Evaluation of Open Court Reading 1
Evaluation of Open Court Reading
A Focus on Kindergarten
Kristie Spiker
REED 601
Professor Mogge
July 27, 2010
Evaluation of Open Court Reading
With a Focus on Kindergarten
Description of the program: Curriculum Overview
The main goal of Open Court that has been identified by its publishers is “to efficiently and effectively teach children to decode and comprehend so that they can read a variety of literature types” (Bereiter et al., 2002). Specific goals for each grade level are also included the program.
This program is an entire language arts curriculum. The program is broken down into three bands, or skill sets. The first band includes sounds and letters, phonemic awareness, phonics and fluency, and word knowledge. The second band focuses on comprehension skills and strategies. The third band includes spelling, vocabulary, writing process strategies, writer’s craft, English language conventions, grammar, usage, mechanics, listening, speaking, viewing, penmanship, and basic computer skills. Within the bands are suggested time allotments for each element.
Open Court Reading includes detailed directions for teachers to follow. The teacher’s manual includes step by step instructions that leave little room for deviation. All of the materials for instruction, including texts and assessments are provided. There is limited space and time for teacher creativity. The teacher is partially responsible for determining the progression of instruction because reteach and challenge activities are included. The only flexibility that teachers have is during the workshop block, for which daily instructions are not included in the guide.
Students primarily follow and respond to instruction. Time for workshop is discussed in the preface and appendix, however the daily plans do not include descriptions of what should be done during this time. Although a leveled library of different texts is mentioned, no time is described in the guide for students to choose their own reading materials. Allowing students to read independently is listed as an option, but is not a daily expectation. Investigations/ inquiry suggestions are included throughout each unit, which at the kindergarten level is guided greatly by the teacher. Inquiry is a part of whole group discussions and questions, which are centered on a given theme.
Instructional Elements
The amount of time allotted for the major instructional components varies greatly in kindergarten from the beginning of the year to the end. At the beginning of the year about five minutes is spent on word knowledge, 15 minutes is spent on phonological and phonemic awareness, 30 minutes is spent on alphabetic knowledge, and 15 minutes is spent on print awareness and fluency. Toward the end of the year five minutes is spent on word knowledge and fluency, 10-20 minutes is spent on phonics and phonemic awareness, and 0-20 minutes is spent on alphabetic knowledge. Although an amount of time is not specified for comprehension and strategies instruction, the provided lessons would take approximately 20-30 minutes per day. Teacher read-aloud, discussion, and response are included within this time. At the beginning of the year 10-15 minutes is spent on building writing concepts and vocabulary. By the end of the year students spend about 20 minutes per day writing. There is no designated time for independent reading within the guide, however group and independent work is an expectation that is identified for workshop. Workshop is described as a time when the teacher meets the needs of students through small group instruction. When students are not working with the teacher it is suggested that they are working in small groups or independently. An exact amount of time for each component is not described or suggested for workshop.
Phonics, fluency, and alphabetic knowledge are the dominant elements in the Open Court Reading program for kindergarten as most of the program’s time is spent on these components. The weakest elements are comprehension instruction and the fact that a lot is assumed to occur in workshop. Often stories are reread numerous times during the week and little is done with a story after reading. In this program phonics is taught separately and not mentioned during comprehension instruction.
The core texts that are identified for kindergarten are big books and little big books that the teacher uses to model. Supplemental texts include, trade books, teacher read aloud selection books, decodable texts, and leveled libraries. The leveled libraries are for students to read independently. The texts that are included in the program depict a variety of genders, races, and socioeconomic statuses. Several computer software programs, videos, cds, and a website with resources are also included. An intervention guide, reteach pages, English language development guides, and a challenge workbook are provided for teachers to meet the needs of students with varying reading abilities.
Assessment
Open Court Reading includes program assessments, unit assessments, and diagnostic assessments. The program assessment includes a teacher’s observation log which is a place for teachers to record students’ strengths and weaknesses. The teacher’s observation log is an informal assessment tool that is used to identify students’ progress and to identify which students are progressing smoothly and which need additional help. Although a log is provided, the assessment is completed by the teacher.
The unit is comprised of both short written and oral assessments that assist in gauging student progress. Unit assessments include oral fluency, writing, spelling, vocabulary, listening, grammar, usage, mechanics, comprehension, and literature. The unit assessments are provided at the end of units and assess information that has been taught throughout the entire unit. In addition to these, a pretest, mid year test, and posttest, and assessment record tools tracks students’ progress.
The whole group explicit instruction time in the curriculum is not flexible for reteaching or instructional decisions that sway from the guide. To make this possible the teacher must decide to leave out parts of the curriculum. Workshop is when teachers are expected to integrate information regarding student assessments. The assessments do seem to measure what is covered in the curriculum. These assessments are aligned in that they are different tools to assess and provide information to be used in planning instruction.
Underlying or stated theoretical premises of program
The four dimensions of literacy and several theoretical models influence the program in various ways. The linguistic dimension is greatly incorporated in the Open Court program. The first band of time incorporates phonics instruction and applies this learning while looking at decodable texts. Students build the understanding that letters, sounds, and spelling are linked through sounding out words, seeing them in print, and using them in complete sentences. During explicit instruction students encounter a variety of fiction and non-fiction texts that incorporate different text types, genres, and text structures. The understanding that “writing is not speech written down” is evident through the creation of persuasive posters, magazine pages, and other types of writing that serve a purpose other than to write down what has been said (Kucer, 2009).
The cognitive dimension is clearly evident through the use of meaningful texts from the first day of instruction. Background knowledge is considered, activated, and built upon as each new topic or idea is introduced. Through the included inquiry pieces which link to the unit themes, students are encouraged to question and discover answers. Time is allotted for the teacher to model skills and strategies through daily read-alouds. Time is also included for students to use vocabulary to create their own meaningful sentences. Finally, although it is insufficient, there is time for students to share meaning through whole group discussion.
The sociocultural dimension is lacking in Open Court. Authentic time for students to discuss meaningful topics does not seem to be a priority. The discussion time that is identified is based on several questions that the teacher asks and to which the respond. It is suggested that students work in groups during workshop, however the program does not emphasize the importance of literacy as a social practice. Because the teacher is guiding most reading experiences the students are expected to interpret the text in the same way that the teacher interprets the text. There is no identified time for students to share with the entire class what they have created and learned.
The developmental dimension is evident through the use of well-known poems and songs. It also includes predictable texts that are based around a given theme. There are multiple opportunities for students to develop knowledge as texts are read multiple times. Students generate rules for written language through seeing models of written language and developing their own, rather than tracing or copying others writing.
The automaticity model greatly influences the Open Court Reading program. Students are exposed to daily opportunities to read and reread texts, assuming that students are reading and not only listening during whole group instruction. These opportunities are offered through a variety of texts that are predictable and allow students to construct meaning as they are reading fluently. When kids read fluently they are able to focus on comprehension and although automaticity is encouraged, little thoughtful comprehension is required in Open Court.
The neurobiological model does not appear to affect the structured Open Court Reading program. The program is not centered in an enriched high level environment. Most of the questions that are asked of the students are on a literal level. The activities are not very engaging and do not incorporate story-telling, projects with public presentation, or teacher role modeling.
The sociopsycholinguistic model is evident through the emphasis of activating background knowledge. The program also uses themes and science connections to make meaningful experiences for students. Many think-alouds are provided by the teacher and time is provided after instruction for the teacher to meet and check in with small groups.
The critical model influences the inquiry themes and activities that are used throughout the program. However, this program does not truly encompass the beliefs behind this model. Structured lessons are what guide this program. This model is also not evident in the program, as Open Court does not emphasize deep level thinking; in fact most questions that are asked are at a literal level.
Related Research
Open Court Reading claims to be the most thoroughly researched program available. The phonemic awareness and systematic explicit phonics instruction is based on Dr. Marilyn Jager Adams’s book Learning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. The comprehension skills and strategies instruction are based on Dr. Ann Brown’s reciprocal teaching model and Dr. Michael Pressley’s transactional strategy model. Dr Carl Bereiter’s research is incorporated into the inquiry and investigation part of each lesson (Bereiter et al., 2002).
In addition to being based on research, Open Court identifies statements and research that support their program. They state that the NRP endorses their instructional model. They also state that after the U.S. Department of Education’s Reading Excellence Act awarded state grants to improve reading, Open Court has been the program of choice for schools who were awarded this grant. Open Court declared that an independent study conducted by Educational Research Analysis in 2000 named their program as having the highest decidability, comprehensiveness, intensiveness, and consistency of any reading program. They support their program with a study by Foorman, which compared Open Court to other approaches. It concluded that “Open Court’s direct instruction approach was more effective with students at risk of reading failure than other approaches by a variety of tests including standardized measures” (Bereiter et al., 2002).
Open Court aligns with many of the “core understandings” that have been identified by Braugner and Lewis (2006) and there are several that stand out. Open Court aligns with core understanding 1 in which reading is a construction of meaning from text. Open Court begins with stories that are meaningful from kindergarten and students are taught explicit skills using a variety of texts. The program strongly supports core 2 in which background and prior experiences are critical to reading since daily lessons begin with an activating or building background time. Core understanding 4, reading and writing are reciprocal processes, is included through creation of posters and responses that relate to the reading theme. Core understanding 9 in which children learn through a variety of literacy opportunities, models, and demonstrations is also evident through daily read alouds and explicit teacher instruction. Open Court addresses core understanding 13 in which monitoring progress is vital. The program provides opportunities for assessment and includes intervention strategies and reteach lessons.
There are several core understandings that Open Court lacks. Core 3, social interaction is one of these understandings. There is a designated time for whole group discussion at the end of each reading, but little or no time is designated for this during reading, nor is there instruction for students to discuss with their peers through turn and talk, etc. Another understanding that is lacking is core 7, which relates to engagement. Each lesson in Open Court jumps right into the content without motivating and pulling students in. Understanding 12, in which “kids need time to read, read, read” is not a priority of this program (Braugner & Lewis, 2006). In kindergarten the smallest amount of time is spent with actual texts and although a workshop time has been identified, there is no instruction as to what students should be doing during this time. There is no daily designated time for students to choose their own texts and read.
In contrast to the studies that Open Court provides as supportive to their program, several other studies and research have found flaws in their system. One study conducted by Margaret Moustafa and Robert E. Land (2002) evaluated Open Court in comparison to non-scripted programs in order to determine if Open Court fosters higher early reading achievement among economically disadvantaged children. This study looked at scores from 159 schools and found that Open Court does not foster higher reading achievement. Schools that had used Open Court for 10 or more years were significantly more likely to be in the bottom quartile of the SAT 9 than schools using non-scripted programs serving similarly disadvantaged children.
An article based on a study which evaluated the research comparing Open Court to Houghton Mifflin identified some shortcoming in the program. The research found that if a given text was read aloud in whole group the time for independent practice, collaboration, and time spent reading was limited. It also stated that “time spent reading” is compromised by whole group read-alouds as this becomes a listening activity for some students. It also found that the types of question in Open Court are more often literal than inferential or evaluative (Stinnet, 2009).