dr. melody ann wilson, phd dissertation defense, dr. william allan kritsonis, dissertation committee...

8/14/2019 Dr. Melody Ann Wilson, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Committee Member

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-melody-ann-wilson-phd-dissertation-defense-dr-william-allan-kritsonis 1/57

1

The Impact of the Public Pre-Kindergarten

Montessori Program on Kindergarten

Texas Primary Reading Inventory Scores:

Principals’ and Teachers’ Perceptionsof Its Effectiveness

A Dissertation Defense

by:

Melody Ann Wilson

April 10, 2008



2

Committee Members

Pamela Barber-Freeman, Ph.D.(Dissertation Chair)

Douglas Hermond, Ph.D.

(Member)

Wanda Johnson, Ph.D.

(Member)

William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.

(Member)



3

Dissertation Defense FormatDissertation Defense Format

I. Purpose of StudyII. Conceptual

Framework

III. Research

Questions

IV. HypothesesV. Analysis of Data

(Quantitative)

VI. Quantitative Major

Findings

VII.QuantitativeDiscussion

VIII. Analysis of Data

(Qualitative)

IX. Qualitative Major

FindingsX. Qualitative Discussion

XI. Conclusions/

Implications

XII. Recommendations for

Further Study



4

Purpose of the Study

The first purpose was to determine if

Montessori attendees did better

than non-attendees on the four dimensions of the TPRI.

The second purpose was to examine

principals’ and teachers’ perceptions on the effectiveness of

the Montessori program in preparing the

pre-kindergarten students for kindergarten.



5

Conceptual FrameworkExplanatory Design of

Mixed Methods Study

Quantitative

Data

Qualitative

Data

Principals’

and

Teachers’

Perceptions

•Means•t-test

for 2

Independent

Samples

•Emergent

Themes

•Anecdotal

Records

TPRI Scores:

Montessori

vs.

Non-

Montessori

Comparison

of

Montessori

andNon-

Montessori

Pre-

Kindergarten

Programs



6

QuantitativeQuantitative

Research QuestionResearch Question

What are the differences in the kindergartenTexas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) scores,

in the areas of

•Graphophonemic Awareness

• Phonemic Awareness• Book and Print Awareness•Listening Comprehension

between kindergarten students that attended a publicpre-kindergarten Montessori program and kindergarten

students that did not attend a public pre-kindergarten

Montessori program?



7

Null Hypothesis #1Null Hypothesis #1

H01 :There is no statistically significant

difference in the kindergarten

Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) scoresbetween kindergarten students that attended

a public pre-kindergarten Montessori program

and kindergarten students that did notattend a public pre-kindergarten

Montessori program in the area

of Graphophonemic Awareness.



8




Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) scores

between kindergarten students that attended




of Phonemic Awareness.



9




Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) scoresbetween kindergarten students that attended




of Book and Print Awareness.



10




Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI) scores

between kindergarten students that attended


and kindergarten students that did not

attend a public pre-kindergarten


of Listening Comprehension.



11

QualitativeQualitative

Research Question #1Research Question #1

What are principals’ and teachers’

perceptions about the effectiveness

of Montessori pre-kindergarten

as it relates to preparing students

for kindergarten?



12



What do principals and teachers

perceive as the necessary

reading readiness skills

for pre-kindergarten students

to possess to be successful

in kindergarten?



13



What areas do principals and teachersperceive are the most important for

kindergarten students to be successful

in reading as they relate to the TexasPrimary Reading Inventory (TPRI)?



14



Did educational leadership programsprepare or promote principals’

awareness and understanding of the

components of the kindergarten

Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI)?



15

Quantitative MethodsQuantitative Methods

SPSS, Version 12.0SPSS, Version 12.0



16

• Means or Averages

• t-test for 2 independent

samples




17

Independent Variable:*Type of Pre-K Program

•Montessori

•Non-Montessori

Dependent Variable:

*Kindergarten TPRI Scores




18

• 4 Texas Public School Districts that offered both

Pre-K Montessori or Pre-K non-Montessori

• 16 Title I Elementary school campuses

• 500 Beginning of the Year Kindergarten

Texas Primary Reading Inventory Scores(252 Montessori and 248 non-Montessori scores)

Quantitative Subjects



19

Instrumentation:

Beginning of Year (BOY)

Kindergarten Texas

Primary Reading Inventory(TPRI)




20

Major FindingsMajor Findings

QuantitativeQuantitative

Category Montessori Non-Montessori t Sig. 2-tailed

Graphophonemic

Awareness 9.12 8.59 3.73* 0.000

Phonemic

Awareness 6.13 4.96 12.23* 0.000

Book & Print

Awareness 4.77 4.51 4.21* 0.000

Listening

Comprehension 4.63 4.25 3.70* 0.000

*Significant at p ≤ 0.05



21

September 2006 Kindergarten TPRI results in the four areas of:

• Graphophonemic Awareness

• Phonemic Awareness• Book and Print Awareness

• Listening Comprehension

The null hypothesis was rejected in each area.

Quantitative DiscussionQuantitative Discussion



22

Qualitative Subjects

• 4 Texas Public School Districts that offered

both Pre-K Montessori or Pre-K non-Montessori

• 16 Title I Elementary school campuses

• 15 Principals

• 25 Teachers



23

Gender Principals % Teachers % Total %

Males 2 13.3 2 8.0 4 10.0

Females 13 86.7 23 92.0 36 90.0

Total 15 100.0 25 100.0 40 100.0

Gender of Respondents



24

Years Principals % Teachers % Total %

3 – 7 0 0.0 8 32.0 8 20.0

8 – 12 1 6.7 10 40.0 11 27.5

13-17 5 33.3 3 12.0 8 20.0

≥ 18 9 60.0 4 16.0 13 32.5

Total 15 100.0 25 100.0 40 100.0

Number of Years in the

Field of Education



25

Teaching Area # of Principals %

Early Childhood (Pre-K to K) 7 46.7

Elementary (1st -5th grade) 6 40.0

Middle School (6th-8th grade) 2 13.3

Total 15 100.0

Teaching Area Prior

to Principalship



26

Years 0 1-2 3-7 8-12 Total

0 0 0 8 1 9***

1 – 2 0 0 1* 0 1

3 – 7 0 0 3* 0 3

8 – 12 4 0 3* 0 7

13 – 17 1 0 0 0 1

≥ 18 2 0 2* 0 4

Total 7** 0 17 1 25

Years of Teaching Montessori

and Non-Montessori Programs

( N=25 )

*Have both Montessori and non-Montessori teaching

**Have no Montessori teaching

***Have no non-Montessori teaching



27

Training Principals % Teachers %

Montessori 8 53.3 16 64.0

Non-Montessori 7 46.7 9 36.0

Total 15 100.0 25 100.0

Training of Principals

and Teachers



28

Principals (N=15)

• NCLB

• AYP

• TAKS

• Kindergarten as “Backburner”

• Foundation for Later Academia

Teachers (N=25)

• Social Development• Exposure to Letter Sounds

• Exposure to Letter Names

• Exposure to Numbers 1-100

• Foundation for Later Academia

Qualitative Research Question #1

Perceptions of Principals and Teachers

Related to Preparing Students for Kindergarten



29

• The principals perceived that NCLB didn’t includeKindergarten TPRI scores in the accountability ratings, sotheir focus was more on the 3rd grade TAKS and up. Theprincipals commented as follows:

• “We have to operate within those stringent NCLBguidelines, so we cannot spend a lot of time on lower grade levels.”

• “NCLB poses a more visible challenge for testing higher grade levels, so we have to focus there.”

Qualitative Discussion-Qualitative Discussion-




30

• Principals quoted:

• “AYP can make you or break you.”

• “AYP is a more visible challenge because it is a factor in theNCLB.”

• “AYP can keep you hired or get you fired. Early childhood studenttests are not included in AYP, so we elementary principals look at

it, but we don’t look at it. We tend to worry more about the 3rd and4th grade TAKS Reading Test, not the Kindergarten TPRI.”





31

• Review of literature supports the

principals’ comments towards the

perceptions of both NCLB and AYP in thatsome educators think the attention should

be directed downward-toward the

preschool years (Jacobson, 2007).





32

• Another major concern of principals was the Texas Assessmentof Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). Principals expressedconsideration for TAKS in the following views:

• “TAKS is not offered in kindergarten, so the emphasis on earlychildhood learning is not as strong.”

• “TAKS, TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills),Benchmarks, and the Kindergarten TPRI are the order of importance.”

• “TAKS Saturday classes are offered to our 3rd graders, not tokindergarteners.”

• “We spend more money on preparing students for the TAKS testand not the Kindergarten TPRI.”





33

• Another perception belonging solely to principals was theconsideration of kindergarten as a “backburner.” This concernwas expressed by principals in the following opinions:

• “Kindergarten TPRI scores don’t get you any TAKS money.”

• “Kindergarten is important, but not the primary focus.”

• “Kindergarten TPRI scores don’t get you that Exemplaryaccountability rating, TAKS scores do. So, let’s keep the mainthing the main thing-TAKS and put TPRI on the back of the

stove.”

• “Kindergarten is very important but because of the pressure of students passing TAKS and principals being reassigned or even losing their jobs, we just have to put kindergarten TPRI onthe back burner.”





34

• Principals and teachers were in consonanceregarding the perception that early childhoodeducation serves as a foundation for later academicsuccess.

Principals noted this perception in their views:

• “Pre-kindergarten programs provide the basicfoundation for future academic learning.”

• “Students learn rules and routines as they begin tooperate within the school system, this sets the tone for latter learning.”





35

• The teachers shared the same view as expressed in their comments:

• “Pre-kindergarten programs provide the basic foundation for future academic learning. Children are exposed to all of the

major subject areas and this prepares them for latter learning.”

• “Children learn to mix and mingle with other kids. They learn toshare and wait their turn.” This promotes social development.”

• “Students learn to speak better and more fluently when they

are around other children.”



Q lit ti R h Q ti #2



36


Reading Readiness Areas

for Kindergarten StudentsPrincipals (N=15) • Vocabulary Development


• Book & Print Awareness

• Graphophonemic/Phonemic Awareness

Teachers (N=25)

• Vocabulary Development


• Language Skills



37

• The theme of vocabulary development wasexpressed by the principals in the followingscenarios:

• “Students need to be read to daily.”• “Students need to know that letters make words

and that we say words to communicate.”

• “Children have to learn to talk to develop their

vocabulary and eventually learn to read to put itall together.”





38

• Teachers also considered vocabulary building asimportant through these comments:

• “Children must have an oral vocabulary and thendevelop a written vocabulary.”

• “Students must be able to speak with some degreeof fluency and then be able to write legibly in order to build vocabulary.”

• “Children have to speak words and then learn towrite them to develop vocabulary skills.”





39

• Listening comprehension was construed by

principals through these conditions:

• “Students must understand what they have read.”

• “Children must comprehend basic sentencestructure-noun names a person, place, or thing, andthat a verb is an action word, and put it all together to understand what they have read.”





40

• Teachers explained acquisition of listening skills through thefollowing comments:

• “My students must develop listening skills through self-control. I explain to them that we are born with two ears andone mouth. It’s intended for us to speak less and listen more.”

• “Children have to listen to be able to process what’s beingtaught.”

• “Students are exposed to listening to music, stories, letter sounds and names. These recorded learning materials assistin developing listening skills.”



Q alitati e Research Q estion #3



41


Factors for Success in Achieving Satisfactory

Texas Primary Reading Inventory Scores

Principals (N=15) • Word Attack Skills/Knowledge of Letter

Names and Sounds

• Positive Reading Experiences/Reading

Opportunities• High Frequency Word Lists

Teachers (N=25)• Word Attack Skills/Knowledge of Letter

Names and Sounds

• Positive Reading Experiences/Reading

Opportunities

• Listening Skills



42



• Principals regarded word attack skills as an

important factor in the area of reading related to the

Texas Primary Reading Inventory (TPRI). Word

attack skills can be expressed in these situations:

• “Students must learn to sound out letters to

determine the pronunciation of the word.”

• “A student must be expected to know letter sounds

well enough to sound out the words.”



43



• “An appreciation of reading-being read to at

home, setting aside a comfy area at home to

read daily helps students to achieve reading

success.”

• “Adults making a big deal out of reading in a

positive way help children to want to develop

stronger reading skills. Stronger reading

skills impact student success on reading

tests.”



44



• Similarly, teachers mentioned knowledge of both

letter names and sounds as an essential tool to

score well in TPRI. They explained this required

knowledge through the following conditions:

• “Children have to know those letter names and

sounds to be successful on the kindergarten TPRI,

since that’s a major component of the assessment.”

• “Students have to be able to name those initial letter

sounds and give the names of the letters to be

successful on the TPRI test.”




45

Educational Leadership Programs Preparing

Principals’ Understanding of the Kindergarten

Texas Primary Reading Inventory

(TPRI)

Programs Frequency Percent

TPRI Promoted 2 13.0

TPRI Not Promoted 13 86.0

Total 15 100.0




46



• Principals discussed their preparation

programs in the following experiences:

“My Educational Leadership Program taught me

leadership skills in administration, with no familiarity of

specific reading programs.”

“My program discussed the different tests that were

available, but it didn’t go into detail because my

emphasis was on leadership methodology.”

“The Kindergarten Texas Primary Reading Inventory was

never been mentioned by any of my professors in my

administration programs.”



47

ConclusionsConclusions

• It is implied that the Pre-Kindergarten Montessori

program for this specific year under study produced

better prepared kindergarten students to take the TPRI

test.

The purpose of the TPRI was created to comply with the requirement of TEC§ 28.006 by facilitating a teacher’s capacity to: identify

students at-risk for reading difficulties in kindergarten, first grade

and second grade, and (b) set learning objectives for at-risk

students. The screening portion permits the assessment of

individual students, while the inventory section assesses reading and reading related skills that allow the teacher to gain more in-

depth information that can be used to determine the child’s level

of risk for reading problems (Texas Education Agency &

University of Texas System, 2006 ).



48

ConclusionsConclusions

• Specific goals of the Early Reading First Program

involve: the enhancement of early language, literacy

and pre-reading development of pre-school children,

through strategies and professional development that are based on scientifically based reading research; to

provide pre-school children with cognitive learning

opportunities in high quality language and literature-

rich environments so that the children can obtain afundamental knowledge base and necessary reading

development skills (United States Department of

Education, 2006 ).



49

ImplicationsImplications

• The results of this study may informboth government policy-makers and

education practitioners in the district

and campus levels regarding importantconsiderations they should give to early

childhood education.



50


• After studies show the advantage of early childhood education as beneficial

for students compared to immediately

starting in the 1st Grade, pre-kindergarten and kindergarten should

be included as required education for all

children, considering the basic

academic and social foundations

afforded during these formative years.



51


• After a more conclusive study

pinpoints to the greater benefits of the

Montessori program, districts should

provide more opportunities for their

schools to offer this type of program.

This will require training of teachers

and administrators but initial stepsmay be started and accomplishment of

the goal may be planned on a certain

timeline.



52


• Involvement of parents is required for

any academic endeavor. If they are

able to convince their childrenregarding the value of education, it will

make efforts in school easier to

achieve student success.



53


• President Bush believed the Early

Reading First Program to be a part of

his “Good Start, Grow Smart,”statement (United States Department

of Education, 2006). Efforts in early

childhood education should beattuned to this philosophy.

R d tiR d ti



54

RecommendationsRecommendations

for Further Studyfor Further Study

• A more comprehensive study should

be conducted to include more districts

and should include at least three yearsof TPRI results given at the start of

kindergarten, comparing performance

of students enrolled in the Montessoriprogram during pre-kindergarten and

students enrolled in non-Montessori or

traditional program.

R d tiR d ti



55



• A study should be conducted after the

1st Grade, using performance in TPRI

to compare students who completedearly childhood education in the

Montessori program, non-Montessori

or traditional program and studentswho started school only during that

academic year.

R d tiR d ti



56



• A study should be conducted

regarding the Iowa Test of Basic Skills

(ITBS) in Mathematics and Readingusing standardized testing comparing

pre-kindergarten students enrolled in

the Montessori program and studentsin the non-Montessori setting. Another

follow-up study can be done after the

kindergarten year.



57

Tell a child-

He will forget !

Show a child-

He will remember !!

Involve a child-He will understand!!

dr. melody ann wilson, phd dissertation defense, dr. william allan kritsonis, dissertation committee...

Documents