Assessment 2 – Action Research Plan

Introduction
In this hypothetical action research plan, the focus area relates to special needs in regards to best
practice for reading instruction; specifically direct instruction, otherwise known as explicit teaching.
Therefore, the action research question in response pertains to ‘How effective is Direct Instruction in
teaching reading strategies to students with mild learning disabilities (Special Needs)?’. This plan is
based on a previous completed hypothetical literature review and the experiences of an education
assistant and pre-service teacher being tasked to enact this pedagogical approach in special needs and
mainstream classrooms. This question formulated has been specifically derived due to receiving mixed
opinions about the effectiveness of the Direct Instruction (DI) strategy in developing students reading
skills, phonological patterns and how it conflicts with best practice in developing a phonological and
whole word decoding approach; warranting clarity through further research and evidence through
preparing an action research plan. Especially, when noting the topic of best instruction for reading
development for special needs is highly important and in context for students who are already behind or
struggle to develop strategies in decoding texts.

Significance

Essentially, when discussing the topic of best instruction for reading development, many teachers have
differing opinions and ways of using DI for students with ‘mild learning disabilities’ or conversely in a
similar special needs classroom. Therefore as educators, it is highly important that all the facts and
studies presented are of high value and offer clear pedagogical guidance to inform those who are biased
or perhaps are incorrectly utilizing this approach, especially for students who are already behind or
struggle to develop strategies in decoding texts. As a graduate teacher, being on the same page with the
wider educational community in the author’s opinion, will alieve issues of incompatible teaching
pedagogies that students flow through different approaches from year to year. One example of this
involves students in one year excelling in decoding new words, yet another approach the next year leads
to a stagnated or reduced level of ability in building conceptual understanding for reading more complex
and unknown words; and visa-versa.

1
Background

From the literature review, the major agreements synthesized from the articles focus on the evidence of
DI’s effectiveness in developing students reading skills, regardless of whether learner differences or
difficulties exist. DI has been advocated as an effective tool in bridging learning gaps and ultimately, is
the most time efficient approach to skills-based learning. However, many conditional suggestions have
been identified in the way in which DI’s is utilised and by whom should teach it; as some teachers lack
quality knowledge (concepts). The largest disagreement identified in the review relates to how and
when it should be enacted in the context of best practice and pedagogical knowledge of how student’s
best learn; suggesting meaning-based reading instruction, a whole language approach and integrated
curriculum instruction are more important in the long run. Whilst this point advocates for other
approaches, clear suggestions from the review reveal DI’s effectiveness in remedial teaching through
mini group lessons and note integration into inquiry or discovery based approaches offer DI a sounder
role in building students conceptual understandings before procedures are applied and reinforced.

Research question

This question is, ‘How effective is Direct Instruction in teaching reading strategies to students with mild
learning disabilities (Special Needs)?’. Specific definitions needed in reading this action research plan
include:

 ‘Direct Instruction’ (DI) is an explicit teaching approach that breaks processes into small base skills,
involves mastery before proceeding, is grouped according to ability and utilises scripted lesson
plans that will not move on until everyone understands the skill (Reutzel, Child, Jones & Clark,
2014).
 ‘Core reading skills’ are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension
skills (Reutzel et al., 2014).
 ‘Teacher pedagogy’ is the teacher’s interpretation of educational theory and student needs
(Stockard, Wood, Coughlin & Khoury, 2018).

2
Method

This action research plan will utilise qualitative and quantitative data sources in a mixed-methods design
in order to go through the process of triangulation to conclude soundly with reliable data, clear
observations and gain relevant information towards the effectiveness of DI; in relation to teaching
reading skills to students with mild learning disabilities (Mills, 2014, p. 135). Before the study is
conducted, research will be collated from peer-reviewed articles and analysed to find the known
strategies for developing reading skills and will be catagorised based on the approach it best links to.
The approaches will note the specific strategies typically used and each will note an example definition
for participant observers to use in the study. Once this process is complete, it will be turned into a
checklist (appendix 1) that participant observers will use to note the frequency of strategies used within
classroom literacy blocks. However, must be checked, corrected and finalized by all researchers before a
final copy is approved. At that point and after ethics clearing, schools will then be researched and
contacted to find special needs classrooms that have a majority of students identified with mild learning
disabilities aged within middle primary.

The three methods that will be utilised for triangulation in this study include a survey to gather baseline
data about special needs teacher opinions on DI and the level of DI’s use in the classroom. This survey
(appendix 2) will utilise a Likert scale and would be delivered to the school directly and collected to be
analysed before three classrooms are identified as ‘uses DI highly, moderately and minimally’ after the
principal and teachers are contacted for observation approval (appendix 3). From this first data point,
three classrooms will be selected for a participant observation during literacy blocks where teachers are
observed in the approaches used to note the frequency of use and in relation to program testing at the
end of a learning cycle (five weeks). All three classrooms will use the prescribed reading program to
ensure the data is measurable and comparable. Once the frequency has been verified throughout the
first five week participant observation using a checklist and gathering weekly student progress scores
through the same designated reading program; the study will be reversed. The classroom teachers will
each use the opposite strategy, excluding the moderate classroom as it will be the constant variable
within the study; ensuring a baseline for comparison is recorded. During the last five week study, the
frequency will continue to be recorded throughout the participant observation using the same checklist
and weekly student progress scores until the end. In order to record and gather data from these two
time periods of five weeks, totaling one school term, four observers will be utilised for a whole class

3
using the same checklist of reading strategies as this information will be turned into a graph noting the
frequency of use for cross comparison.

Finally, a semi-structured interview will be conducted with the three classroom teachers to ascertain
professional opinions on the progress of students to gain insight into the possible issues that could skew
results and the noted benefits and issues that arose during the study; for example, secondary
disabilities, student absences or family hardships. Teachers will refer to daily and weekly notes taken
during the study and these will be documented with the study. The reading programs’ individual student
progress results will also be discussed with a Likert scale question towards “How effective is Direct
Instruction in teaching reading strategies to students with mild learning disabilities (Special Needs)?”.
Giving numbers 0-5a ranking from ‘ineffective’ through to ‘highly effective’, leaving space to give an
explanation and the discussion time will be recorded as evidence. Including, a break down within each
approach for which strategies worked more effectively than others using a ranking system and
documented explanations. This information will assist in developing an overall insight into what aspects
of DI are effective and if there is a particular strategy within that is not effective; revealing any
circumstances that assist or inhibit use.

In order to analyse data, procedures relating to verifying, interpreting and comparing the four frequency
graphs created by each classrooms’ four participant observers, will be cross referenced for section one
of the participant observation. This ensures data is verified from four points in each classroom and the
average frequency becomes the final justification for each classrooms use of DI (high, moderate and
minimal). In the reversed study this process continues to ensure the approaches remain the opposite of
the first section; noting no changes in the moderate classroom. The progress scores gathered weekly
from the reading program will be turned into a continual graph that identifies each student by number
and whole class progress in relation to which approach was used; divided into section one and two of
the study. This data will be verified by the classroom teacher in the semi-structured interview and any
student data that appears skewed due to significant absences will be highlighted and possibly removed
upon discussion of validity issues. Once the validity process is complete, whole class reading program
progress data will be interpreted based on a percentage of increased success or failure in each approach
classroom; linked to the baseline data in the moderate classroom (constant variable). The final data
comparison will be between the average progression between each highly DI to minimal DI class use;
noting the percentage on a graphed comparison and the baseline class as a constant. This final data will
reveal trends and note percentage increases or decreases that answer the study question. This will be

4
compared to teacher answers and reflections in the semi-structured interview (appendix 4) before a
final remark can be made.

Research ethics

In regards to gaining ethics clearance in accordance with ‘The National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Human Research 2007’, the considerations that must be taken into account will include researching the
Department of Education and Training (DET) policy statements surrounding research conducted on
department of education sites by external parties (2009). This policy states researchers must provide
written approval from the “Department’s Director, System and School Performance” in the information
provided to the principal when asking to participate in a research project in a school (DET, 2009, p. 3).
This will include researchers writing to the principal/s involved about the study to identify the aims and
benefits of the study to the academic teaching community before outlining the process and how this will
conducted, mentioning how much access to the students is required, who will be involved, if parent
involvement is necessary and what the research question is before presenting a document for written
permission to the principal to consider. This will be documented in a written research proposal and a
meeting should be scheduled to discuss any issues or concerns before approval is given or denied.

Once ethics clearance has been applied for and granted, written consent is obtained from principals
(appendix 5) and a clear disclosure of all information relating to the study, details of what will be
involved, planned audio or video recordings, and finally any use of student work or data (DET, 2009, p.
3). Only then can all participants and/or primary caregivers give consent for underage students to
participate through a printed and online copy (appendix 6) (DET, 2009, p. 3). Information included to
the participants or primary caregivers must include the right to withdraw participation in the research
project and have data removed if requested (DET, 2009, p. 4). Most importantly, privacy and
confidentiality must be upheld for personal information collected during research and any
limits/dilemmas to the study (DET, 2009, p. 4). This privacy extends to names of school sites and must
not be documented in official reports and includes ensuring that all data and information is stored in a
secure environment for a minimum of five years before being destroyed securely (DET, 2009, p. 4).

In compliance with the Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004; the Working with
Children (Criminal Record Checking) Regulations 2005; and Department’s Child Protection policy, all

5
external parties in contact with students must obtain a Working with Children Check and Police
Clearance before contacting children (DET, 2009, p. 4).

As a researcher in the case study, it is important to have made adequate plans concerning the process of
the study and take reasonable action to ensure 'the quality, safety and ethical acceptability of research’
and that it is in accordance with the above laws and government policies (Mills, 2014, p. 185).
Therefore, within the application to an ethics committee, it is vital that all foreseeable issues are dealt
with in an appropriate manner with special attention to the legality of working with students with
disabilities. In regards to the study, one ethical dilemma exists for changing the way in which students
are taught at the expense of trialing an approach. This perceived ethical responsibility to do no harm to
student learning; especially due to changing the delivery of knowledge may impact upon student
routines, emotional readiness and behaviour management (Mills, 2014, p. 186). Through utilising a five-
stage review process as a guideline for taking the right direction towards the resolution, a solution
would be to have a cooling off period where Direct Instruction is introduced and students have time to
adjust to the new style of learning (Baptiste & Reyes, 2008, p. 266). If this proves too difficult, time can
be extended, more supports can be utilised or the student may be exempt from furthering the study if it
is deemed impacting on educational, emotional and social growth; yet noted as a factor in findings.
Finally, as all students involved will have a mild learning disability, all efforts should be made to ensure
informed consent is obtained from the caregivers and a simplified permission form be provided as some
parents may not have understood the studies requirements; such as the use of technology to record
students/teachers in lessons and teachers may not wish to hand over weekly notes on student progress
(Baptiste & Reyes, 2008, p. 266). If this occurs, coercion is not appropriate and the data is not recorded
(Baptiste & Reyes, 2008, p. 267).

Action

From the hypothetical study, the findings suggest that Direct Instruction is an effective approach in
teaching students with mild learning disabilities reading strategies. This statement is based on the
higher percentage of growth in the reading programs progress scores between section one and section
two of the study; considering the moderate classroom to be the baseline. Moderate use of Direct
Instruction conversely also proved to increase learning and teachers noted conceptual benefits in

6
combining approaches. The classroom that did not utilise any form of Direct Instruction noted an
increase, however not as significant when comparing the first two classrooms. Teacher interviews noted
not using DI in the classroom and relying on other approaches alone made teaching more difficult and
required more planning. Teachers that used it moderately reported a synergistic teaching style that
ensured student learning was more comprehensive. Lastly, teachers that used DI all the time for reading
instruction noted students were able to recall skills and facts however lacked the ability to extend the
knowledge to other areas of learning. This suggests that while DI is an effective approach in teaching
reading strategies to students with mild learning difficulties, a more synergistic teaching style that
incorporates large aspects of DI would result in successful long term learning. Importantly, the study
also revealed the intensity of the instruction was only effective, if the teacher enacted the approach
correctly (appendix 1).

Based on this information, suggestions surrounding these findings relate to upskilling teachers in the
effective use of DI in classrooms as well as other approaches that cater for difference and encourage
linking learning/skills to other curriculum areas; comprehensively. This may take the form of
professional development within the school teaching community and widen to pre-service teachers in
curriculum units within a teaching degree. Journal articles on the subject may be useful in advising staff
in specific learning areas of the potential benefits of using DI and provide links to collaborative websites
that cater for synergistic/DI instruction during one on one discussions with colleagues. This could also
include assisting teachers by watching lessons, when invited, in order to provide feedback to improve
teaching practice or report success in an informal or formal review. Finally, it is important to keep self-
assessing the effectiveness of any approach used in a classroom and update other colleagues with
journal articles and encourage future literature reviews.

Below is a timeline of events that informs the stages of this hypothetical action plan.

7
 Action Plan - Timeline

30 July 2018 - Initial 13 August 2018 - Refined 20 August 2018 - 26 August 2018 -
Stage 1 decision regarding focus question: Organization of Stage 2 Researched scholarly Stage Collected literature
area research question. specific research question. database through 3/4 for review.
Blackboard

27 August 2018 - Created

29 August 2018 - 3rd September 2018 - 24 September 2018 -
notes based on the literature Stage 5
Wrote literature Stage 6 Began action research Began to gain Ethics
to identify trends and compare
review. plan. clearance and lodged
findings.
forms with DET.

1 October 2018 - Wrote letters 10 December 2018 - 10 February 2019 - Meet 25 February 2019 –
for principals with the created Gained ethics clearance with principals for Term received permission
Stage 7 Stage 8
background sheet, permission and send letters and 1, during weeks 1-2 from principals.
slips and final copy survey. permission forms.

March 1 2019 - Conducted 26 April 2019 – meet Term 3 2019 – Begin

15 March 2019 - Time to Stage
Stage 9 survey at multiple schools analyse data (5 weeks) and with teachers to outline study (5 weeks) and
10 study rules and continuously collate
during weeks 3-4 ensure all the permission
forms are returned. requirements. data.

Term 3 2019, week 7- Term 4 2019 – begin Term 4 2019 10 weeks -

8 - Introduction to section 2 study (5 weeks)
Early January 2020 -
Stage Time to analyse data, Stage
DI/removal of DI (2 and continuously collate graph results and compare
Reporting on final
11 12
weeks) data. findings. research findings.

January 2020 Research Term 1 2020 –PD day: Presentation on Term 1 2020: Assist teachers with literacy learning Future: Keep assessing
effectiveness of approach
PD options/present to findings and use collaborative activities area to work collaboratively plan and enact learning and update other teachers
principal for next PD day. to enhance learning through DI. through synergistic/DI approach. with journal articles.

8
 References

Baptiste, N.E. & Reyes, LV. (2008). Understanding ethics in early child care and education: revised code
and administrator’s supplement. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Department of Education and Training. (2009). Policies: Research Conducted on Department of
Education Sites by External Parties. Retrieved from http://det.wa.edu.au/policies/detcms/policy-
planning-and-accountability/policies-framework/policies/research-conducted-on-department-of-
education-sites-by-external-

Mills, G. E. (2014). Action Research: A guide for the teacher researcher (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.

Reutzel, R. D., Child, A., Jones, C, D., & Clark, S. K. (2014). Explicit Instruction in Core Reading Programs.
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/674420

Stockard. J., Wood. T. W., Coughlin. C., & Khoury, C. R. (2018). The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction
Curricula: A Meta-Analysis of a Half Century of Research. Retrieved from https://doi-
org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.3102/0034654317751919

9
 Appendices

Appendix 1: Participant Observer Checklist - example

Participant Observation – Frequency of Instruction Per hour – literacy Block

Approach Strategy 1 hour of Instruction Notes
name ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Incorrect use:
Teacher did not
clearly link
strategy to
concept.
✔ ✔
✔ ✔

Approach Strategy 1 hour of Instruction Notes

name ✔ ✔ Ie: Used in
conjunction with
strategy 2
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ Multiple
approaches used
✔

Appendix 2: Teacher Survey

Case Study Survey

I ____________________ hereby give permission for this survey to be used in a study conducted by
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH COLLEGE.

Signed _____________________________ Date __________________________

How often do
you use Direct
1 2 3 4 5
Instruction in
None Barely ever Sometimes Mostly Always
a reading
literacy block?
How would
you rate your 1 2 3 4
5
opinion of Highly Mostly Sometimes Mostly
Very effective
Direct Ineffective ineffective effective effective
Instruction

10
 Do you
understand
1 2 3 4 5
how Direct
No Barely ever Sometimes Mostly Yes
Instruction
works?
Name the
least (1) to
1 2 3 4 5
most common
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
(5) approach
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
you use in
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
reading
instruction.
What teaching
strategy works
1 2 3 4 5
best with
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
students who
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
have mild
____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
learning
disabilities
Note: Gaps to be filled in by researchers and more questions.

Appendix 3: Letter to Principal

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, RESEARCH COLLEGE

February 10, 2019

Mr. Dumbledore, Principal Hogwarts Primary School, Westside, WA 6000

Dear Mr. Dumbledore,

The Department of Education at Research College is interested in determining ‘How effective Direct
Instruction is in teaching reading strategies to students with mild learning disabilities (Special Needs)’.
Our intent is to run a study during Term 3, 2019 that provides the educational community with valid and
successful teaching strategies for working with students with disabilities. The enclosed survey is
designed to obtain information about teacher use of Direct Instruction. The responses will be
anonymous to the study and will inform whether a classroom within your school will be appropriate to
undertake a participant observation study. This study has been approved by the Department’s Director
and ethics clearance from the Department of Education and Training.

Included in the package provided is all the necessary information pertaining to the study, outlining the
process and how this will conducted, how much access to the students is required, who will be involved,
if parent involvement is necessary and relevant consent forms.

We would appreciate upon your approval, completion of the survey by consenting teaching staff in
middle Primary and collected the same day by our research team.

11
We realize that your schedule is busy and your time is valuable. However, we hope that we will be able
to organize a visit to conduct the 15 minute survey and obtain consent.

Thank you in advance for your participation. If you have questions about the study, you can contact me
at 555-555-4444.

Yours truly,
Rebecca Wilman

Appendix 4: Teacher semi – structured Interview

1. How would you rate your opinion of Direct Instruction now after the study?

1 2 3 4
5
Highly Mostly Sometimes Mostly
Very effective
Ineffective ineffective effective effective

2. Do you better understand how Direct Instruction works after the study? Explain why?
3. What teaching strategy works best with students who have mild learning disabilities?
4. Are there any conditions that Direct Instruction did not work during teaching reading
instruction? Why?
5. How would you rate Direct Instruction effectiveness now after the study?

1 2 3 4
5
Highly Mostly Sometimes Mostly
Very effective
Ineffective ineffective effective effective

Appendix 5: Principal Consent Form/Background Information Sheet

Background/ Purpose

We are from The School of Education, Research College. We are conducting a study with
teachers/students at your school to better understand ‘How effective is Direct Instruction in teaching
reading strategies to students with mild learning disabilities (Special Needs)?’. Direct Instruction (DI)
has been advocated as an effective tool in bridging learning gaps and ultimately, is the most time
efficient approach to skills-based learning. However, many conditional suggestions have been identified
in the way in which DI is utilised and by whom should teach it; as some teachers lack quality knowledge
(concepts). Therefore as educators, it is highly important that all the facts and studies presented are of
high value and offer clear pedagogical guidance to inform those who are biased or perhaps are
incorrectly utilizing this approach, especially for students who are already behind or struggle to develop

12
strategies in decoding texts. This study hopes to identify how effective DI is by identifying what
strategies within excels or impacts the effectiveness of the approach in relation to student progress
results. This study will occur during Term 2, 2019 (29 April 2019 - 05 July 2019).

By taking part in the survey/observation/interview, your staff/students shall give us a perspective on the
effectiveness of Direct Instructions in teaching reading strategies for students with mild learning
disabilities. Participation is completely voluntary. Students and their parents can choose to participate
or not. Both consent from parents/guardians and assent from students shall be obtained. In case of
boarding students, school principals shall serve as guardians to provide consent for students’
participation.

Procedures

We are asking for your permission to obtain access to teachers/students within a classroom. We shall
use this survey to identify classrooms to invite teachers/students to participate in the study.

Risks and Discomforts

The risks of participating in this study are minimal. It is possible that students may feel obligated to
participate in the study. We shall make sure they understand that their decision to take part or not will
not affect their school standing or any future medical care they might/should require.

Benefits

This research is intended to help us provide the educational community with valid and successful
teaching strategies for working with students with disabilities.

Compensation

The school will not be compensated.

Confidentiality

The privacy of students who participate in the study will be protected. They will be a number rather
than their name. All of the interviews and research documents will be kept in a locked office of research
study personnel at The School of Education, Research College. Computer files will be protected with a
password.

None of the information your students give us will be shared with anyone outside the research project.
Their names will not be used in any written reports or published articles that result from this project.

Every effort will be made to ensure that descriptions of individuals in reports or articles are done in ways
that mask the identities of these individuals

Rights of Refusal and Withdrawal

You have the right to refuse to allow your students to be recruited for this study. If you change your
mind about participating at any time, including during the recruitment period, you have the right to
withdraw.

Signatures

13
I have fully explained to the Principal the nature and purpose of the procedures described above and the
risks involved in the school’s participation in the study. I have asked if he or she has any questions and I
have answered them to the best of my ability.

___________________________ _____________

Signature of Research Assistant Date

I have read/been read the information presented above and understand the purpose of the study. I
have had the opportunity to ask questions, and questions that I have asked have been answered to my
satisfaction. I understand that my schools’ and students’ participation is voluntary.

I agree to provide the included survey to staff and to talk to my students about this study and
subsequently take part in this study if the students and their parents/guardians choose to.

____________________________ _____________

Signature of Principal Date

Appendix 6: Simplified Permission Form – participant/caregiver

Permission Form

Case Study

Dear parents/care giver/participant

The School of Education, Research College is conducting a study to determine ‘How effective Direct
Instruction is in teaching reading strategies to students with mild learning disabilities’.

‘Direct Instruction’ (DI) is an explicit teaching approach that breaks down learning concepts into smaller
skills, involves mastery before proceeding and involves grouping students according to ability (Reutzel,
Child, Jones & Clark, 2014).

Please sign below to give consent, otherwise if you wish to know more, please contact me (Rebecca
Wilman) at 555-555-4444.

All data collected during the study will be private and strictly confidential. You may choose to leave the
study at any time and upon written notice, all data will be excluded if desired.

14
I ____________________ agree that ____________________ shall be involved in the research project
that will be undertaken in Hogwarts Primary School.

Signed ________________________ Date ________________________

15