TÍTULO DE PROPIEDAD

B: CSI 93 25.66 2.024 Lowercase letter identification A: CSR 83 25.36 1.503 B: CSI 93 25.62 1.911 High-frequency word A: CSR 83 9.42 1.251 identification B: CSI 93 16.54 2.325

Rhyming A: CSR 83 4.28 1.468

The null hypothesis for this study stated: There is no significant difference in literacy achievement between kindergarten students who are taught during CSR and kindergarten students who are taught during CSI measured by theme assessments. The null hypothesis, due to the student literacy theme assessment findings, was rejected and there was a significant difference in literacy achievement between kindergarten students who were taught during CSR compared to kindergarten students who were taught during CSI measured by theme assessment scores. The significant difference was found on two of the four literacy skills of high-frequency word identification at first, second, and third trimester and rhyming at first and third trimester between student achievement and class size.

In this study, data were also collected to determine the relative risk or the probability for not passing trimester literacy theme assessments between students who were taught during CSR and CSI. The data collected for the relative risk found that students who were taught during CSI had a greater probability for failing first (relative risk1.6), second (relative risk 1.2), and third trimester (relative risk 1.3) high-frequency word identification than that of students who were taught during CSR. During third trimester, data collected for the relative risk found that students who were taught during CSI also had a greater chance for not passing uppercase letter identification than students who were taught during CSR. The relative risk was 1.3.

According to the data, however, students who were taught during CSR had a greater probability for not passing second trimester theme assessments of uppercase letter identification (relative risk, 1.1), lowercase letter identification (relative risk,

1.4), and rhyming (relative risk, 1.1) than students who were taught during CSI. At third trimester, students who were taught during CSR also had a greater probability for not passing lowercase letter identification (relative risk, 5.5) and rhyming (relative risk, 3.4) than students who were taught during CSI.

In addition, students who were taught during CSR had a greater probability for not passing three of the four literacy theme assessments: uppercase letter identification at first and third trimester and lowercase letter identification and rhyming on all three trimesters. Therefore, students who were taught during CSI had a greater probability for passing letter identification and rhyming, but had a greater probability for not passing high-frequency word identification than students who were taught during CSR.

Overall, the data revealed that students who were taught during CSI did just as well, if not better, on all trimester literacy theme assessments than students who were taught during CSR. Furthermore, the data revealed than students who were taught during CSI achieved at a higher rate on the literacy skills of high-frequency word identification at each trimester and rhyming at first and third trimester than students who were taught during CSR. Therefore, student achievement was impacted in the more advanced literacy skills with high-frequency words and rhyming and the foundational concepts of uppercase and lowercase letter identification were not significantly impacted by CSI.

When examining the data of teacher surveys and interviews (in the next two sections), the data suggested that teachers‟ performance had increased with the

implementation of class size inflation during the first year (2009-2010), which as a result caused a rise in student achievement. When examining the data of student mean scale scores during the second trimester of the second year of CSI (2010-2011), however, the data suggested that student performance, as well as teacher performance decreased, which as a result caused a slight decline in student achievement from the first academic year of CSI to the second academic year of CSI. Unfortunately these findings may suggest that educators are winning the battle of teaching their students foundational reading skills, but are being burnt out in the process of doing so.

Teacher Survey

Descriptive statistical information was computed from the survey responses with percentages, means, and standard deviations to determine perceptions of teachers as to the impact of increased class size on teacher‟s instructional practices, student- teacher interaction, and teacher behavior. The teacher survey data found that the greatest disadvantages to increased class size had a teacher response rate of 75% or above on a five-level Likert scale with “5” indicating that teachers strongly disagreed to the survey and “1” indicating that teachers strongly agree.

The greatest disadvantages of CSI, listed in order of highest teacher response rate included

1. Teachers were not able to provide individual one-on-one support to every student daily, with 94.7% of teachers giving this item a rating of 4 or 5.

2. Teachers were not able to meet the instructional needs of all of their students, with 90.2% of teachers giving this item a rating of 4 or 5.

3. Classroom management had been demanding for teachers, with 89.5% of teachers giving this item a rating of 1 or 2.

4. Teachers were not able to monitor student progress easily, with 89.3% of teachers giving this item a rating of 4 or 5.

5. Student discipline was a problem in CSI, with 83% of teachers giving this item a rating of 4 or 5 (disagreed and strongly disagreed), for the statement, “Student discipline is not a problem.”

Survey item number three, “I am able to spend time reviewing curriculum content with my students” had a teacher response rate of 60.7%, indicating that the majority of teachers gave this item a rating of 4 or 5. The teacher responses on item three demonstrated that the teachers did not feel they could spend time reviewing curriculum content with their students. Furthermore, survey item number 2, “I can implement the district‟s curriculum requirements,” had conflicting response rates. Forty-two percent of teachers felt that they were able to implement the district‟s curriculum requirements with a rating of 1 or 2, 17% neither agreed nor disagreed with the above survey item with a rating or 3, and 40.2% of teachers felt that they were not able to implement the district‟s curriculum requirements with a rating of 4 or 5. This finding suggested that teachers felt that they had enough time to implement the district‟s curriculum requirements, but did not have enough time to review the curriculum‟s content with their students.

Discussion of Qualitative Findings Teacher Interviews

Teacher interviews were analyzed for emergent themes of teachers‟

perceptions towards instructional practices, student-teacher interaction, and teaching behavior. Teacher survey data were also combined with the interview question and probing interview questions to help explain the qualitative findings.

Teacher interviews were broken down by each of the 11 interview questions, which were organized into three dominant categories: 1) classroom, 2) student, and 3) job performance. Under the three dominant categories, 34 themes were derived from the interview responses. Of the 34 themes, six emergent themes surfaced amongst the interviewees‟ responses, including: 1) Instructional practices, 2) Teacher behavior, 3) Additional support, 4) Classroom management, 5) Student behavior, and 6) Student- teacher interaction.

Research Question Two: How does the size of kindergarten classes affect teachers‟ perceived instructional practices, student-teacher interaction, and teaching behavior?

Instructional Practices

The first analysis of research question two explored teachers‟ perceptions of the extent to which instructional practices were impacted by CSI. The data revealed that student achievement was impacted by the instructional practices and strategies that took place in the classrooms of CSI.

Finding #1 – Teachers reported that the greatest disadvantage of CSI in terms of the teachers‟ instructional practices was the inability to provide their students with individualized instruction. All three teachers perceived that they gave less

individualized instruction with CSI than before with CSR. On a Likert scale with a five-level continuum, teachers had a rating response of 4 or 5, with 94.7% of teachers stating that they were not able to provide individual one-on-one support to every student daily. It is important to note that teachers indicated that they consider the terms individualized instruction and individual attention to be different concepts because each term has a separate meaning to the three teachers. Individualized instruction, according to all three teachers, was associated with the types of grouping for learning. A student who has had individualized instruction had instruction that was conducted through small group or one-on-one with a teacher. Individual

attention was associated with student-teacher interaction between one student and one teacher whether that interaction was instructional or in terms of relationship building.

During the interviews, the teachers described how they were unable to monitor each student‟s progress daily, unable to provide feedback, unable to provide individual support to each student, and unable to meet the individual needs of all their students. The teachers also described how with CSI there were more students who needed constant support, constant attention, and guidance from the classroom teacher and because of the amount of time it would take to provide each individual student with such support, teachers had to limit individual instruction to only the at-risk students.

Two of the three teachers, Frank and Ann, stated that individualized instruction was an instructional strategy that did not take place in their classrooms unless they received parent support. Both teachers relied more on their parent

volunteers with CSI for individual instruction and that they had parents working with small groups of students so that some of the students receive the support they need.

Finding #2 – Teachers reported that the second greatest disadvantage of CSI in terms of teachers‟ instructional practices was time management and not being able to optimize instructional time. Teachers‟ responses in all phases of this study

strongly supported the findings that teachers‟ instructional practices were influenced by lack of time or time management. Seventy-five percent of teachers perceived that they could not optimize on instructional time, with a response rating of 4 or 5 on the five-level Likert scale. This finding suggested that teachers felt that they could not improve their teaching performance or improve the instruction they taught.

The three teacher interviews confirmed this finding. All three teachers who were interviewed indicated that time management was challenging and there was an inability to optimize or improve their instructional performance during the day. During the interviews the teachers described that they needed more time to teach all of the district‟s curriculum, they felt that kindergarten should have an extended day schedule, there was not enough time to teach all subjects, and that most of their teaching time was spent on classroom management and correcting student behavior.

Finding #3 – Grouping for learning was the third greatest disadvantage of CSI in terms of instructional practices as reported by the teachers. All three teachers

stated that the only grouping for learning that occurred in their classroom with CSI was seating arrangements and whole group learning. Teachers reported that they no longer incorporated small groups for instructional purposes and that now all lessons and instruction were taught to the whole class.

Teacher responses indicated that teachers no longer grouped students into small groups or small centers since CSI went into effect. Teachers reported that whole group instruction was the only way they could manage their class and teach all the district‟s curriculum. The teachers also reported that small group instruction was less effective because of the large number of students per group and that students were not independent enough to work in a small group setting. Furthermore, the teachers reported that they spend all of their time on whole group instruction and that the use of whole group instruction was more effective with larger class sizes.

Finding #4 – Teachers reported that the depth of their lessons had been

affected negatively by CSI. Teachers indicated that they no longer provided a variety of teaching activities and eliminated a large number of activities due to the demands of classroom management or the lack of classroom resources. Since CSI went into effect, teachers described their depth of lessons as only teaching the basics, more straight to the point, teaching only the minimum, and that the depth of their lessons were more surface level.

In analyzing the survey data, the teachers neither agreed nor disagreed that they were able to implement the district‟s curriculum requirements, with 42% of teachers having a response rating of 1 or 2, 17% of teachers having a response rating

of 3, and 40.2% of teachers having a response rating of 4 or 5. For teacher

interviews, all three teachers reported that they only taught lessons in Language Arts and Mathematics and that subjects such as social studies, science, art, and physical education were no longer taught due to time and student behavior.

Finding #5 – Teachers reported that they were unable to spend time reviewing the curriculum. A majority of teachers (60.7%) were unable to spend time reviewing curriculum content with their students, with a response rating of 4 or 5. Two of the three teachers, Sue and Ann, indicated that due to the curriculum‟s pacing calendar they were unable to be flexible with the curriculum or spend time reviewing the curriculum‟s content with their students even if their students needed additional instruction. Teachers reported that the kindergarten curriculum continued to get harder as the year progressed and because they were always expected to be

introducing a new lesson or concept, time for review of the material was eliminated. Finding #6 – Teachers indicated that they were unable to monitor student progress and that the only type of monitoring that took place within classrooms of CSI was classroom management, student behavior, and student assessment of academic performance. A majority of teachers (89.3%) believed that they were unable to monitor student progress easily, with a response rating of 4 or 5. Teacher responses given during the interviews indicated that teachers were also unable to continually assess their students. Since CSI went into effect, teachers were not able to conduct continuous assessments of their students or track student progress. Frank reported that the only time he had to monitor for student progress was during

assessment periods when students were assessed individually by the classroom teacher. Sue also reported that the only time she was able to monitor student

academic performance was when she pulled back individual students for testing. This assessment period, however, only occurred three times during the year, once every three months.

Sue indicated that the lack of student monitoring for academic purposes was disheartening because the only time she could track her students‟ progress was at the end of the trimester when it was already too late in the curriculum to go back and review for the students who needed extra support. Frank also described student monitoring as a way of dealing with student behavior and classroom management. He indicated that he had to be constantly looking and watching his students for behavioral reasons, as well as for the purposes of classroom management. The minute he was not monitoring his students, Frank believed that the students would try to get away with negative behavior.

Classroom Management

Finding #7- Teachers reported that classroom management was the most difficult aspect with increased class sizes. Each teacher indicated that classroom management was entirely more demanding and difficult than before with smaller class sizes. The teachers attributed this demand in classroom management to the fact that there were more students in the classroom and therefore, more student behaviors.

The survey data revealed that 89.5% of teachers strongly agreed with survey item number 7 that, “Classroom management has been demanding,” with a response rate of 1 or 2 on the five-level Likert scale. Responses received during the three interviews confirmed the finding on classroom management. Teachers reported that classroom management and student discipline were much more challenging, time- consuming, unremitting, more strict, and structured. Teachers also reported that since classroom management was constant, a large portion of instructional time was wasted on trying to appropriately manage their students in a classroom environment.

Finding #8 – Teachers perceived that the classroom climate had worsened since CSI went into effect. All three teachers stated that the classroom climate had drastically changed and gotten worse since the last year of CSR. The teachers indicated that the classroom climate was noisier, busier, louder, there was a less positive environment, the focus was on inappropriate behavior, and that each teacher had to constantly reinforce classroom routines, as well as classroom rules.

Student-Teacher Interaction

The second analysis of research question two determined teachers‟

perceptions of the extent to which student-teacher interactions were impacted by CSI. The data revealed that student achievement was impacted by the lack of student- teacher interaction and individual instruction between students and the classroom teacher in CSI.

The survey data revealed that 94.7% of teachers were not able to provide individual one-on-one support to every student daily, with a response rate of 4 or 5 on the five-level Likert scale. Eighty-three percent of teachers also felt that student discipline and the negative interactions between students and teachers were a problem within classrooms of CSI, with a response rate of 4 or 5.

Responses received during the three interviews confirmed the findings on individualized instruction that emerged from the student literacy assessment scores and teachers‟ responses from the survey. Teachers considered that the greatest disadvantages of CSI were the lack of ability to provide students with individual support, not being able to meet the instructional needs of all students, and the increase in student behavior and discipline problems.

Individualized instruction again appeared as the greatest disadvantage of CSI, this time in terms of student-teacher interaction and the inability for teachers to provide their students with individualized instruction. During the interviews, the teachers described how they were unable to provide individualized instruction and support each student and unable to meet the needs of all their students. All three teachers perceived that they gave less individualized instruction and more whole group instruction. Teachers reported that they used the practice of giving whole group instruction significantly more often than they did before CSI and that individualized instruction was almost never utilized as it once was with CSR.

Finding #9 – Teachers indicated that a major disadvantage of CSI was the fact that there was less student participation than before with CSR. Teacher responses

from the interviews confirmed that students participated less since CSI went into effect. Teacher responses also confirmed how students had fewer chances to participate during classroom discussions, how students no longer took part in small group activities, how students no longer participated in hands-on activities, and that student participation was more negative. All three teachers reported that there were plenty of other children for the students to interact with, but that student participation with the class as a whole or interactions with the classroom teachers were limited. The teachers reported that the majority of student participation came from higher level learners or students with behavioral concerns. Each teacher also reported that the students who were less likely to participate blended into the classroom, got lost in the crowd of students, and got left behind in terms of participation. Frank believed