continuous increasing trend. His responses ranged from zero words read correctly to nine
over 18 sessions, with an average of 3.9 (43%) correct responses.
During baseline screening for CVC words containing /e/, Matthew’s scores
ranged from zero to three correctly read words with an average of 1.5 (16%) correct
responses. Once intervention began for CVC words containing /e/, there was an
increasing trend that quickly reached nine out of nine words read correctly over seven
sessions. Sessions ranged from two to nine words read correct with a mean of 6.2 (68%)
correct responses.
During baseline screening for CVC words containing /i/, Matthew’s score was 0
correctly read words with an average of 0 (0%) correct responses. As intervention for
CVC words containing /i/ was implemented, there was moderate variability over the 14
sessions. Reading responses ranged from one to nine words read correctly and the
average number of words read for this phase was 5.5 (61%) correct responses.
During baseline screening for CVC words containing /o/, Matthew’s scores
ranged from zero to five correctly read words with an average of 2 (22%) correct
responses. Once intervention for CVC words containing /o/ began, Matthew displayed an
increasing trend. From session three to session eight he maintained the same amount of
words read for two consecutive sessions. Correct reading responses ranged from two to
nine correct responses with a mean of 6 (66%) correct responses over 12 sessions.
Intervention for CVC words containing /u/ only consisted of one intervention
session due to the end of the school year. Matthew scored three words correct in the
intervention session from one baseline score of zero.
29
Generalization data was collected during the last intervention session of each
phase. Correct reading responses ranged from zero to four with a mean of 1.7 (18%)
correct responses. Matthew displayed a consistent score of zero on his first two
generalization reading probes, and then began to show an increasing trend from three to
four.
Maintenance data was collected the last day of the intervention for each phase and
every other week after that. Mathew’s reading maintenance data ranged from five out of
nine (55%) words read correctly, to nine out of nine (100%) words read correctly over a
seven week period, averaging 6.7 (74%) words read correctly every other week.
Lauren. During all baseline sessions before the intervention phases of CVC
words with /a/ and /e/, Lauren’s reading responses remained stable and low. Overall,
during baseline sessions, the number of words read correctly ranged between zero and
two with a mean of one (11%) correct response.
During baseline screening for CVC words containing /a/, Lauren read one, two,
and then zero words correctly over three sessions. Therefore, Lauren’s scores ranged
from zero to one correctly read words with an average of .5 (5.5%) correct responses. As
intervention for CVC words containing /a/ was implemented, Lauren maintained two
words read correctly and then began to show an increasing trend. As the trend increased,
during the fifth session it decreased, and then began to increase again during the eighth
session. This pattern displayed moderate variability over 21 sessions. Correct reading
responses ranged from three to nine words read correctly, with a mean of 6.4 (71%)
correct responses.
30
During baseline screening for CVC words containing /e/, Lauren read zero, one,
and then zero words correctly over three sessions. Therefore, Lauren’s scores ranged
from zero to one correctly read words with an average of .33 (3.6%) correct responses.
During intervention for CVC words containing /e/, Lauren showed an increasing trend
from baseline, but then decreased back to baseline with zero words read correctly. After
the second session of the intervention phase, Lauren continued to show an increasing
trend. Several times Lauren would maintain the same amount of words read correctly
over two to three sessions. From sessions 12-20 there was moderate variability moving
between six to nine words read correctly, and then a quick decreasing trend in the final
session. Overall, Lauren’s reading responses ranged from zero to nine words read
correctly with a mean of 5.9 (65%) correct responses. Lauren did not reach the rest of the
intervention phases (i.e., /i/, /o/, /u/) due to the end of the school year.
At the end of each intervention phase for CVC words containing /a/ and /e/,
generalization was measured. Lauren was able to generalize six out of nine (66%)
untaught words. Over a five-week period, maintenance data was collected on previously
taught CVC words with the vowel /a/. Lauren was able to correctly read a range of seven
to nine words correctly in the maintenance sessions, averaging 8 (88%) correct responses
every other week.
Liam. For Liam, the reading intervention of CVC words with /a/ using word
boxes was adjusted to meet his specific learning needs. Liam received four varying types
of instruction including: (1) teach three new words, (2) review two previously taught
words and teach two new words, (3) Review two previously taught words with spelling
31
review, and (4) Review two previously taught words with spelling review and positive
reinforcement modification. Before intervention sessions began, baseline data was
collected for CVC words containing /a/, ranging from zero to one correct reading
response over four sessions with an average of .25 (2.7%) correct responses. As
intervention sessions began, Liam displayed moderate variability within each phase. As
interventions were adapted, Liam’s responses ranged from zero to four words read
correctly over 27 sessions, averaging 1.8 (20%) correct responses. Generalization and
maintenance data for reading CVC words containing /a/ were not collected for Liam due
to the end of the school year.
Spelling.
Matthew. During baseline for CVC words containing /a/, Matthew had an
increasing trend from three to five words spelled correctly, with a mean of 4 (44%)
correct responses. As intervention for CVC words with /a/ was implemented, Matthew’s
responses decreased, but then slowly increased from one word spelled correctly to nine
words correctly at the end of the intervention. Over the last four sessions Matthew was
able to spell nine words correctly for each session. Overall, Matthew’s responses ranged
from one to nine words read correctly, with a mean of 5 (55%) correct responses.
During baseline measures for CVC words containing /e/, baseline data shows that
Matthew had consistently low scores. Matthew’s scores ranged from zero to one word
read correctly with an average of .5 (5.5 %) correct responses. As word box instruction
was introduced for /e/ words, there was a drastic change in level going from zero words
spelled correctly to four. Matthew continued to display an increasing trend, until session
32
four where he consistently spelled seven words correctly over three consecutive sessions.
Overall, spelling responses ranged from four to nine words spelled correctly, with a mean
of 6.1 (67%) correct responses.
During the baseline measures for CVC words containing /i/, baseline data shows
Matthew’s spelling responses ranged from zero to one word spelled correctly over four
baseline sessions. Matthew’s scores ranged from zero to one word read correctly with an
average of .6 (6.6%) correct responses. As the word box instruction began for CVC
words containing /i/ there was high variability, responses ranging from one to nine words
spelled correctly over 14 sessions, with a mean of 6.1 (67%) correct responses. During
his last four sessions, Matthew was able to maintain nine out of nine words spelled
correctly.
During the baseline measures for CVC words containing /o/, Matthew displayed
moderate variability with his responses ranging from one to five words spelled correctly
with an average of 2.75 (30%) correct responses. As word box instruction was
implemented Matthew had a noticeably drastic change in level, going from one word
spelled correctly in baseline, to eight words spelled correctly during intervention session
one. During intervention Matthew showed a continuous pattern of moving below his
previous score, and then back up the next session, showing a range of variability
throughout intervention. Correct spelling response ranged from six to nine words spelled
correctly over 12 sessions, with a mean of 8.2 (91%) correct responses.
Again, due to the end of the school year, intervention for CVC words containing
/u/ only consisted of one intervention session, which showed a change of one baseline
33
score of three words spelled correctly to one session of nine words spelled correctly
during intervention.
Generalization data was collected during the last intervention session of each
phase. Correct spelling responses ranged from one to six with a mean of 3 (33%) correct
responses. Matthew displayed a increasing trend in his generalization responses, starting
at one word spelled correctly during CVC words containing /a/ and ending with six words
spelled correctly during CVC words containing /o/.
Maintenance data was collected the last day of the intervention and every other
week after that. Mathew’s spelling maintenance data ranged from four out of nine (44%)
words spelled correctly, to nine out of nine (100%) words spelled correctly over a sevenweek period, averaging 7.4 (82%) correct responses.
Lauren. Before intervention for CVC words containing /a/ was implemented,
baseline data was collected, which displayed spelling responses ranging from zero to two
words spelled correctly with an average of 1 (11%) correct response. Once the word box
instruction began, Lauren displayed moderate variability; with responses ranging from
two to nine words spelled correctly over 21 sessions, with a mean of 6.5 (72%) correct
responses. At several points during the word box instruction Lauren would maintain the
same score across two to three sessions in a row.
During baseline for CVC words containing /e/, Lauren went from one word
spelled correctly, to zero words spelled correctly that was maintained over two
consecutive sessions. Lauren’s spelling responses ranged from zero to one word spelled
correctly with an average of .33 (3.6%) correct responses. As intervention for CVC words
34
containing /e/ began, Lauren scored zero words spelled correctly in session one, and then
she displayed a dramatic change in level, going from zero words spelled correctly to
seven. From session two on, Lauren showed moderate variability moving between six
and nine words read correctly. Overall, Lauren’s spelling scores ranged between zero and
nine with an average of 7.6 (84%) correct spelling responses over 21 sessions.
Generalization data showed Lauren was able to generalize six out of nine (66%)
untaught words. Over a five-week period, maintenance data shows Lauren was able to
correctly spell seven to nine words correctly per maintenance session, averaging 8 (88%)
correct responses every other week.
Liam. Liam received the same type of instruction for spelling as the instruction
described above for reading. The spelling intervention of CVC words with /a/ using word
boxes was adjusted to meet his specific learning needs. Liam received the same four
types of instruction as in reading. Baseline sessions for CVC words containing /a/ lasted
four sessions in which responses ranged from zero to one words spelled correctly with an
average of .5 (5.5%) correct responses. As word box instruction for CVC words
containing /a/ was implemented, Liam showed moderate variability during each phases,
with responses ranging from zero to four words spelled correctly, averaging 1.3 (14%)
correct responses. Again, generalization and maintenance data for spelling CVC words
containing /a/ were not collected for Liam due to the end of the school year.
Social Validity
Once all intervention session were completed, teachers and students were asked to
complete a questionnaire to rate the efficacy of the intervention, as well as their overall
35
satisfaction with word box instruction. The questionnaire created for teachers
implemented a Likert scale. The questionnaire created for students had two responses to
choose from, either a sad face or a smiley face. The questionnaires can be found in
Appendix D, the results for the students’ and teachers’ social validity measures can be
found in Table 7 and Table 8 respectively. Two teachers agreed or strongly agreed on all
questions relating to the word box instruction and its positive influence on their students
progress. One teacher strongly disagreed with the questions relating to the word box
instruction helping her student with spelling and reading, but all teachers strongly agreed
that they would use the instruction within their own classroom. All students chose the
smiley face for their responses, except one student chose the sad face when asked, “I like
using word box instruction.”
36
Chapter 3 Tables and Figures
Table 2. Results for IOA for All Participants.
Matthew
Dependent Variable
IOA
Words Read Correctly
97%
Words Spelled Correctly
98%
Lauren
Dependent Variable
IOA
Words Read Correctly
100%
Words Spelled Correctly
100%
Liam
Dependent Variable
IOA
Words Read Correctly
100%
Words Spelled Correctly
100%
37
Table 3. Results for Treatment Integrity for All Participants.
Participant
Procedural Fidelity
(Baseline, Intervention, and Reading and Spelling
Probes)
Matthew
99%
Lauren
100%
Liam
100%
38
BL-A
Inter. A
BL- E Inter. E
BL-I
Inter. I
BL-O
Inter. O
BL- U
Inter. U
9
8
7
6
Matthew
5
4
3
2
1
Generalization
0
Number of Words Read Correctly
-1
9
8
7
Lauren
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3T/ 3R
2T/2R
2T/2R repeat
spelling
2T/2R, repeat spelling, and
reinforcer
9
8
7
6
5
4
Liam
3
2
1
0
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87
Figure 1. Number of Words Read Correctly Across All Participants.
39
BL-A
Inter. A
BL- E
Inter. E
BL-I
Inter. I
BL-O
Inter. O
BL-U
Inter. U
9
8
7
Matthew
6
5
4
3
2
Generalization
1
0
Number of Words Spelled Correctly
-1
9
8
7
Lauren
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3T/ 3R
9
2T/2R
2T/2R repeat
spelling
2T/2R, repeat spelling, and
reinforcer
8
7
6
Liam
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87
Figure 2. Number of Words Spelled Correctly Across All Participants.
40
Table 4. Maintenance Results for Two Participants.
Matthew
A
E
I
O
2/27/14
3/11/14
4/16/14
5/15/14
Reading
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
Spelling
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
3/7/14
3/20/14
4/23/14
Reading
8/9
8/9
8/9
Spelling
8/9
5/9
9/9
3/21/14
4/3/14
5/7/14 Reading
5/9
5/9
7/9
Spelling
7/9
4/9
9/9
4/3/14
4/17/14
Reading
7/9
6/9
Spelling
8/9
8/9
4/17/14
5/1/14
Reading
8/9
5/9
Spelling
9/9
7/9
A
E
Last day of
Intervention
1 week maintenance
3 week maintenance
5 week maintenance
7 week maintenance
Lauren
Last day of Intervention
9/9
Spelling
8/9
U
4/15/14
Reading
9/9
Spelling
9/9
3 week maintenance
O
4/8/14
Reading
1 week maintenance
I
U
4/29/14
Continued
41
Table 4 continued
Reading
7/9
Spelling
9/9
5 week maintenance
5/13/14
Reading
8/9
Spelling
7/9
42
Table 5. Summary of Participants Reading Results.
Student
BL
Interv
BL
Interv
BL
Interv
BL
Interv
BL
Interv
/a/
/a/
/e/
/e/
/i/
/i/
/o/
/o/
/u/
/u/
Matthew
38%
43%
16%
68%
0%
61%
22%
66%
0%
33%
Lauren
5.5%
71%
3.6%
65%
Liam
2.7%
20%
43
Gen
Maint
18%
74%
66%
88%
Table 6. Summary of Participants Spelling Results.
Student
BL
Interv
BL
Interv
BL
Interv
BL
Interv
BL
Interv
/a/
/a/
/e/
/e/
/i/
/i/
/o/
/o/
/u/
/u/
Matthew
44%
55%
5.5%
67%
6.6%
67%
30%
91%
16%
100%
Lauren
11%
72%
3.6%
84%
Liam
5.5%
14%
44
Gen
Maint
33%
82%
66%
88%
Table 7. Participants Social Validity Results.
1.) I liked using word boxes.
2
2.) Word boxes helped me
become a better reader.
3
3.) Word boxes helped me
become a better speller.
3
4.) I will sound out words I do not
know when I read or write.
3
5.) I think word boxes are a good
way for students to learn to sound
out words.
3
45
1
Table 8. Teachers Social Validity Results.
Strongly
agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
My student showed progress in reading
after receiving word box instruction.
2
1
My student showed progress in spelling
after receiving word box instruction.
2
1
I have noticed improvements in my
students confidence in reading.
2
1
I have noticed improvements in my
students confidence in spelling.
2
1
I would use word box instruction in my
own classroom.
3
46
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION
Results of the present study demonstrated the effectiveness of word box
instruction on the identification and spelling performance of CVC words. Three out of the
three participants reading and spelling performance improved. The results of the study
suggest that word box instruction is an effective strategy for teaching at risk students and
that there is a functional relationship between word box instruction and their spelling and
reading performance.
This study supports previous findings that word box instruction improves the
identification and spelling performance of CVC words (Joseph, 1999; Joseph, 2000a;
Joseph, 2000b). This study also extends previous research because it looks at the effects
of word box instruction on first grade students who are at risk learners. No other study
has examined the effects of word box instruction with at risk learners. The intervention
was effective in improving the participant’s phonemic awareness skills, which enabled
them to decode words when reading, and make letter-sound correspondence when
spelling words.
Research Questions 1: Effects on Word Identification
With respect to the first research question (What are the effects of word box
instruction on word identification of CVC words of first grade students who are at risk
learners?), the results indicate that word box instruction was effective for improving word
47
identification of CVC words with at risk learners. All participants increased their
performance in the number of CVC words read from baseline to intervention.
Matthew was able to reach pre-set criteria of nine out of nine words read over two
consecutive sessions for each instructed group of CVC words resulting in word box
instruction for all vowels /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/. Matthew’s average number of sessions
in intervention until reaching criteria was 12 sessions per vowel.
Lauren received word box instruction on vowels /a/ and /e/. During Lauren’s last
few intervention sessions she would consistently miss one or two words. This continuous
pattern caused the researcher to change the criteria from nine out of nine words read
correctly over two consecutive sessions, to nine out of nine words read over one session,
if she were to reach session 20 of the intervention phase. Lauren’s average number of
sessions in intervention until reaching criteria was 21 sessions.
Liam received word box instruction only on vowel /a/. At the beginning of
intervention, Liam was having a difficult time making the connection between the
phonemes and graphemes. Due to no change in his performance, during intervention
session ten, Liam’s intervention changed from learning three new CVC words to teaching
three and reviewing the previous days three words. This modification in intervention
showed little changes in Liam’s performance. He was becoming distracted from the long
intervention sessions, which would lead to off task behaviors. As a result, during session
14, Liam’s intervention changed to teaching two CVC words and reviewing two CVC
words. This change would shorten the time of the intervention sessions, but also gave him
the review practice. Over the next few sessions there were few changes in Liam’s
48
performance. He was not receptive to word box instruction and was often unmotivated.
This resulted in a final change in session 21 when reinforcers were added to the
intervention. Liam would receive a piece of candy for every independent correct
response during word box instruction. He would also receive a piece of candy for every
correct response on his reading and spelling probes. However, in order to receive candy
on the next days probe, he had to match or beat his previous days score. Once the
reinforcer was added, Liam was motivated, excited, and eager to beat his score each day.
His scores changed from zero to two words read correctly to three to four words read
correctly.
Research Question 2: Effects on Spelling Performance
With respect to the second research question (What are the effects of word box
instruction on spelling performance of CVC words of first grade students who are at risk
learners?), the results indicated that word box instruction was effective in improving
spelling performance of CVC words with at risk learners. All participants increased in the
number of CVC words spelled correctly from baseline to intervention.
Matthew received word box instruction on vowels /a/, /e/, /i/, /o/, and /u/. His
spelling performance reached criteria quicker than this reading performance, and he
began to generalize with other vowel patterns (e.g., During vowel /u/ intervention,
Matthew spelled 9/9 words correctly during the first session, as opposed to his reading
probe score where he only read 3/9 words correctly). Matthew’s spelling probe scores
would increase from vowel to vowel enabling him to reach nine out of nine words spelled
correctly within the first few sessions. Matthew was always checking his words on his
49
spelling probes. For example, if he was given the word “ham” he may have written
“man”, but then when he was given “man” later in the spelling probe, he would go back
up erase “ham” and ask for the word again. Matthew was very particular about his
writing, making sure it was neat and legible, as well as making sure they all followed the
CVC pattern.
Lauren received word box instruction on vowels /a/ and /e/. Her spelling
performance from intervention /a/ to /e/ changed drastically. Lauren was able to spell
seven out of nine words correctly during her second intervention session in /e/, as
opposed to intervention /a/ when she only spelled three words correctly during her second
session. Lauren was consistently sounding out words as she spelled them, and would
double check her answers at the end of the probes to make sure the grapheme matched
the phoneme she was sounding out at the time.
Liam received word box instruction only on vowel /a/. His spelling scores ranged
from zero words spelled correctly to six words spelled correctly. Liam’s spelling
responses started out as random letters for each response. His responses ranged from
three to six letters per response (word being spelled). Gradually, his responses began to
change to three-letter response, but he was not improving on his scores. As his
interventions changed, one modification was made during session 16 where he would
repeat the word back to the instructor before spelling the word. This would ensure he was
aware of what word to spell. Once the reinforcers were added to the intervention during
session 21, Liam’s spelling responses began to increase to a personal high score of six
words spelled correctly during the final session.
50
Research Questions 3: Opinions on Word Box Instruction
With respect to the third research question (What are the teacher and student
opinions on word box instruction?), the results indicate that all teachers either agreed or
strongly agreed with all questions relating to word box instruction, except one teacher
strongly disagreed with the questions relating to the word box instruction helping her
student with spelling and reading. The results also indicate that all students chose a
smiley face for their responses, except one student chose a sad face when asked, “I like
using word box instruction.”
All teachers agreed or strongly agreed with all questions relating to word box
instruction, except one teacher strongly disagreed when asked, “My student showed
progress in reading and spelling after receiving word box instruction.” Liam’s teacher
disagreed with this statement due to the fact that Liam did not show significant growth in
his reading and spelling performance. Although Liam’s growth was not as immediate as
the other two students, he definitely made progress from his baseline to intervention
scores in his reading and spelling performance.
All students responded with a smiley face when asked all questions on the survey,
except when asked, “I like using word box instruction,” Liam chose a sad face. Liam’s
dislike for word box instruction could be due to multiple factors. One being that Liam
had a difficult time pronunciation the phonemes in the words. When Liam would
mispronounce a phoneme this would cause the interventionist to implement the “I do, we
do, you do” strategy which could have been implemented multiple times within one
session. Not only was Liam mispronouncing phonemes, but his sessions were becoming
51
lengthy due to off task behaviors that were becoming consistent within each session.
When reinforcers were added to Liam’s intervention, his attitude and behaviors changed
instantly. He was motived to stay on task, try his best during each session, and had a
positive attitude.
Limitations/ Future Research
Despite the success of the intervention, there are several limitations to be
considered. First, there were several periods where students were not receiving
instruction. Between snow days, school breaks, and student absences, students were
missing several days of instruction. Matthew missed 23% of intervention, Lauren missed
25% of intervention, and Liam missed 41% of intervention. In the future, researchers
should select students who are consistently present, and should schedule for intervention
during a time where the school is not on a break or testing.
In addition, an added limitation was the instruction and evaluation of only one
type of word, CVC words. This type of word was chosen because it has been successful
in the past with word box instruction, and is commonly used in literacy programs to help
children build beginning decoding skills. Future research should examine word box
instruction implementing words with other patterns, such as CVCC, vowel families, or
high frequency words (Joseph, 200b).
Another limitation within the study was the lack of exposure students received to
each vowel. Matthew was the only student who received word box instruction using all
five vowels, Lauren received instruction on /a/ and /e/, and Liam received instruction
only on /a/. In the future, researchers should look towards implementing the same
52
procedures, but possibly introducing the vowels in random order to the students. For
example, one student could be working on /a/ words, while another is working on /i/
words.
During this study one student was not responsive to word box instruction posing
another limitation with this intervention. He was unmotivated by the procedures, which
caused other behaviors to occur. Future research should look into adding reinforcers
during intervention. Reinforcers were added towards the end of one participant’s
sessions, but not enough data was collected to show a functional relationship between the
reinforcer and word box instruction as a packaged intervention on the student’s reading
and spelling performance. Future research should examine the use of progress monitoring
and student-feedback as an additional component throughout instruction. One student
was interested in how many words he read correctly in each session. Progress monitoring
and student feedback would help students watch their progress towards their goals, being
aware of their progress and performance, and help build intrinsic motivation to do well.
Another limitation within the study was that there was no control group to
compare the word box instruction to traditional reading and spelling instruction. It would
be interesting to see the difference between students who received word box instruction
compared to students who receive conventional phonics instruction (Joseph and
Maslanka, 2002). Lastly, the words given to the students during the reading probes were
given in isolation. Future research should examine word box instruction using probes that
have words placed in context (sentences). This will help determine if students can use
their decoding skills when seeing the word within the text.
53
Implication for Practitioners
This study showed the effectiveness of word box instruction with improving
student’s performance on reading and spelling of CVC words. This is an easy, effective,
and low cost strategy that can be implemented within whole classrooms and small groups
(Joseph, 2004). Word box instruction allows children to make the connection between
letter-sound correspondence, enforces reading from left to right, helps students segment
words, and allows students to become more confident readers and writers (Joseph, 2000).
This strategy can be used as an intervention, but can also be utilized in literacy centers
within the classroom.
Once students have been given multiple opportunities to work with word boxes
and become confident and successful using them, teachers can adapt them to create
centers (Joseph, 1999). For example, word box instruction can be implemented into
center work with the use of “walk and write”. In this strategy, the teacher places word
boxes with corresponding pictures around the classroom and students are expected to
segment each phoneme of the word represented by the picture (i.e., If there is a picture of
a dog, the student will segment the sounds for /d/, /o/, /g/). The students walk around the
classroom with a clipboard and sheet of paper with matching numbers to each picture in
the room, and then be expected to write the word on their paper. Correct response can be
written on the backside of the word box card in the center for self-checking.
Another way teachers can incorporate word boxes into their literacy centers is
through the use of a listening center. Teachers can prerecord words, making sure to leave
enough time between each phoneme, and have students write the sounds they hear.
54
Teachers can also created a self- check sheet for students to refer to once their work is
complete to make corrections as needed (Joseph, 1999).
Word box instruction is found to be appealing for most students because it
incorporates a hands-on approach to literacy, utilizing chips, letter magnets, and dry-erase
markers. Also, this instructional strategy is easy for teachers to implement into a variety
of lessons including one-on-one instruction, small group instruction, and centers.
Additionally, teachers can challenge their students once they have mastered CVC words
by moving onto words with other types of letter patterns, such as words containing
diagraphs (/th/, /wh/, /ch/) and vowel teams (/ea/, /ie/, /oa/).
Conclusion
In conclusion, many children struggle with beginning literacy skills, such as
phonemic awareness and letter-sound correspondence. Word box instruction has been
found to be an effective intervention for reading and spelling CVC words. This study
demonstrated that students who are at risk learners can be successful with reading and
spelling of CVC words with the implementation of word box instruction. The findings
from this study suggest that using word box instruction can improve students’ phonemic
awareness skills. The participants in this study showed gains in the phonological and
orthographic features in words. Teachers can utilize word box instruction within their
own classroom and tailor it to fit the needs of their students. They can also implement
this instruction within whole group or small group settings, as well as literacy centers, so
that more students can benefit from the procedures.
55
References
American Federation of Teachers. (2013) AFT resolutions: adolescent literacy. Retrieved
May 24, 2013 from
http://www.aft.org/about/resolution_detail.cfm?articleid=1406
Ball, E., Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a
difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading
Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.
Beller, L. (2006, January). Elkonin boxes: a multisensory technique for teaching literacy
skills. T-Tac Network News, 3.
Bursuck, W.D., Damer, M. (2011) Teaching Reading to Students Who Are at Risk or
Have Disabilities: A Multi-Tier Approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Clay, M., 1993. Reading recovery: a guidebook for teachers in training. NH: Heinemann.
Conderman, G., Flett, A. (2002). Promote Phonemic Awareness. Intervention in School
and Clinic, 37 (4), 242- 245.
Devault, R., Joseph, L.M., (2004). Repeated readings combined with word boxes phonics
technique increases fluency levels of high school students with severe reading
delays. Preventing School Failure, 49 (1), 122-127.
Griffith, P., Olson, M. (1992). Phonemic awareness helps beginning readers break the
56
code. The Reading Teacher, 45 (7), 516- 523.
Joseph, L.M. (1999). Word boxes help children with learning disabilities identify and
spell words. The Reading Teacher, 52 (4), 348- 356.
Joseph, L.M. (2000a). Developing first graders’ phonemic awareness, word identification
and spelling: A comparison of two contemporary phonic instructional approaches.
Reading Research and Instruction, 39 (2), 160-169.
Joseph, L.M. (2000b). Using word boxes as a large group phonics approach in a first
grade classroom. Reading Horizons, 41 (2), 117-127.
Joesph, L.M. (2002a). Facilitating Word Recognition and Spelling Using Word Boxes
and Word Sort Phonic Procedures. School Psychology Review, 31 (1), 122-129.
Joseph, L.M., Maslanka, P. (2002). A comparison of two phonological awareness
techniques between samples of preschool children. Reading Psychology, 23(4),
271-288.
Joseph, L.M. (2002b). Helping children link sound to print: phonics procedures for smallgroup or whole- class settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37 (4), 217221.
Joseph, L. M. (2008). Best practices on interventions for students with reading problems.
Best Practices in School Psychology, 72 (4), 1163- 1180
Justice, L., Pullen, P. (2003). Enhancing phonological awareness, print awareness, and
57
oral language skills in preschool children. Intervention in School and Clinic, 39
(2), 87-98.
Keesey, S. (2012). Effects of word box instruction on the phonemic awareness skills of
older, struggling readers and younger children at risk for reading failure.
(Doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
McCarthy, P.A. (2008). Using sound boxes systematically to develop phonemic
awareness. The Reading Teacher, 62 (4), 346- 349.
National Reading Pannel. (2013) Findings and determinations of the National Reading
Panel. Retrieved May 15, 2013 from
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Pages/findings.aspx.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., Rashotte, C.A., T. Garon, Hecht, S.A., Donahue, J.,
…Barker, T.A. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing
abilities and word- level reading as children develop from beginning to skilled
readers: a 5 year longitudinal study, Developmental Psychology, 33 (3), 468-479.
58
Appendix A
Word Box
59
Appendix B
CVC Words
A
E
I
O
U
- bad
- pat
- bed
- leg
- bib
- bit
- box
- bop
- bud
- bun
- cab
- fan
- beg
- peg
- did
- fig
- dog
- cop
- bug
-hum
- dad
- gap
- fed
- pep
- pit
- lip
- dot
- pop
- bus
-mug
- fat
- ham
- den
- ref
- his
- pig
- fog
- pod
- but
- pup
- had
- tag
- bet
- vet
- dig
- pin
- fox
- rod
- cub
- rug
- hat
- tan
- jet
- wet
- hit
- rib
- got
- tot
- cup
- tub
- man
- get
- kit
- hog
- cut
- rat
- hen
- rib
- hot
- dug
- sat
- pen
- big
- hop
- fun
- sad
- net
- fin
-job
- gum
- bag
- red
- hid
- log
- hug
- can
- ten
- pig
- lot
- hut
- map
- yet
- bin
- mop
- jug
- nap
- yes
- fit
- nod
- mud
- rag
- web
- him
- not
- nut
- mat
- set
- kid
- pot
- pup
- cat
- met
- lid
- rot
- tug
- ham
- pet
- mix
- top
- sub
- lap
- men
- dip
- sob
- sun
- van
- let
- fix
- bob
- tug
60
Appendix C
Procedural Fidelity for Baseline, Intervention, and Spelling and Reading Probes
First Grade Word Box Procedural Checklist
Date:
Student:
Step
1. Teacher clearly explains expectations/directions.
Word
1
2. Teacher passes out all materials.
3. Phase 1a. Teacher models moving chips into each box while saying individual
phonemes
4. Phase 1b. Together, teacher and student move chips into each box while saying
individual phonemes.
5. Phase 1c. Student moves chips into each box while saying individual phonemes.
6. Praise or Corrective feedback.
7. Phase 2a. Teacher models moving letters into each box while saying individual
phonemes.
8. Phase 2b. Together, teacher and student move letters into each box while saying
individual phonemes.
9. Phase 2c. Student moves letters into each box while saying individual phonemes.
10. Praise or Corrective feedback.
11. Phase 3a. Teacher writes a letter into each box while saying individual phoneme.
12. Phase 3b. Together, teacher and students write letters into each box while saying
individual phoneme.
61
2
3
13. Phase 3c. Student writes a letter into each box while saying individual phoneme.
14. Praise or Corrective feedback.
Reading Probe
Word
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
15. Teacher shows the student each card for 3 seconds.
16. If correct, the teacher verbally praises the child.
17. If incorrect, the teacher puts the card down with no verbal response.
Spelling Probe
Word
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
18. Teacher says the word
19. Teacher says the word in a sentence
20. Teachers says the word.
21. Teacher repeats the word one more time if requested by the student.
62
Appendix D
Social Validity Measures
Student Questionnaire
1.) I liked using word boxes.
2.) Word boxes helped me
become a better reader.
3.) Word boxes helped me
become a better speller.
4.) I will sound out words I do not
know when I read or write.
5.) I think word boxes are a good
way for students to learn to sound
out words.
Teacher Questionnaire
Strongly
agree
My student showed progress in reading
after receiving word box instruction.
My student showed progress in spelling
after receiving word box instruction.
63
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
I have noticed improvements in my
students confidence in reading.
I have noticed improvements in my
students confidence in spelling.
I would use word box instruction in my
own classroom.
64