Discussion of Change for All Students
Most students’ scores showed a significant increase on all post assessments after 10 weeks of using the iPad as well as multi-sensory literacy centers to develop early reading skills. Comparing the pre to post assessment, students displayed a 4% increase to master naming all 54 upper and lower case letters on the Marie Clay Letter Identification subtest. The sample’s average score on the fall AIMSweb Letter Naming Fluency subtest was 31 letters in one minute. Students presented a 74% increase to an average of naming 54 letters, 16 letters above the national norm. The sample’s average score on the fall AIMSweb Letter Sound Fluency subtest was 13 letter sounds in one minute. Students presented a 200% increase, to average naming 39 letter sounds, 19 letter sounds above the national norm. The sample’s average score on the winter AIMSweb Phoneme Segmentation Fluency subtest was 24, 6 sounds above the national norm. The sample’s average score on the winter AIMSweb Nonsense Word Fluency subtest was 33 sounds (33 is the spring kindergarten benchmark score), 14 sounds above the national norm. The sample’s average score on the QRI-5 Word List was 8 words. Students presented a 38% increase to average reading 11 words on the winter post assessment. The sample’s average score on the Teacher-Made High-Frequency Word List was 7 words. Students demonstrated a 357% increase, to average reading 32 words on the winter post assessment. The pre and posttest results from this investigation indicate that use of iPad applications supported the development and promoted automaticity of early reading subskills, suggesting an effective means of literacy instruction for kindergarten students.
Figure 8: Comparison of Sample’s Average Pre and Post Intervention Scores
Figure 9: Comparison of Marie Clay Observation Survey (MCOS) Letter Identification Pre and Post Intervention
Figure 10: Comparison of AIMSweb Letter Naming Fluency Pre and Post Intervention
Figure 11: Comparison of AIMSweb Letter Sound Fluency Pre and Post Intervention
Figure 12: Sample Student AIMSweb Phoneme Segmentation and Nonsense Word Fluency Post Intervention
Figure 13: Comparison of QRI-5 Word List Pre and Post Intervention
Figure 14: Comparison of Teacher-Made High-Frequency Word List Pre and Post Intervention