RESEARCH BRIEF 4 Learning to Read: Kindergarten Readiness Growth in Reading Skills* By: P. Shawn Irvin, Julie Alonzo, Joseph F.T. Nese, and Gerald Tindal, University of Oregon by the end of third grade, policy makers also have ABSTRACT placed importance on early reading success, including Much of the research on curriculum-based directing attention toward improving the quality measurement (CBM) in reading has focused of and access to preschool education to improve on oral reading fluency (ORF). However, ORF Kindergarten readiness. is only one of five critical reading skill areas in To explore early literacy skill development, the wider construct of reading that includes we conducted two studies: (a) an investigation of foundational skills such as phonological awareness the construct of “readiness” for students entering and phonics. In this research brief, we address the public school system, and (b) documentation the construct of readiness in learning to read of student within-year growth in which student entering Kindergarten, and then redirect the demographic characteristics predict initial status and findings to the results from learning to read over growth in Kindergarten and first grade. We organize both Kindergarten and Grade 1. Our results this research brief by sample, measures used, and suggest that ‘readiness’ may be defined more by analyses conducted at the Kindergarten and Grade 1 social-behavioral indicators than by more strictly levels. academic skills, and that while students enter Kindergarten with low levels of early literacy Sample performance, on average, they appear to learn at In the first study, 1,228 Kindergarten students dramatic rates. from 16 districts, 33 schools, and 31 teachers in For over 30 years, oral reading fluency (ORF) has a Pacific Northwest state participated in a state- garnered much of the attention of researchers sponsored readiness pilot study in 2012. In the interested in investigating reading development second study, we used data from an extant database and growth through the use of curriculum-based encompassing a nationwide sample. Existing data measurement2 (CBM). However, ORF is just one from the 2011-2012 academic year were extracted of five major areas of reading identified in the from the easyCBM district-member database; seminal Report of the Commission on Reading, in approximately 4,500 Grade K-1 students were which the federal government made a nationwide included in Study 2. call to emphasize reading in our nation’s schools3. Due primarily to No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Measures accountability testing and associated federal In the first study, data on student intra- initiatives around literacy improvement (e.g., Reading personal and inter-personal behavior as well as early First), early reading development has begun to literacy skills were gathered. Teachers used a 17-item garner greater attention from researchers and policy rating scale to rate students on the frequency with makers4. For instance, researchers have found that which various classroom behaviors were present emergent literacy skills such as letter naming, letter and also administered a variety of easyCBM early sounding, phonemic awareness, and word reading literacy interim-formative assessment measures6 are key predictors of later, more conventional reading developed from earlier empirical research on early skills such as ORF and comprehension5. Furthermore, literacy assessment shown to be important predictors couched within a context of accountability testing of later reading skills and growth. In both studies, that demands all students are reading proficiently individually-administered measures of Letter Names, Page 1 Phoneme Segmenting, and Letter Sounds were the distributions for Letter Sounds and Phoneme administered. In Study 2, a Word Reading Fluency Segments measures progress to nearly normal by measure was also administered to students in first the spring (Figure 1). A similar pattern was seen for grade. first grade Word Reading, while Letter Sounds began nearly normally distributed for first-grade students in Results the fall and maintained the shape In the first study, using a combination of through spring. exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, we As a follow-up investigation, we used found that three key factors defined the construct of hierarchical linear modeling, a technique that Kindergarten readiness. The first factor was defined accounts for the nested nature of data measuring by rating scale items associated with student task change in students over time (i.e., time and type behaviors (e.g., responding to teachers, following of early literacy measurement nested in individual directions, being successful on task completion. The students), to control for individual performance at second factor was defined by student social behaviors each of the seasonal testing time periods. Of note in (e.g., taking turns, complying with others, sharing, the second analysis was the rate at which students cooperating). The three early literacy skill behaviors grew on early literacy measures over the course of of letter naming, letter sounding, and phoneme Kindergarten and first grade and the ways in which segmenting comprised the third factor. Of particular demographic variables influenced both initial status note in the first study were the relative importance and growth on these measures. For example, on of the two behavioral dimensions and letter sounds average, students began Kindergarten being able early literacy skill behavior as defining dimensions of to produce 7 letter sounds correct per minute and the “readiness” construct. grew at a rate of .75 letter sounds per week over the In the second study, using simple descriptive school year, while students in first grade began the analyses we examined student outcomes on early school year correctly giving 30 letters correct per literacy measures administered at three seasonal minute and improved at a rate of about .50 letter time points across the school year (i.e., fall, winter sounds per week over the year. Student demographic and spring). Of note was the dramatic change characteristics predicted both initial status and over the year in the distributions for the two growth in early literacy skills over time. Of note, both measures administered at all three time periods receipt of special education services and English in Kindergarten. While initially severely positively language learner status, negatively influenced initial skewed (most students performed in the low end), skill levels, with students receiving special education Figure 1. Kindergarten Distributions for Letter Sounds and Phoneme Segments from Fall to Winter to Spring Performances Measure Fall Distribution Winter Distribution Spring Distribution Letter Sounds Phoneme Segments Page 2 services also generally growing at lower rates References compared to those who did not. 1Tindal, G., Irvin, P. S., & Nese, J. F. T. (April 2013). Implications for the Field Learning to Read: A Review of Research on Growth in Overall, our results suggest that social- Reading Skills. Paper presented at the National Coun- behavioral indicators might more heavily influence cil on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA. assessment of Kindergarten readiness compared to those that are more strictly academic in nature – a 2Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2004). hypothesis that merits exploration in future empirical Monitoring early reading development in first grade: research. In documenting several thousand students Word identification fluency versus nonsense word flu- from across the United States, it was apparent that ency. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 7-21. students arrive in our schools with low levels of early literacy performance but learn at dramatic rates. As Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Tich’a, legislature focuses on Kindergarten readiness for R., & Espin, C. (2007). Literature synthesis on all students, it is imperative for researchers to help curriculum-based measurement in reading. The guide this focus. Of critical importance is the need Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85-120. doi: to better define the construct of readiness both over 10.1177/00224669070410020401 time and in a manner that uses valid and reliable social-behavioral and academic measures of student 3Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkin- development. son, I. A. G. (1985). Becoming a Nation of Readers: Acknowledgements The Report of the Commission on Reading. Washing- ton, DC: National Institute of Education. Publication Information: *This research brief draws from a presentation at the 4Tindal, G. (2013). Curriculum-based measurement: National Council of Measurement in Education’s A brief history of nearly everything from the 1970s to annual conference1. the present. ISRN Education (International Scholarly Research Network), 29. doi: 10.1155/2013/958530 Following is the correct citation for this document. 5Linklater, D. L., O’Connor, R. E., & Palardy, G. J. Irvin, P. S., Alonzo, J., Nese, J. F. T., & Tindal, G. (2009). Kindergarten literacy assessment of English (2013). Learning to read: kindergarten readiness Only and English language learner students: an exam- growth in reading skills. Retreived from the National ination of the predictive validity of three phonemic Center on Assessment and Accountability for Special awareness measures. Journal of School Psychology, Education (NCAASE) website: http://ncaase.com/ 47(6), 369–394. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.08.001 publications/in-briefs Ritchey, K. D., & Speece, D. L. (2006). From letter Funding Sources: names to word reading: The nascent role of sublexical This research was funded in part by a federal fluency. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31(3), grant awarded to the UO from the Institute of 301-327. Educational Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education – Reliability and Validity Evidence for Speece, D. L., Ritchey, K. D., Cooper, D. H., Roth, F. P., Progress Measures in Reading (R324A100014) & Schatschneider, C. (2004). Growth in early reading and in part by a Cooperative Service Agreement skills from kindergarten to third grade. Contemporary from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Educational Psychology, 29, 312-332. doi: 10.1016/j. establishing the National Center on Assessment cedpsych.2003.07.001 and Accountability for Special Education – NCAASE (PR/Award Number R324C110004). The 6Alonzo, J., Tindal, G., Ulmer, K., & Glasgow, A. (2006). findings, perspectives, and conclusions from this easyCBM online progress monitoring assessment work does not necessarily represent the views or system. http://easycbm.com. Eugene, OR: Behavioral opinions of the U.S. Department of Education. Research and Teaching. Page 3