Freppon & McIntyre (1999)

Freppon, P.A. & McIntyre, E. (1999). A comparison of young children learning to read in different instructional settings. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 206-218.

Introduction
Freppon and McIntyre craft a succinct mixed methods case study comparing students’ reading strategies as well as attitudes toward reading in skill based vs. whole language classrooms. This article was selected because there are very few articles comparing these two instructional approaches in the context of literacy development. Additionally, the study’s inclusion of motivation as a key component of student reading development was compelling to this reader.

The Study
Freppon and McIntyre base their research on the need for school reform to close the achievement gap between low and middle income students. Central to their research rational are previous studies (Miller, 1997) suggesting that education change by closely aligning instruction with the way students learn. Thus, the unwritten research question by Freppon and McIntyre asked; how do students learn? Or, more specifically, how do students acquire reading strategies and form attitudes about reading?

The literature review was scattered throughout the Freppon and McIntyre’s lengthy basis for their study. Research sited addressed subsets of the research topic including school reform, constructivist teaching methods, reading development as well as motivation and literacy. After discussing key elements of studies included in the literature review the researchers specified how their research built on the findings of past studies. The study was the researchers attempt to plug holes they found in previous studies and research how young children learn. Thus, in the study the researchers “sought to contribute to the field by investigating the development of 6 low-SES urban children’s development of reading in two different instructional settings: a traditional, skills-based first grade and a constructivist-based, whole language first grade”.

Methods
Six children, at varied stages of reading development and from two different classrooms, participated in the study through their kindergarten and first grade school years. One classroom was a traditional, skills-based classroom, while the other classroom had a constructivist, whole-language approach. At the beginning of their Kindergarten year, each student participant was matched with a student in the other classroom who had a similar reading level. Thus, within each pair, one student was in a skills based classroom and one was from a whole language classroom. The reading levels represented by the three groups ranged from emergent to conventional readers. The students reading behaviors were observed in the context of a controlled reading sample with the researchers as well as independent classroom reading.

Each of the two instructional contexts was observed by one of the researchers. The approximately hour- long observations took place in the morning from September through May during participating student’s kindergarten and first grade school years. The researchers primarily observed students reading behaviors. Instruction, student reading and student behaviors were observed and recorded using field notes and audiotapes. Students were matched with their case-study partner based on their scores on a written language pre and posttests that they took in the beginning of kindergarten and the end of first grade. Reading samples were analyzed by an outside expert based on pre-established protocols.

Results
The lengthy results section was broken down into the two main contexts where student’s reading behaviors were observed by the researcher: the controlled reading sample which took place with the researchers and independent reading, which took place in the classroom. Within these two parts of the results section the researchers reported the observational findings of each student as well as their matched partner. For each student the researchers included a reading sample, a description of the student’s reading behaviors as well as a brief critical analysis of their reading ability. The researchers found in both reading contexts that students from the constructivist, whole-language classrooms were able to read for longer stretches of time, demonstrated use of reading strategies as well as had a more positive attitude toward reading. Although no statistical methods were used for interpreting the results, the researchers did measure students reading accuracy percentage and self correction rate.

Discussion
Based on the results, the researchers drew three main conclusions. First, the findings of the study built on previous research and contributed and supported a pre-existing body of literature in the areas of student reading strategies and attitudes toward literacy. Second, the results were thought to support findings in motivation-related research. Third, the findings indicated that the constructivist teaching methodology facilitated positive attitudes toward reading. Based on this, the different instructional environments produced different learner outcomes and attitudes, leading the researchers to conclude that “instructional environments influenced literacy learning”. The researchers suggested that their research findings drive future instructional practices. They recommend that skills-based teachers incorporate the “characteristics of a constructivist-based philosophy in their classroom gradually while retaining those aspects of their teaching that they perceive as valuable” while whole language teachers “will improve their teaching expertise by building on that base”. One major limitation of the study given by the researchers was the generalizablity of the findings.

Critique
This study had positive elements. First, the researchers articulately expressed the need for the study and laid the necessary groundwork, based on research, to support their stance. The review of the literature provided necessary insight into the topic, previous research conducted as well as a surface level understanding of the process of acquiring literacy. A second strength was the methodical consistency of how the results were reported. Throughout the results section students were re-identified in terms of their reading level as well as which classroom they were a part of. Reading samples and analysis of each student revealed information about that particular child’s attitude toward reading as well as skill level. This approach to reporting results created a clear picture of the findings of the study for the reader.

Several weaknesses of the study also should be outlined. First, as previously articulated by the researchers, a major limitation and weakness of the study is the generalizablitiy of the findings based on the context the research took place in as well as the small sample size. Constructing the study in a way that made it more generalizable would allow the study to be replicated and applied to other contexts. Related to this issue is a second weakness: the researchers neglected to provide some key details in the methodology section. First, there was very little information about how the school, participating teachers and students were selected. Although it was briefly stated that the schools and teachers included in the study were selected based on interviews, classroom observations and discussions with the principals and teachers, there was no specification regarding how the student participants were selected. Second, it is unclear if the teacher participants stayed with the students as they moved from Kindergarten to first grade. A change in teachers between Kindergarten and first grade could impact student’s performance in terms of reading strategies they learn as well as their attitude they develop toward reading. Third, there was little explanation of the protocols used in observing students in the two contexts: the controlled reading sample with the researcher and the independent classroom reading. It is unclear what roll the researcher played in the classroom, if they were purely a hidden observer or if they were interacting with the students as observations were taking place. Additionally, it is unclear how often the researchers observed the students in each of the two contexts. In the instance of the controlled reading sample with the researcher it is unclear if the students were assessed independently or as a group and no time is given as to the length of the assessments.
A final criticism of the methods section is the lack of clarity about how the information taken from the interviews and various observations was coded. The researchers specify that an outside coder was used, but there is no discussion of a two person rating system to improve inter-rater reliability or agreement.

In terms of style the researchers could have improved on the flow of their document with the inclusion of more headings and subheadings as well as clearly stating the questions that guided their study.


Conclusions
The overarching conclusion drawn from this research is that “no one method will cause all children to be developmentally similar and read at the highest reading level”, although instruction can be improved when teachers base their teaching strategies on research. Theoretically, the researchers conclude that constructivist teaching methods positively impact student’s attitudes toward reading, and subsequently their motivation to read. In terms of teaching methods this would require educators to incorporate a constructivist, whole-language approach to teaching reading. The practical implications of this study require teachers to adopt teaching research-backed methods closely aligned with student’s learning.