Danielle OGrady 1

The Relationship of Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and of

Pearsons ReadyGEN in Public Urban Elementary Schools

By

Danielle OGrady

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the

Master of Science in Education Degree in

Special Education

Manhattan College

Spring 2016
 Danielle OGrady 2

Acceptance Sheet

This study entitled The Relationship of Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning

Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN in Public Urban Elementary Schools by Danielle

OGrady has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science in

Education Degree in Special Education degree.

Dr. Elizabeth Kosky

___________________________________________ _____________________

Signature Date

Table of Content
 Danielle OGrady 3

Abstract............................................................................................................................................6

Chapter I: Introduction....................................................................................................................7

The Purpose of the Study.............................................................................................................7

Research Hypotheses and Questions............................................................................................8

Research Hypotheses................................................................................................................8

Descriptive questions................................................................................................................8

Inferential questions. Is there a relationship between teachers perceptions of the Common

Core English Language Arts Learning Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons.......8

Theoretical Background...............................................................................................................8

Definition of Terms......................................................................................................................9

Benefits of the Study..................................................................................................................11

Chapter II: Review of the Related Research..................................................................................11

ReadyGEN / Common Core Learning Standards....................................................................12

Teacher Perceptions....................................................................................................................17

Teacher Perceptions on the Common Core Learning Standards/Literacy Curriculum Materials

....................................................................................................................................................20

Summary....................................................................................................................................22

Chapter III: Participants, Procedures, Instrument..........................................................................22

Design of the Study:...................................................................................................................22

Participants.................................................................................................................................23

Procedures..................................................................................................................................23

Ethical procedures to protect the participants and site............................................................23

 Danielle OGrady 4

Data Collection Procedures.....................................................................................................23

Instrument...................................................................................................................................24

Variables measure by the instrument......................................................................................24

Validity and reliability of the instrument................................................................................25

Threats to validity of collected data........................................................................................25

Pilot study................................................................................................................................25

Data Analysis..............................................................................................................................25

Descriptive statistics...............................................................................................................25

Inferential analysis..................................................................................................................26

Chapter 4: Discussion of the Findings...........................................................................................26

Re-statement of the Problem......................................................................................................26

Research Questions or Hypotheses of the Proposal...................................................................26

Statistical Results.......................................................................................................................26

Frequencies.............................................................................................................................26

Range......................................................................................................................................26

Standard deviation...................................................................................................................27

Measures of central tendency..................................................................................................27

Inferential statistical analyses.................................................................................................27

Discussion of Statistical Results.................................................................................................28

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations for Future Research................................28

Summary....................................................................................................................................28

Conclusions................................................................................................................................29

Recommendations......................................................................................................................29
 Danielle OGrady 5

Assumptions............................................................................................................................29

Limitations..............................................................................................................................30

Delimitations...........................................................................................................................30

References......................................................................................................................................30

Appendix A Correspondence.........................................................................................................36

Appendix B Instrument..................................................................................................................43

Appendix C Tables, Charts, Graphs...............................................................................................46

 Danielle OGrady 6

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore whether teachers perceptions of the effectiveness of

Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program was related to their perceptions of the Common Core

Learning Standards. The sample consisted of 20 elementary school teachers in urban public

elementary schools. The instrument was a survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common

Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN. The findings indicated that there was

not a correlation between teacher perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and

teacher perceptions of the effectiveness of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program.

 Danielle OGrady 7

Chapter I: Introduction

The New York City Department of Education initiated curriculum based on the Common

Core Learning Standards (Cramer, 2013). Since then, the Common Core Learning Standards

have been under fire because teachers evaluations are now based on their students standardized

test scores. Most school principals are pleased with their literacy curriculums, but some teachers

are not (Darville, 2015; Wall, 2014). The most complained-about curriculum is Pearsons

ReadyGEN English Language Arts program (Darville, 2015, para. 8).

Why are teachers complaining about ReadyGEN? There have not been any studies on

how teachers feel about the ReadyGEN program, but there have been studies done about how

teachers feel about the Common Core Learning Standards. The audience for this study would be

school administrators, teachers who use the ReadyGEN curriculum, and Pearson itself. With

this study, school administrators and Pearson would get a better understanding about why

teachers do not like ReadyGEN, and Pearson would get a better understanding on how to

improve the ReadyGEN program. This topic was related to special education because

inclusion teachers and special educators participated in this study, contributing their opinions on

differentiation in ReadyGEN.

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explore when teachers perceptions of the effectiveness

of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program was related to their perceptions of the Common

Core. Thirty teachers in a kindergarten through sixth grade general education, special education,

or inclusion classroom setting in public urban elementary schools were surveyed. The

independent variable, the Common Core Standards, was generally defined as what public school

curriculums are based on. The dependent variable, the ReadyGEN literacy program, was
 Danielle OGrady 8

generally defined as the English Language Arts program that some New York City public

elementary schools use. The intervening variables, what type of class the teacher has (i.e.

general education class, special education class, etc.), years of experience teaching, and

educational background were statistically controlled in the study.

Research Hypotheses and Questions

Research Hypotheses. It was hypothesized that teachers perceptions of the Common

Core State Standards would be related to their perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy

program.

Descriptive questions. What were teacher perceptions of the Common Core? What was

the frequency of teacher perceptions of the Common Core? What was the mean of teacher

perceptions of the Common Core? What was the range of teacher perceptions of the Common

Core? What was the standard deviation of teacher perceptions of the Common Core? What were

teacher perceptions of the ReadyGEN program? What was the frequency of teacher

perceptions of teacher perceptions of the ReadyGEN program? What was the mean of teacher

perceptions of the ReadyGEN program? What was the range of teacher perceptions of the

ReadyGEN program? What was the standard deviation of teacher perceptions of the

ReadyGEN program?

Inferential questions. Was there a relationship between teachers perceptions of the

Common Core English Language Arts Learning Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons

ReadyGEN literacy program?

Theoretical Background

The English Language Arts Common Core Standards were partly developed using the

Three-Part Model for Measuring Text Complexity (Common Core State Standards for English
 Danielle OGrady 9

Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, n.d., p. 4).

The first part is qualitative dimensions of text complexity, which are the parts of the text that

the student determines (p. 4). The second part is quantitative dimensions of text complexity,

which are parts of the text that refer to grammar (p. 4). The third part is reader and task

considerations, which is differentiation (p. 4).

Definition of Terms

The ReadyGEN program is a K6 integrated literacy program that accelerates learning

for all by presenting modeled reading experience with authentic text (ReadyGEN, n.d., para.

1). In this study, the ReadyGEN literacy program was defined as the English Language Arts

program used by some New York City public elementary schools. Teachers perceptions of

ReadyGEN were measured by Question 9 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the

Common Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN.

The Common Core State Standards are a set of high-quality academic standards in

mathematics and English language arts/literacy (ELA) (About the Standards, n.d., para. 2). In

this study, the Common Core State Standards will be defined as what Pearsons ReadyGEN

literacy program is based on. Teachers perceptions of the Common Core State Standards were

measured by Question 9 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning

Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN.

Perception was defined as the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the

act of perceiving (Perception, n.d.). In this study, teachers perceptions were generally

defined as how teachers feel about ReadyGEN. Teachers perceptions were measured by the

scores of Question 8 and Question 9 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common

Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN.

 Danielle OGrady 10

Effective was defined as adequate to accomplish a purpose (Effective, n.d.). In this

study, effectiveness was defined as ReadyGENs suitability for teaching English Language

Arts. Teachers perceptions of the effectiveness of ReadyGEN was be measured by the scores

of Question 9 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards

and of Pearsons ReadyGEN.

General education was defined as the program of education that typically developing

children should receive, based on state standards and evaluated by the annual state educational

standards test (Webster, 2015, para. 1). For this study, general education was defined as a

classroom setting with no students with special needs. If a teacher had a general education

classroom, it was measured by Question 5 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the

Common Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN.

Inclusion was defined as the educational practice of educating children with disabilities

in classrooms with children without disabilities (Webster, 2016, para. 1). In this study, inclusion

was defined as a general education classroom setting with students with special needs. If a

teacher had an inclusion classroom, it was measured by Question 5 on the survey titled Teacher

Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN.

Special education was defined as provid[ing] additional services, support, programs,

specialized placements or environments to ensure that all students' educational needs are

provided for (Watson, 2015, para. 3). In this study, special education was defined as a

classroom setting with only students with special needs receiving specialized services for their

disabilities. If a teacher had a special education classroom, it was measured by Question 5 on the

survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons

ReadyGEN.
 Danielle OGrady 11

Year was defined as a space of 12 calendar months calculated from any point (Year,

n.d.). Experience was defined as the process or fact of personally observing, encountering, or

undergoing something (Experience, n.d.). In this study, years of experience were defined as

the total amount of time that a teacher has spent teaching in his or her lifetime. This was

measured by Question 4 on the survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning

Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN.

Educational was defined as pertaining to education (Educational, n.d.). Background

was defined as ones origin, education, experience, etc., in relation to ones present character,

status, etc. (Background, n.d.). In this study, educational background was defined as the

highest degree that the participant has achieved. This was measured by Question 2 on the survey

titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons

ReadyGEN.

Benefits of the Study

School administrators would benefit from this study. With this study, they would know

what teachers think about the effectiveness of the ReadyGEN program. With this information,

they would be able to make necessary and beneficial changes to their schools curriculum.

Chapter II: Review of the Related Research

The purpose of this study was to explore whether teachers perceptions of the

effectiveness of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program was related to their perceptions of the

Common Core for 20 teachers in a through sixth grade general education, special education, or

inclusion classroom setting in public urban elementary schools. In this section, there is a review

of research related to Common Core Learning Standards, teacher perceptions, and teacher

perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards. Because ReadyGEN was a new
 Danielle OGrady 12

program, there were not many studies about the program. There is a review of related research

about the Common Core Learning Standards instead.

ReadyGEN / Common Core Learning Standards

The basis of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program is authentic text which includes

tradebooks, a text collection, sleuth books, and a leveled text library (p. 4-5). Each

grade has twelve tradebooks which, according to Pearson, meets text complexity requirements

and the suggested percentage of fiction to nonfiction selections and develops a body of

knowledge focused on the unit theme and the Enduring Understanding within each module (p.

4). The text collection span[s] multiple genres and cultures, includes poetry, primary sources,

and biographies, and [is] tied to content-area standards that build a broad range of knowledge

and literacy experience in a multitude of texts (p. 5). The Sleuth books are a collection of

short, high-interest reading selections to sharpen students critical thinking skills (p. 5). The

Leveled Text Library is a broad range up to 60 conceptually connected texts at each grade

provide an on-ramp to ReadyGEN Essential Questions, Enduring Understandings, and unit

themes (Pearson, n.d., p. 5).

Pearson also provides a three-step assessment for instruction plan for teachers. The

first step is to give the students a baseline assessment to determine instructional needs for

students at the start of the year. The second step is assessments for every lesson and

performance-based assessmentsat the end of each module. The third step is to measure the

students at the conclusion of each unit. Each grade has four or six units, and each unit has two

modules. According to Pearson, these units and modules pave the path to college and career

readiness. Each Module Overview identifies the instructional focus, or what readers,

writers, and learners are expected to know and do, and these expectations fall in line with the
 Danielle OGrady 13

goals for the Performance-Based Assessment. Each module includes pacing plans in order to

properly prepare the students for the Performance-Based Assessment (Pearson, n.d.).

Lessons include scripts that teach students to read closely, cite evidence in text, and

generate vocabulary (p. 12-13). Mini lessons also introduce the students to foundational

skills for reading independently (p. 14). According to Pearson, teachers should teach

foundational skills in three steps (p. 16). The first step is to teach the Foundational Skills mini

lesson as part of Whole Group instruction (p. 16). The second step is to assign more robust

Foundational Skills instruction to students who may require additional support (p. 16-17). The

third step is to help students make progress toward Foundational Skills mastery with Check

Progress formative assessments (p. 17). ReadyGEN also provides foundational skills

components such as phonics activity mats, high-frequency word cards, and foundational

skills practice pages (Pearson, n.d., 18).

ReadyGEN also provides a Scaffolded Strategies Handbook to accelerate learning

for all and extra supports for students who may have trouble learning a concept and English

Language Learners (p. 24). ReadyGEN teaches students how to write through the Gradual

Release of Responsibility Model (p. 26). ReadyGEN also provides online activities for the

students and professional development resources for the teachers (Pearson, n.d., p. 36).

The purpose of Porter, McMaken, Hwang, and Yangs (2011) study was to compare the

Common Core Learning Standards with other state standards (p. 104). The participants were 35

specialists in math and ELAR from 18 states who examined the standards of thirty-one states (p.

105). They discovered that the degree of alignment between the Common Core and state

standards was low to moderate (p. 105). The study was limited because of the thirty-one
 Danielle OGrady 14

states, only the literacy standards of twenty-four states were examined and only the math

standards of twenty-seven states were examined.

The essential philosophy of the Common Core is made up of three parts: that every

state in the nation follows the same standards in order for the United States to be internationally

ranked, that every student is ready for literacy and mathematics in college and the workplace,

and for all high-school students to be prepared for college when they graduate (p. 153-154). In

order to successfully teach in line with the Common Core Standards, educators must do the

following: read the College and Career Readiness Standards to gain an overview of the

expectations of the Common Core, within each category, read vertically within each grade

levelthrough grade 5, to gain a general understanding of how the standards are structured and

what the more specific expectations are, within each standard, read horizontally to fully

understand what each grade-level standard actually encompasses, within each standard and

across standards, know what to teach students to help increase their understanding, assess

students in relation to their knowledge of the standards to plan effective instruction, and within

each standard and across standards, use formative assessments to measure student progress (p.

154-155, 157). McLaughlin and Overturf (2012) believed that teachers should use the Gradual

Release of Responsibility Model in order to teach students concepts aligned with Standard 8.

Teachers should also use literature that would interest the students, and they needed to

differentiate the material for various learning needs. Educators needed proper training in order to

become familiar with the Common Core.

One of the main goals of the Common Core Standards is that all students will be able to

read increasingly complex texts proficiently and independently (p. 1). In order to fulfill this,

teachers should teach close reading strategies. Close reading is an investigation of a short piece
 Danielle OGrady 15

of text, with multiple readings done over multiple instructional lessons (p. 2). These lessons

include using short complex texts, have students read the text by themselves, using a group

read aloud, answering questions about the text, having a conversation about the text as a class,

and writing about the text (p. 3). Teachers should also take into account the following about

close reading: it can make the texts wide-ranging, it can be used for all subjects, teachers need to

know how to teach close reading strategies, close reading is explicit, and the reader is driven by

close reading (Brown & Kappes, 2012).

Rickelman (2013) presented information and resources on the Common Core Standards

to help current teachers and future teachers. The participants in this study were various members

of different schools across North Carolina. Rickelman (2013) used the following questions to

guide him: What should our pre-service and in-service teachers be learning/doing about the

Common Core State Standards in our teacher preparation programs? What is the optimal level

of breadth and depth of information to share with them, knowing that they will be receiving

intensive training through staff development when they get their first teaching position? How

can we best prepare new teacher candidates for entering public schools in our states? What

resources are already available to help teachers, and more importantly teacher educators, at the

national and state levelsto prepare our candidates for planning lessons and assessments related

to the CCSS? (p. 47). Rickelman (2013) found that a Verb Chart for Revised Blooms

Taxonomy, Webbs Depth of Knowledge Chart, and Karin Hess Cognitive Rigor Matrix

were helpful resources for teachers (p. 50, 52, 54). He recommended using these resources in the

classroom.

Applebee (2013) believed that the Standards could mislead curricula. He did not like

how the Common Core Standards split foundational skills for reading (K5) and language (K
 Danielle OGrady 16

12) (p. 28). He also felt that dividing some skills by grade level and that the writing standards

not being flexible were detrimental to their learning (p. 29). He also believed that the way the

Standards were incorporated into the curricula could also be harmful.

VanTassel-Baska (2015) presented the arguments for and against the Common Core

State Standards in English language arts and mathematics (p. 60). The participants were writers

for other journals on gifted children. VanTassel-Baska asked in her article, Would it not make

sense to have all states requiring similar things of students in an age of national and international

competition, in an age of economic concerns for job skills that match the needs of employment

markets? (p. 60). The study found that the standards need to be differentiated for gifted

students (p. 60). VanTassel-Baska recommended that these standards may offer a way to

transform education in the classroom, so that all students are able to fulfill their learning

potential (p. 60).

Barrett-Tatums (2015) study examined the day-to-day literacy instruction of two

primary grade teachers during their first year of full CCSS implementation by using

Engestrms Third Generation Cultural Historical Activity Theoryas both a theoretical

framework and a method for analysis to provide a rich description of the complex environment

in which literacy instruction and learning occur (p. 1). The participants were two primary

grade teachers at an elementary school in the Southeastern United States (p. 1). Barrett-Tatum

(2015) hypothesized that Cultural Historical Activity Theory would be suitable for teaching and

learning. The findings demonstrated the complex and interrelated influences of ELA CCSS,

and reveal the power of the individual teacher in constructing the literacy learning opportunities

(p. 1). Barrett-Tatum recommended that teachers and students create an enacted literacy
 Danielle OGrady 17

curriculum influenced by: a) artifact use; b) rules and roles of community members, c)

communities to which they belong, and d) participant objects (p. 25)

Iannone (2015) discussed the teachers handbook to Pearsons The American Experience,

Common Core Edition. She felt that although the textbook had its strength, it was overall

inadequate (p. 190). She found that the textbook was overly scripted and not friendly for

students whose second language is English. She mentions Sandra Stotsky, a member of the

Common Core Validation Committee but refused to sign onto the final product who found that

the standards on informational text standards were not based on research and that imaginative

literature was better for teaching students (p. 185). The readings that the students have to read

were increasingly difficult, and the textbook does not address the work as literature (p. 185,

189).

Carillo (2016) argued that one of the most fundamental aspects of the Common Core

that needs to be rethoughtis how the Common Core defines the student-reader (p. 31). She

felt that the Common Core standards prevented the student from connecting to the text and

make meaning of the text (p. 31). Carillo suggested that teachers can have their students

engage in freewriting and journaling in order to draw on their experiences and backgrounds

(p. 32). She also recommended having the teachers present other meanings and texts to the

students.

Teacher Perceptions

The purpose of Ledermans (1999) study was to see whether teachers perceptions about

science affected their teaching practices. The participants of his study were five high school

biology teachers, ranging in experience from 2 to 15 years (p. 916). Lederman found that how

teachers viewed science did not affect their pedagogy. Lederman felt that further research needs
 Danielle OGrady 18

to be done on this subject and that his research was a basis for further research.

Borg (2003a) wanted to analyze studies on how teacher cognitions affected the

pedagogy of secondary language teachers (p. 81). Borg defined teacher cognitions as

unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching what teachers know, believe, and think (p.

81). His analysis asked, What do teachers have cognitions about? How do these cognitions

develop? How do they interact with teacher learning? and how do they interact with

classroom practice? (p. 81). Borg found that teachers former education on learning a language

formed their thoughts on language acquisition, and this affected their teaching. He also found

that the teachers education, preparation on teaching second languages, and professional

experience affected their teaching (p. 98). Borg felt that further research needs to be done on

how teacher cognitions affect learning outcomes.

In a separate study, Borg (2003b) analyzed studies on how teacher cognition[s] affected

the grammar pedagogy of primary language teachers, secondary language teachers, and foreign

language teachers (p. 96). Borg focused on teachers declarative knowledge about grammar, of

their beliefs about teaching grammar, and of their knowledge as expressed through their

grammar teaching practices (p. 96). Borg found that these educators did not have a satisfactory

knowledge of grammar and prior language learning experiences and what they knew about

their students and the subject affected their pedagogy (p. 100). Borg (2003b) feels that future

studies should further address grammar knowledge.

Inan and Lowther (2009) wanted to examine the direct and indirect effects of teachers

individual characteristics and perceptions of environmental factors that influence their

technology integration in the classroom (p. 137). The participants of their study were 1,382

educators working at public schools in Tennessee. They found that educators age and years of
 Danielle OGrady 19

experience teaching positively and negatively affect their ability to use technology and whether

or not they use technology in the classroom. However, the following had a positive effect on

using technology in the classroom: educators perceptions, educators abilities, and availability

of computers, technical support, and overall support (p. 146). Inan and Lowther believed that

their instrument, path analysis, caused limitations in the study, and they suggested that future

studies could explore more variables.

Similar to Inan and Lowther (2009), Pierce and Ball (2009) studied how teachers views

affect the use of technology in secondary math classrooms. The participants were 92 secondary

mathematics teachers in Australia (p. 299). Most teachers, despite the amount of teaching

experience they had, viewed teaching with technology positively, and these teachers were

supposed to incorporate technology into their pedagogy. However, some teachers felt that there

were still obstacles when incorporating the use of technology in the classroom, such as the cost

of purchasing the technology (p. 314). Pierce and Ball suggested that future teacher training

should deal with these obstacles.

Giles and Tunks (2014) wanted to see how early childhood teachers views regarding

childrens acquisition of literacy affect how they teach (p. 525). Seventy-six prekindergarten

through second grade teachers participated in this study (p. 526). They found that educators

who had six to ten years of experience favored using reading readiness as the preferred way of

teaching reading while educators with over 21 years of practice did not (p. 528). Some of the

limitations of this study were using surveys and having a smaller research group. The study

showed how teaching literacy had evolved over time and would continue to evolve.
 Danielle OGrady 20

Teacher Perceptions on the Common Core Learning Standards/Literacy Curriculum

Materials

When analyzing the effects of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, Alison Dobrick

(2014) mentioned ReadyGEN. Teachers said that ReadyGEN taught the students to take

standardized tests with scripts that they cannot alter. Dobrick also said that Pearson makes

money through these exams.

The purpose of Lalus (2014) study was to examine teachers (as well as students and

parents) perceptions on if a textbook was effective in achiev[ing] its goal (p. 59). Lalu

surveyed fifty teachers about their perceptions on the effectiveness of their textbooks, asking the

teachers questions about the textbooks materials and content. She found that respondents

considered important that publishers and Ministry of education to consult teachers on the quality

of school textbooks, and she recommended that the textbooks be more student-oriented and to

use textbooks analyzed by educators (p. 59).

Nadelson, Pluska, Moorcroft, Jeffrey, and Woodard (2014) wanted to learn what

familiarity teachers grades K-12 had of the Common Core standards and how they viewed the

Standards, and they were unable to find studies previously done on this subject. The 323

participants were drawn from a population of educators who have participated in science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professional development programs in the

region and from local school districts in a state in the Rocky of the United States (p. 55). Using

a survey, the researchers found that the participants had a moderate level of knowledge about

the Common Core standards and slightly higher than moderate opinion on the Common Core

standards (p. 57-58). However, the researchers wrote that the study had the following

limitations: the sampling, the nature of the data that we collected, and our methods (p.
 Danielle OGrady 21

63). They also believed that their work would be helpful in future studies on this subject.

Henderson, Peterson, and West (2015) found through surveys that teacher support of the

Common Core was decreasing and teacher opposition to the Common Core was increasing. In

2013, seventy-six percent of teachers approved the Common Core, twelve percent neither

approved nor disapproved the Common Core, and twelve percent disapproved the Common

Core. However, in 2014, forty-six percent of teachers approved the Common Core, fourteen

percent neither approved nor disapproved the Common Core, and forty percent disapproved the

Common Core. They also found that there were fewer misconceptions about the standards

among teachers than the public.

Murphy and Marshalls (2015) research was to gain an understanding on what college

professors and student teachers knew about the Common Core standards and how they felt about

teaching with them, how they could deepen the standards in regards to special education, and

what needed to covered in future professional development on the Common Core. Education

professors and student teachers from five colleges and universities within two southeastern

states participated in the study (p. 170). They found that college professors had varying levels

of confidence teaching the standards, expressed a desire for more formal training, felt that

preparation on the standards was vital and that there was a lack of consistency in presenting

the standards in classes (p. 174-175, 177). Student teachers felt that their preparation was narrow

but necessary and were more confident in certain subject area rather than the standards

themselves (p. 178). The study was limited because only two states were surveyed. Murphy

and Marshall felt that future research should focus on development of collaborative and more

formalized trainings.

Ajayi (2016) examined high school English teachers attitudes toward the Common Core
 Danielle OGrady 22

literacy standards when they first started implementing them, surveying twenty-three teachers

from a Southern California school district. Ajayi wanted to know what the teachers awareness

of the Common Core standards was, what the teachers thought about their guidance on teaching

the Common Core standards and their curricula material, and how the teachers thought about

the Common Core standards (p. 4). Ajayi found that even though the teachers felt that the

Common Core standards would help them in the long run, they did not feel prepared to teach the

standards, and he recommended that schools provide resources properly aligned to the

standards and that schools offer continuing guidance on the standards (p. 15).

Summary

There have not been many studies about ReadyGEN, but there have been studies on the

Common Core State Standards and teachers perceptions on the Common Core State Standards.

Many teachers did not feel properly prepared to teach according to the standards, and the one

study that mentions ReadyGEN portrays the teachers perceptions as negative. Therefore, this

study addressed why the teachers perceive ReadyGEN the way they do, and this study would

add to the body of literature on this subject.

Chapter III: Participants, Procedures, Instrument

The purpose of this study was to explore whether teachers perceptions of the

effectiveness of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program were related to their perceptions of the

Common Core. It was hypothesized that teachers would most likely differ in their perceptions of

the ReadyGEN program based on their years experience, educational background, the type of

class they teach, and their perceptions of the Common Core.

Design of the Study:

This was a correlational research study. The data was collected to determine whether
 Danielle OGrady 23

teachers perceptions of the Common Core are related to their perceptions of Pearsons

ReadyGEN literacy program.

Participants

The participants were 20 kindergarten through sixth grade teachers who used or had used

Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program in the classroom. These individuals were identified

based on their schools adoption of the ReadyGEN program for the English Language Arts

curriculum. These teachers were instructors in general education classrooms, special education

classrooms, and inclusion classrooms. The convenience sample was selected through cluster

sampling. The stratification characteristics of the participants were age, gender, years of

experience teaching, the use of ReadyGEN in the classroom, and what type of classroom they

taught (i.e. general education, special education, or inclusion).

Procedures

Ethical procedures to protect the participants and site.

The purpose of this study was ethically analyzed by not changing the data to match my

hypothesis. The participants had confidentiality, and they did not have to participate in the study

if they did not want to. The researcher contacted the creators of the surveys she used in order to

receive their permission to use their work for the researchers data collection. The researcher

contacted the principal of the school in order to receive permission to do the study at the site.

Data Collection Procedures.

This was a between-subject design comparing teachers perceptions of Pearsons

ReadyGEN literacy program to their perceptions of the Common Core State Standards. The

data was collected by a survey over the span of 8 weeks in multiple public urban elementary

schools during the Fall of 2016. The participants were 20 teachers in multiple elementary
 Danielle OGrady 24

schools.

Instrument

This study used a survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning

Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN. The survey was created based on Ajayis (2016)

survey of high school teachers perceptions of the English Language Arts Common Core State

Standards and on Savino-Garzons (2013) survey on Reading Street. The independent variable,

teachers perceptions of the Common Core State Standards was measured by question 8 on the

survey. The dependent variable, teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy

program, was measured by question 9 on the survey. The participants answered on the following

scales: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), no opinion/neutral (3), agree (4), strongly

agree (5).

Years of experience that a teacher had, an intervening variable, was measured by

question 4. Teachers educational background, an intervening variable, was measured by

question 2. The type of class in which the teacher taught Pearsons ReadyGEN, an intervening

variable, was measured by question 5.

Variables measure by the instrument.

Teachers perceptions on the Common Core State Standards were measured by question 8

on the survey. Teachers perceptions on Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program were measured

by question 9. The intervening variables, teachers years of experience, teachers educational

background, and type of class, was be measured by questions 2, 4, and 5.

Validity and reliability of the instrument.

To determine the validity of his survey, Ajayi (2016) consulted three literacy education

professors and three high school ELA teachers, and he conducted a pilot study (p. 8).
 Danielle OGrady 25

To determine the validity of her survey, Savino-Garzon (2013) consulted the districts

statistician to complete Cronbach's alpha to determine internal reliability. The piloted

questionnaire obtained an overall Cronbach's alpha of .926 indicating that the instrument was

reliable (p. 84).

Threats to validity of collected data.

According to Ajayi (2016), a limitation of his study was that it focused more on how the

teachers view their initial preparation for teaching the Common Core rather than how teachers

would implement the standards in the classroom. According to Savino-Garzon (2013), a

limitation of her study was that the Reading Street Program was only created for second to fifth

grade, and because of this, discussion of results was limited to Grades 2 through 5 (p. 84).

There is also the possibility that the participants will not answer the survey honestly. Other

threats may be researcher error.

Pilot study.

A pilot study of this research was not conducted.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics.

For the data collected, frequencies, means, range, and standard deviation were reported

for each variable in the study.

Inferential analysis.

Correlational research design analyzed data by calculating the correlation coefficient.

The strength of the correlation was considered weak for r < .30; moderate if .30<r<.70; strong if

.70<r<1.00.
 Danielle OGrady 26

Chapter 4: Discussion of the Findings

Re-statement of the Problem

The purpose of this study was to explore whether teachers perceptions of the

effectiveness of the ReadyGEN literacy program, published by Pearson, was related to their

perceptions of the Common Core.

Research Questions or Hypotheses of the Proposal

It was hypothesized that teachers would differ in their perceptions of the ReadyGEN

program based on their perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards.

Statistical Results

To determine the correlation between teachers perceptions of the Common Core

Learning Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN, the survey Teacher

Perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN was

administered to 20 teachers. Survey results were analyzed by calculating the correlation

coefficient. The strength of the correlation was considered weak for r < .30; moderate if .

30<r<.70; strong if .70<r<1.00.

Frequencies.

The frequency of responses regarding teachers perceptions of the Common Core

Learning Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was 20.

Range.

The range of teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards was 1.44.

The range of teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was 2.70.

Standard deviation.

The standard deviation of teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards
 Danielle OGrady 27

was .48986. The standard deviation of teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was .

60111.

Measures of central tendency.

According to the measures of central tendency, teachers who participated in this study, on

average with a mean of 3.2667, had a neutral or no opinion on the Common Core Standards. In

contrast, teachers who participated in this study, on average with a mean of 2.4891, had a

negative perception of Pearsons ReadyGEN.

Mean, median, mode.

The mean of teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards was 3.2667.

The mean of teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was 2.4891. The median of

teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards was 3.4722. The median of

teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was 2.3913. The smallest mode of teachers

perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards was 2.56. The smallest mode of teachers

perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was 2.13.

Inferential statistical analyses.

A Pearson correlation was calculated to determine the correlation between teachers

perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons

ReadyGEN. The correlation between teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning

Standards and teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was .264. The strength of the

correlation was considered weak for .264 < .30.

Discussion of Statistical Results

These results showed that, contrary to Henderson, Peterson, and Wests (2015) findings

that 12% of teachers neither approved nor disapproved of the Common Core, teachers who
 Danielle OGrady 28

participated in this study, according to a mean of 3.2667, on average had no opinion or a neutral

opinion on the Common Core State Standards. However, according to a mean of 2.4891,

teachers who participated in this study had a negative perception of Pearsons ReadyGEN.

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations for Future Research

Summary

The purpose of this study was to explore whether teachers perceptions of the

effectiveness of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program was related to their perceptions of the

Common Core. It was hypothesized that teachers would differ in their perceptions of the

ReadyGEN program based on their perceptions of the Common Core, their years experience,

educational background, and the type of class they teach.

The data was correlated to determine whether teachers perceptions of the Common Core

State Standards are related to their perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program. The

participants were 20 kindergarten through sixth grade teachers who use or had used Pearsons

ReadyGEN literacy program in the classroom. All participants volunteered to participate in

this study. This study used a survey titled Teacher Perceptions of the Common Core Learning

Standards and of Pearsons ReadyGEN. This survey was based on Ajayis (2016) survey of

high school teachers perceptions of the English Language Arts Common Core State Standards

and Savino-Garzons (2013) survey on Reading Street. The independent variable, teachers

perceptions of the Common Core State Standards was measured by question 8 on the survey.

The dependent variable, teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program, was

measured by question 9 on the survey. The participants answered on the following scales:

strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), no opinion/neutral (3), agree (4), strongly agree

(5). Correlational research design analyzed data by calculating the correlation coefficient. The
 Danielle OGrady 29

strength of the correlation was considered weak for r < .30; moderate if .30<r<.70; strong if .

70<r<1.00.

Conclusions

According to a mean of 3.2667, teachers on average had no opinion or a neutral opinion

on the Common Core State Standards. These results contradict Henderson, Peterson, and Wests

(2015) findings that only 12% of teachers neither approved nor disapproved of the Common

Core. According to a mean of 2.4891, teachers who participated in this study had a negative

perception of Pearsons ReadyGEN.

The correlation between teachers perceptions of the Common Core Learning Standards

and teachers perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN was .264. The strength of the correlation

was considered weak for .264 < .30. This shows that teachers perceptions of the Common Core

State Standards were not related to their perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program.

This goes against the hypothesis that teachers perceptions of the Common Core State Standards

would be related to their perceptions of Pearsons ReadyGEN literacy program.

Recommendations

Assumptions.

In conducting this study, the researcher assumed that the participants would answer

truthfully and accurately, and that all participants had had experience with Pearsons

ReadyGEN literacy program. The researcher also assumed that the survey would correctly

measure teachers perceptions on the Common Core and on ReadyGEN and that the data would

be correlated properly.

Limitations.

The limitations of this study that prevent generalization to a larger population included
 Danielle OGrady 30

the following: extraneous variables that could not be controlled (years experience, educational

background, and the type of class they teach); lack of participants; a small non-random sample

size of 20 participants.

Delimitations.

This study was confined to public elementary school teachers in New York City. No

effort was made to determine their programs, their grades, and any previous activities that may

have contributed to their perceptions.

Because of these assumptions, limitations, and delimitations, it is recommended that

future research should be expanded to throughout the state of New York, not just New York City.

It is also recommended that there be a larger, random sample pool of participants.

 Danielle OGrady 31

References

About the standards. (n.d.). Retrieved April 01, 2016, from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-

standards/

Ajayi, L. (2016). High school teachers' perspectives on the English Language Arts Common Core State

Standards: An exploratory study. Educational Research For Policy And Practice, 15(1), 1-25.

Applebee, A. N. (2013). Common Core State Standards: The promise and the peril in a national

palimpsest. English Journal, 103(1), 25-33.

Background. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 01, 2016 from Dictionary.com website

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/background

Barrett-Tatum, J. (2015). Examining English Language Arts Common Core State Standards instruction

through cultural historical activity theory. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(63).

Borg, S. (2003b). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Language Awareness,

12(2), 96-108.

Borg, S. (2003a). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language

teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language teaching, 36(02), 81-109.

Brown, S., & Kappes, L. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards: A primer on. Aspen

Institute.

Carillo, E. C. (2016). Reimagining the role of the reader in the Common Core State Standards. English

Journal, 105(3), 29-35.

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science,

and Technical Subjects Appendix A: Research Supporting Key Elements of the Standards

Glossary of Key Terms. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf
 Danielle OGrady 32

Cramer, P. (2013, February 28). Newly hatched Common Core curriculums get city endorsement.

Retrieved March 08, 2016, from http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2013/02/28/newly-hatched-common-

core-curriculums-get-city-endorsement/#.Vt9G8_krK73

Darville, S. (2015, June 09). In limited survey, principals say theyre happy with new Common Core

materials. Retrieved March 08, 2016, from http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2015/06/09/in-limited-survey-

most-principals-say-theyre-happy-with-new-common-core- materials/#.Vt9JJ_krK70

Dobrick, A. (2014). Poverty and pretense: Good intentions and misguided educational reform from No

Child Left Behind through Race to the Top. In The Obama Administration and Educational

Reform. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 27-44.

Educational. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 01, 2016 from Dictionary.com website

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/educational

Effective. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved March 08, 2016 from Dictionary.com website

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/effective

Experience. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 01, 2016 from Dictionary.com website

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/experience

Giles, R. M., & Tunks, K. (2015). Teachers thoughts on teaching reading: An investigation of early

childhood teachers perceptions of literacy acquisition. Early Childhood Education Journal,

43(6), 523-530.

Henderson, M. B., Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2015). No common opinion on the Common Core.

Education Next, 15(1), 8-19.

Iannone, C. (2015). Experiencing the common core. Academic Questions, 28(2), 182-194.

doi:10.1007/s12129-015-9502-3

Lalu, E. (2014). Teachers, pupils, and parents opinions on primary textbooks: Their selection, quality
 Danielle OGrady 33

and use. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 7(3), 59-71.

Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice:

Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8),

916-929.

McLaughlin, M., & Overturf, B. J. (2012). The common core: Insights into the K5 standards. The

Reading Teacher, 66(2), 153-164.

Murphy, M. R., & Marshall, K. J. (2015). Common core preparation in special education teacher

education programs: Beginning the conversation. Teacher Education And Special Education,

38(3), 167-185.

Nadelson, L. S., Pluska, H., Moorcroft, S., Jeffrey, A., & Woodard, S. (2014). Educators perceptions

and knowledge of the Common Core State Standards. Issues In Teacher Education, 22(2), 47-66.

Pearson. (n.d.). ReadyGEN Program Overview [Brochure]. Retrieved March 20, 2016, from

http://assets.pearsonschool.com/asset_mgr/current/20168/Program-Overview Brochure.pdf

Perception. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved March 08, 2016 from Dictionary.com website

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/perception

Pierce, R., & Ball, L. (2009). Perceptions that may affect teachers intention to use technology in

secondary mathematics classes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 71(3), 299-317.

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common Core Standards the new US intended

curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.

ReadyGEN. (n.d.). Retrieved March 08, 2016, from http://www.pearsonschool.com/index.cfm?

locator=PS2eUe

Rickelman, R. J. (2013). Tapping into the common core standards. In Szabo, S., Martin, L., Haas, L.,

Garza-Garcia, L., & Association of Literacy Educators and, R. (2013). (Ed.), Literacy Is
 Danielle OGrady 34

Transformative. The Thirty-Fifth Yearbook A Doubled Peer Reviewed Publication of the

Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers. Association of Literacy Educators and

Researchers, 45-57. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED552939.pdf

Savino-Garzon, D. (2013). Teacher evaluation of the scripted Reading Street Program and the level of

satisfaction among its sub-scale components. Retrieved from Seton Hall University Dissertations

and Theses (ETDs).

VanTassel-Baska, J. (2015). Arguments for and against the Common Core State Standards. Gifted Child

Today, 38(1), 60-62.

Wall, P. (2014, January 29). As crises ebb, educators adjust to new Common Core curriculums.

Retrieved March 08, 2016, from http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2014/01/29/as-crises-ebb-educators-

adjust-to-new-common-core-curriculums/#.Vt9J-PkrK71

Watson, S. (2015, August 15). What is special education? Retrieved March 08, 2016, from

http://specialed.about.com/od/idea/a/Special101.htm

Webster, J. (2015, September 05). General education -- the education everyone should be provided.

Retrieved March 08, 2016, from http://specialed.about.com/od/glossary/g/generaleducation.htm

Webster, J. (2016, February 27). Inclusion - what is inclusion? Retrieved March 08, 2016, from

http://specialed.about.com/od/integration/a/Inclusion-What-Is-Inclusion.htm

Woodard, R., & Kline, S. (2015). Moving beyond compliance: Promoting research-based professional

discretion in the implementation of the common core state standards in English language arts.

Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 27(3), 243-263.

Year. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved April 01, 2016 from Dictionary.com website

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/year
 Danielle OGrady 35

Appendix A Correspondence
 Danielle OGrady 36

VOLUNTEERS NEEDED FOR

RESEARCH SURVEY ON
COMMON CORE STANDARDS AND
PEARSONS READYGEN
As part of her graduate studies at Manhattan College, Ms.
OGrady is completing a research paper and is looking for
volunteers to complete a survey on the Common Core
Standards and ReadyGEN. In order to participate in this
survey, you must have taught using Pearsons
ReadyGEN literacy curriculum at some point in your
teaching career. As a participant in this survey, you would
be asked to: rate a series of statements about the Common
Core Learning Standards and ReadyGEN. The survey
will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete.

If you have any questions, please see Ms. OGrady in

Room 303 or email her at
dogrady.student@manhattan.edu

If you are interested, please go to the following web

address to complete the survey by November 13, 2016:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/Y55BJFP
Thank you!
Danielle OGrady 37
Danielle OGrady 38
Danielle OGrady 39
Danielle OGrady 40
Danielle OGrady 41
Danielle OGrady 42
Danielle OGrady 43
 Danielle OGrady 44

Appendix B Instrument
Danielle OGrady 45
Danielle OGrady 46
Danielle OGrady 47
Danielle OGrady 48
Danielle OGrady 49
Danielle OGrady 50
 Danielle OGrady 51

Appendix C Tables, Charts, Graphs

Correlations
CCmean Rmean
CCmean Pearson Correlation 1 .264
Sig. (2-tailed) .261
N 20 20
Rmean Pearson Correlation .264 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .261
N 20 20
 Danielle OGrady 52

Statistics
CCmean Rmean
N Valid 20 20
Missing 0 0
Mean 3.2667 2.4891
Median 3.4722 2.3913
a
Mode 2.56 2.13a
Std. Deviation .48986 .60111
Range 1.44 2.70

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is

shown

Frequency Tables

CCmean
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2.56 3 15.0 15.0 15.0
2.67 1 5.0 5.0 20.0
2.72 2 10.0 10.0 30.0
3.00 1 5.0 5.0 35.0
3.06 1 5.0 5.0 40.0
3.33 1 5.0 5.0 45.0
3.44 1 5.0 5.0 50.0
3.50 2 10.0 10.0 60.0
3.56 3 15.0 15.0 75.0
3.67 2 10.0 10.0 85.0
3.78 1 5.0 5.0 90.0
3.94 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
4.00 1 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0
 Danielle OGrady 53

Rmean
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 1.30 1 5.0 5.0 5.0
1.91 1 5.0 5.0 10.0
2.13 3 15.0 15.0 25.0
2.22 1 5.0 5.0 30.0
2.26 2 10.0 10.0 40.0
2.30 1 5.0 5.0 45.0
2.39 3 15.0 15.0 60.0
2.43 1 5.0 5.0 65.0
2.65 1 5.0 5.0 70.0
2.70 2 10.0 10.0 80.0
2.78 1 5.0 5.0 85.0
2.83 1 5.0 5.0 90.0
3.87 1 5.0 5.0 95.0
4.00 1 5.0 5.0 100.0
Total 20 100.0 100.0