Abstract

This paper is a result of my second year of researching my professional practice. In my first year, I used a systematic phonics program with my Junior/First Year kindergarten students. This paper describes my struggle to find an approach to keep the Seniors progressing at their accelerated rate while introducing the program to the new Juniors. I observed, reflected, made notes in my Journal and with advice from critical friends, made some changes in my teaching practice. I included the parents of the Seniors in the program and with the help of administration, was able to make timetable changes to include small group sessions where the Seniors could extend their learning.

Each day they attended, the children chose an Activity Centre and wrote in Journals about what they planned to do at the Centre. I found the most progress was evident in their Daily Plan Journals. Not only did I find the application of knowledge that I was looking for, I found that I had narrowed my focus too much. It was the attitudes of the readers and writers in my care that was indicative of their success in learning to read and write.

Context

The school in the Grand Erie District School Board, where I teach is considered a core school. The children are needy in many respects. The Kindergarten classes have averaged 24-26

children to one teacher, at mid-year. Reliable parental assistance in class is rare. Co-op students and Educational Assistant help is sporadic. Teaching here is a challenge especially in times of great change in expectations. Children may be registered in Junior Kindergarten if they will reach the age of 4 by December 31st. Therefore, students in their second year of kindergarten are called seniors. The two levels are combined in each class. A full-time kindergarten teacher is responsible for two classes each attending on alternate days. The school is organized on a six day timetable, and therefore the classes are sometimes referred to as the odds and the evens --their days of attendance.

I was given the opportunity to participate in an action research project group facilitated by Diane Morgan. The project was funded by the board's educational change fund which provided us with release time to meet with colleagues and to write about our classroom practice.

What was my concern?

Last year (2000/2001), I modified my practice by involving parents and colleagues in teaching the children a systematic phonics program while balancing Whole Language aspects. I customized it to teach in what I deemed was a developmentally appropriate way. I updated my knowledge and felt more comfortable using whole group instruction for short periods. I came to know that children will receive individualized instruction at home when parents have had a chance to become familiar with the program. Updates and new material were sent home regularly. I collected data, wrote my story and had critical friends validate my findings. (Callaghan,2002b)

In September 2001, I found that the now Senior Kindergarten children had retained much of what was taught to them. They were ready to advance at a faster pace than the Seniors from the previous year were able to. However, I now also had half a class of new Junior Kindergarten children, many of whom did not recognize the letters of their own names. I needed to improve my practice so as to include the Junior children, yet keep the Seniors progressing at their accelerated rate.

Why was I concerned?

I was concerned because expectations had been raised for kindergarten students. The "Trickle Down" curriculum was one result of the Ontario Ministry of Education's program of Grade 3 testing and this concerned many, including the National Association for the Education of Young Children:

When next-grade expectations of mastery of basic skills are routinely pushed down to the previous grade and whole-group and teacher-led instruction is the dominant teaching strategy, children who cannot sit still and attend to teacher lectures or who are bored and unchallenged or frustrated by doing workbook pages for long periods of time are mislabeled as immature, disruptive, or unready for school. (Brederkamp, 1997, p.20)

I was concerned because I believed in a play-based program with the children actively engaged in building on previous experiences. This was especially important because of the age differences - from three to five year old children. My concern for the Junior Kindergarten

children as they enter school in a time of great change is illustrated in a note from my journal:

Talked to Doug (Grade One Teacher) and separately to Fred (Vice-Principal) re the expectations for Kindergarteners. Some of the things we are asking them to do are not in The Kindergarten Program. The Ministry therefore does not expect them of us but as a result of the EQAO testing everything is being pushed down. For instance KP'S only need to recognize and write numbers to 10 & Doug's son is up to 15. Play is out ? meaningless and irrelevant work is in. We have Jk's with us and all of the children can learn through play but the pressure is on to do "academics" in a sit down, listen, produce fashion--this is not developmentally appropriate. Must get the National Association's Green Text out for review. P.S. Kelly fell asleep on his towel today. (Callaghan, P. Reflective Journal, Nov. 14/2001)

Jacqueline D. Delong, Superintendent of Education - Program, recently conducted a review of the Grand Erie District Board of Education's Kindergarten Program and found that:

New research on early childhood learning gives greater justification for different kinds of early literacy experiences that employ appropriate direct instruction. Teachers must balance different instructional methods. It is difficult as children enter kindergarten at different entry levels, with some able to read and others unaware of the alphabet. . .The movement toward literacy instruction must be done in developmentally appropriate ways. (Delong, 2002, p.5)

As the review indicates it is the teacher's responsibility to balance instructional methods so that the Senior Kindergarten children can advance at their own speed while the Junior Kindergarten children are engaged in learning that is just being introduced. The implication for my program was the whole group instructional method of teaching employed last year when every child was new to the Jolly Phonics, Systematic Phonics Program was not going to be the answer for this year's class.(Lloyd and Wernham, 1998)

A "balanced approach" is advocated by some such as Dale Willows of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. She was a key note speaker during a November 2001 Professional Development Day and provided a hand out entitled "The Balanced and Flexible Literacy Diet". She offers as a principle of The Literacy Diet that some components are more important at certain stages. (Willows, 2001) She recommends the "Jolly Phonics" program and includes in her handout an article about an Ontario school that used her approach and Jolly Phonics with great success. (Burgess, 1996, p.3)

However, by 1992, according to an on-line article from the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory a balanced approach to literacy adopted by most teachers in the U.S. had not improved scores in reading.(Wren, 2001, p.3) Wren believes that we must customize instructional strategies to individual children rather than just the "balanced " in the classroom that Willows advocates and that I initiated last year. Further, Wren states:

Teachers are now being encouraged to look beyond the restrictions of the traditional approaches to reading instruction, and to use research evidence to gain an understanding of the reading process that allows them to make clearer and more purposeful instructional decisions. More importantly, teachers are able to use the information provided by research to customize instructional strategies to individual children's needs--rather than creating lessons based on a philosophy or an approach, teachers can examine a child's development in reading and respond with appropriate instruction. (p.4)

I feel, unlike Wren, that we must look at more of the child than just his/her reading ability and research on reading processes. Examining the child's development without examining the milieu of the classroom where he/she spends most of his/her waking hours, will likely provide less than the optimum information available. Therefore, I must find what works for each child, within my capabilities and each child's ability within Room Seven, Riverview School, Brantford, Ontario....no other time, no other place, no other people. The Action Research that I did last year will help me refine my choices for the children within those parameters.(Callaghan, 2002b)

There were two major issues affecting my plan for research. First, this year's Senior kindergarten students, who were exposed to large group Jolly Phonics instruction and minimal letter formation last year, know many of the sound/symbol relationships and are prepared to advance at about twice the rate of the Seniors from last year. Many more are sounding out words, using Jolly Phonics invented spelling in their Daily Plans and instructing the children new to our school. The parents, through our Parent Association, further endorsed this method by purchasing Jolly Phonics workbooks for the Senior Kindergarten students to consolidate their learning.

Second, the children this year were to come to school every other day for a full day rather than the every day, half day, schedule followed the previous year. Our timetable had to be reconsidered and I felt the full day for the Junior Kindergarten children would be very tiring. Therefore, I included a nap time for the first forty minutes after outdoor play at lunch.

I hoped that I would be able to work with the small group of eight Seniors while the Juniors napped. In this way I could move them ahead more quickly using the Jolly Phonics workbooks and other materials. Reviewing letter sounds with flash cards and movement would work as a whole group activity which would introduce Jolly Phonics to the Juniors.

This is what I did

By October 2001 I had made the following changes to my program as noted in correspondence written by me, for the Research Group:

• parents have been invited to an information session during my prep. time
• Jolly Phonics materials have been ordered (listed and sent to V .P .)
• small groups have moved through the progression so that they know the routines when parents work with them such as : guided reading through my little book, sentence strip matching, word matching and letter matching
• spelling of matching words with magnetic letters

(Callaghan, 2001, Draft Letter)

With the changes in place, I thought we were ready for Phonics Files, a home component of the Jolly Phonics program. To individualize the work, I required the assistance of the parents and I would involve them in their children's learning by sending informational and manipulative material home on a weekly basis. As noted in my first research project,

I wrote very short three page booklets using only those sounds mastered. I added graphics from an inexpensive disc and a page of letters so that the children could practice letter sounds and make up words. By February I began to send these home with instructions as to use and called them Friday Phonics Files. (Appendices vi, vii, viii) The games from the Jolly Phonics manual were also laminated and included. The Files would be returned to be refreshed with new material and sent home again every Friday. The Senior children now had the means to move ahead and the Juniors were not burdened with tasks they could not handle. (Callaghan, 2002b, p.2-3)

However, plans were affected because one of the four kindergarten classes were closed and the children were reassigned to the other three classes. My Journal Entry of Oct. 4th indicates that the pupil numbers, as of Oct. 22, would be 22 on odd days and 23 on even days. The impact on my research project I felt would include:

• a larger number of children will not have had a first year with me and a month of working with the above routines, so there will be extensive catch up delays
• The parents of my present children were invited to a demonstration on October l2th. It is physically impossible to be prepared to extend the invitation to the "new" parents, so how can I ethically include the whole group in my research project if they have not been offered the same opportunities?
• the children were being taught in a small group of 8 and 10. That opportunity will disappear with the additional children
• my energy will be diverted to providing resources for and re-teaching routines for at least a month

(Callaghan, Action Research Project Initial Notes for First Draft, P. 3)

I seriously considered dropping the Research before investing anything else in it. At the Brantford Action Research Network meeting of Oct 17th, they persuaded me that I should not drop my research although the numbers were high for small group sessions. Some of their suggestions I incorporated over the course of the research, such as trying different ways to work with small groups. So I continued and the first weekly Phonics Files were sent home October 24th. (Callaghan, Reflective Journal, Oct 18, 2001)

What were my next steps?

When the fourth KP class closed, the Preparation Time teacher, Karen Schrader remained assigned to kindergarten and worked with my Odd Day class for two 40 minute periods. A parent volunteered to come in until January (when she was expecting a baby) and sit with the Junior children during that forty minutes which was scheduled for their nap time. So for a two-month period, we were able to work with the odd day Seniors as small groups of four or five. In this way we were able to do some shared reading with little books, practice tricky words, write, do Jolly Phonics workbook pages and other fun activities such as using shaving cream to write sounded out words.

I changed my practice in other aspects of the classroom as I became more familiar with the program. For instance, when the children were writing their daily plans for their choice of activity centres, I always encouraged them to sound and write the letters they heard. Because that requires at least two distinct skills, I usually asked them to look at me while I sounded the words for them very slowly and they said the letter names they needed to write. However, I noted that while printing one letter, they often forgot what letter came next and would ask me to repeat the enunciation. So I began asking them to "show me". I would slowly enunciate the word and they would say the first sound while doing the gestures from the Jolly Phonics, and then move on to the next letter. By Oct. 22nd, I reflected in my Journal, "No one asked me again although they may have asked their peers." (Callaghan, Reflective Journal Entry, Oct 22/2001) They appeared to have internalized the process.

When January arrived, we felt the Juniors no longer needed nap time so they began completing simple phonics sheets of the current letter and coloured them. Now, however, either Karen or I had to supervise them while working with one or two Seniors. The remaining Seniors worked in the other KP classroom with the other teacher. At this point I lost my parent volunteer when she had a baby boy!

The needs of the students began to change so I was torn as to which group--the Juniors or Seniors--would receive more help. I shared my concerns at a January 17/2002 meeting of our Project Group and received some welcome validation from Heather Knill-Griesser, our Primary Consultant, as noted in the story I wrote after that occasion:

I then went on to explain that I felt my Senior children would have to be put into a holding pattern because my time was now needed to move the Juniors ahead. They are all four years old now, have the behaviours needed and the small muscle control to begin printing in earnest. They need my time to give them the boost to the next level. That means that I would no longer be available to lead the Seniors to new levels. As my learning to increase their knowledge of reading is the main focus of the research, I was feeling pretty negative about things.

After a big long silence that went on forever, Heather reached out and turned things around. She told me that the Senior Kindergarten children were not in a holding pattern, rather they were able to work independently because of my teaching. She thought they would be fine while I spent the needed time with the Juniors. . . Wow, instead of bemoaning my fate and feeling I was short changing the Seniors, I had reason to celebrate their success and independence. The behaviours hadn't changed but the language about them had. It is amazing what you don't see when you are too close to a situation. I will go back to school on Monday re-energized and confident that I am making a difference and will continue to do so. (Callaghan, Network Sharing)

After that discussion, I planned to have two of my most advanced children each act as mentors for one other child. Let me introduce these children. Sammy, one of the SK children, was an excellent mentor and brought Alexis(another SK) along so that she is now confident supervising the work of other Seniors. However, Reilly and Thomas, two other seniors, were not a good fit and Thomas did not succeed in that milieu. I videotaped some sessions and learned that much of the discussions that occurred were social rather than academic. (Callaghan, Video, 2002)

Another strategy that I used was reading buddies. Our Grade Three class became the Kindergarten Reading Buddies. Mrs. Macleod, the Grade Three teacher, took the Seniors and her better readers into the other KP classroom in our small group time slot on Day 3. I kept the Juniors and some of her poorer readers. The Grade Three children read a story to the Juniors and worked on letter sounds. In my classroom, we usually completed the sessions by singing Jolly Jingles together. (Grierson, 2000)

Some Qualitative Indicators of Success

Colleagues

Colleagues provided some indication that changes in my practice coincided with a positive outcome for the Seniors. When Karen was asked to work with the small group, including Kobe, an ESL child, and Kyle, a Senior, on the sounds of the Jolly Phonics flash cards, she remarked, "You are to be commended as a teacher, they know them all. My own SK doesn't know those sounds." (Callaghan, Personal Communication/Reflective Journal entry Nov. 1, 2001)

Heather Knill-Griesser, a GEDSB Primary Consultant, pointed out that my Seniors, ". . .were able to work independently because of my teaching. She thought they would be fine while I spent the needed time with the Juniors." As mentioned above, three of four children thrived in that situation.(Callaghan, Network Sharing and Validation) Bonnie Kutche, our Itinerant Early Literacy Teacher who had worked with a small group of my children was convinced that they were further advanced than the children from the previous year, ". . .in some cases the children read almost independently." (Callaghan, Personal Correspondence, April 10, 2002) She has included slides of one of my small group sessions doing Guided Reading together in a presentation for Board workshops. Margaret Macleod, the Grade Three teacher often commented in the staff room that some of the Kindergarten children at Reading Buddy time can read better than some of her students.

Parents

Parents also have commented on the effectiveness of my use of the Jolly Phonics Program in helping their children to learn to read. Sammy's mother expressed her satisfaction on December 20th:

I have Sammy reading out of books now. I can't believe it, she is only 5. Of course I have to help her with the 'bossy e'. At first I didn't know about all this (makes the hand signals for K and C from Jolly Phonics) but it really works. (Callaghan, Personal Communication/Reflective Journal entry 12/01)

Students

Students provided most of the evidence of the improved learning and sometimes I almost missed it. Sammy taught Alexis how to work independently in her Daily Plan book. Alexis sometimes made use of the gestures while Sammy sounded out words or said letter names. She internalized many of the letter sound/names and wrote some words more confidently without the gestures. (Callaghan, Video, 55.3 - 49.40, 2002)

I noted in my journal on Tues. Mar. 5th that Sammy, on her own, "at cut & paste made a little book called Little Rabbit. Neat - I have a copy for my evidence file." The book has four pages and a cover. The illustrations and print match but I do not know which came first. Using corrected spelling, the book reads as follows: cover - "The Little Rabbit", page 1 - "The Little Rabbit was hopping along.", page two - "Some friends walk." page three - "The little pig." page four - "The night."

I was impressed with Sammy's ability to use her skills to spell phonetically. The spelling is not conventional, but the writing does reflect some of her own speech patterns. If you listen closely to Sammy, word endings may be slightly "off" such as using a 'k' inflection rather than a 'g' at the end of pig and she spelled pig as "pik". I am excited about her ability to use phonics in her writing.

In analyzing Sammy's writing for the successful use of phonics as a tool, I had been oblivious to the feat she had really accomplished!

Three weeks after Sammy became an author, I was reviewing data that I had written on March 3rd. for my research. Immediately my mind went to Sammy's book. After a bit of a search I found my photo of her book, cross-checked with my Journal for the date and entry and reflected on what else was happening in my classroom while I was "looking the other way."

Most children write "all about"stories--all about their dog or cat, all about their family, or all they know about basketball. Once in a while, you may have a student who attempts to write fiction, usually beginning his or her story with the words"Once upon a time. . ." In kindergarten, fiction is not as familiar as the"all about" stories and should be recognized for the writing feat that it is.(Hall and Cunningham, p.67)

Was I becoming too focused on my "question"? Was I narrowing my search for indicators of success too much? The answer is yes! I almost missed the significance of a child's attitude. If the use of phonics was not being encouraged and enjoyed in the classroom and at home, the children would not have the tools they needed to write what they wanted to write. If the children could not write what they wanted to and/or could not read what they wanted to that would be reflected in their attitude to reading and writing.

Kindergarten children at all different literacy levels must sense that they are making progress if their eagerness and excitement is to sustain them through the hard work of learning to read and write. (Cunningham & Hall, p. 4)

Did I have evidence of their attitudes? In the next excerpts from my journal, I provide evidence that many students had experienced a change in attitudes. Tears still come to my eyes when I reflect on the last day before March Break. It was one of those days that make you realize why you are in the profession.

My advanced group were working together reading Just Me And My Puppy by Mercer Mayer with Dylan doing most of the oral reading. I asked them to write what they would do with a puppy of their own. Alice and Katelyn wrote, " I will play with my puppy." Dylan wrote that he would take his puppy for a walk and added "I would make him bark at a cat" in response to my query. Later as authors they read their work to the class. They laughed on cue at Dylan's work and listened politely to Alice. Katelyn wiggled uncomfortably and said "Mine's the same as Alice's." I responded "Katelyn are you trying to tell me that next time you might write something?" She nodded and I asked the children to give her a hand because she had learned something that all writers do, "they edit their work, read it and change it to what they want it to say." (Callaghan, Reflective Journal March 8)

With a group of slightly weaker students, I employed some additional strategies. My mid-level group had the benefit of some strategies I learned at a Kindergarten Conversations meeting where the video, "Using Interactive Writing, To Strengthen Your Students' Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Skills, K-1" was shown(Bureau of Education & Research, 1998). Because Jordan had missed the previous session, I directed a lot of questions to her such as "What do you notice about the page?" She would make no comments about the print pages, but noticed many things about the picture pages. Justin, who had difficulty putting sounds together to recognize a word, used his previous experience and noticed how many words were on a page. He commented, "Words have white spaces." while pointing between the words. Jordan and another student who had been busy counting letters, then recounted the words. Together we held up our hands and pointing at our thumb said "Word." Then sliding our counter finger down between our thumb and index finger we said "Space" then back up to a finger tip saying "Word". Faces lit up and Justin commented, "Hey, a pattern!" When we were finished Justin went to sit on the carpet and enthusiastically informed Cody, "I love reading!"

I used that opportunity to teach the whole class about exclamation marks as we wrote Justin's words on our chart paper. Now they recognize an "excitement" mark and together read "I love reading!" whenever I pointed to the line.

Later at centre time, two of the Junior Kindergarten children built a truck to carry the mail from our Post Office. In response to a question, they got a small black board and chalk to write a sign for their truck. I started to enunciate their words very slowly and they took turns printing letters. They proudly gave anyone who asked a tour of their "POST Truc"(Callaghan, Reflective Journal, March 8, 2002).

Some quantitative evidence

In 2000-2001, in my first action research project, the kindergarten students made significant gains. Bonnie Kutsche our Early Literacy Teacher tested 12 of the Senior children on their letter sound/names and was pleasantly surprised at the results. Two children knew all 25 of the single sounds, three confused only b or d, four lacked five or less sounds, one (hearing impaired and difficult to understand) knew 18 of the sounds and finally the youngest child of the group knew 16 of the 25 sounds tested.

In 2001-2002, the action research project involved both Junior and Senior kindergarten students and even greater gains were achieved. In February 2002, Jane Ion, an Educational Assistant tested this year's Junior and Senior children on several strands of the program. At that time, the children had been introduced to all the letter sounds in the Jolly Phonics material. Of the twelve Senior children tested, five knew all 26 of the single sounds. Four lacked five or less sounds and two knew 18 sounds. Of the two with 18 sounds, one had not been with us as a Junior and the other child was an English as a second language student who joined us as a Junior in 2001 understanding no English at all. The final child knew 16 sounds and she had been with us for only two months.

How could I show that I took care that my judgements were reasonably fair and accurate?

The validation of my impact on the children's learning comes from several different areas. Colleagues and Consultants have validated my judgements. Students themselves, on video and through work samples provide the bulk of the evidence and parents round out the group. This triangulation assures that judgements are reasonably fair and accurate.

What conclusions did I draw from my evidence?

The evidence corroborates that student learning has improved as I have changed my practice. The Senior Kindergarten children are advancing more quickly and further than the children from last year. Some of my Seniors are writing about their plans and doing four sentences in their Daily Plan books whereas the most advanced of last year's children wrote three sentences, mostly reporting what they had done, by the end of the year. The Junior children, who orally echo the learning of the Seniors, will not likely require the scaffolding that this year's Seniors needed. Despite my earlier frustration, I found that it is possible to find time for small group instruction despite high numbers of children but it requires the will and support of the entire school staff.

I had to change my strategies and expectations from large group to small group and this change in my expectations for the Seniors has enabled them to progress at rates faster than their predecessors. Smaller changes in teaching methods such as "show me" engendered by the make up of the Jolly Phonics program proved effective for some children.

Parental support is critical. Parents of the Juniors came to the school to make up flash cards for the Phonics Files which were sent home with the Junior children as we moved through the seven books of the Jolly Phonics program.

I also learned the importance of sustained support and making connections. The research project group were important for validating my claims and for ongoing encouragement. By participating in the research community outside my board, I made connections that continue to improve my practice. I shared my research with the Scholar's Choice Sales Manager at the Ontario Educational Research Council Conference in December. She indicated that she would like us to review more of the Jolly Phonics materials and made a subsequent visit to our school. When she arrived to meet with the vice principal and I, she brought a copy of "Jolly Jingles" and the CD(Grierson 2000) . The Junior Kindergarten children were completely engrossed in the music, movement and letter sounds when we played it, so much so that one group insisted on singing along with all forty songs. . .Seniors included.

Conclusion

Dr. Jack Whitehead, a Lecturer in Education and a member of the Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice at the University of Bath, read a synopsis of what I was doing in my classroom. The object was to determine if there was a basis for further research that could lead to a Master's Degree in Education. He pointed out, "It is right there in your conclusion." This is what he was reading:

I feel that it is within the constantly moving dynamics of my classroom; in this place, at this time that I can discover how to provide the optimum learning situation for each of the children in my care. It is with reflection on the data and collaboration with my colleagues and critical friends that I can hope to improve my practice and use appropriate instruction. Working from the inside to provide insightful observations, evidence and conclusions should be a valuable contribution to our body of knowledge about learning (Callaghan, Research Proposal, 2002c).

The words he chose to emphasize were "constantly moving dynamics" and he convinced me that the way to capture this was on video. How I wish that the entire day of March 8th, tribulations and successes was on tape because that one day contained all the evidence anyone would require of the abilities and attitudes of the readers and writers in my care.

The children have reached at least the same levels in February that last year's children could claim in June. They show signs of continued growth and I have great hopes for them. The Juniors are still enchanted by the learning happening in the room. When I and the children have days like March the 8th and children like Sammy write fiction, how can there be any doubt. . .but yet. . .could I do it better? I wonder?

References

Bassey, M. (1999). Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham: Open University.

Bredekamp, Sue, Editor. (1987). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age 8. Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, Sue and Copple, Carol, Editors. (1997). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs. Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children

Bureau of Education and Research, Editors.(1998). Using Interactive Writing to Strengthen Your Students' Phonemic Awareness and Phonics Skills. video.

Burgess, Mae.(May/June 1996, 2-8). "Balancing the literacy program" in FWTAO/FAEO Newsletter. Toronto.

Callaghan, P. (2001). "Action Research Project Initial Notes for First Draft" draft letter written to the Grand Erie District School Board, Brantford, Ontario.

Callaghan, P. (2002). "Network Sharing and Validation." Unpublished Manuscript. Written for the Action Research Project Group, Grand Erie District School Board, Brantford, Ontario.

Callaghan, P. (2002). "How Can I Effectively Teach a Systematic Phonics Program to a Combined Junior and Senior Kindergarten Class in a Developmentally Appropriate Way?". Unpublished Manuscript. First Year Action Research Paper written for Grand Erie District School Board, Brantford, Ontario.

Callaghan, P. (2002). "Research Proposal" Unpublished Paper. Submitted for comment to Doctor J. Whitehead of the University of Bath, guest lecturer for the Action Research Project Group, Grand Erie District School Board, Brantford, Ontario.

Callaghan, P. (2002). Videotape transcript of Daily Plan Time, February 11, 2002.

Delong, J.(2002). The Kindergarten Program Review. Presented to The Chair and members of the Grand Erie District School Board, Brantford, Ontario.

Grierson, Arlene. (2000). Jolly Jingles. Cligwell U.K.: Jolly learning Ltd.

Hall, Dorothy P. and Cunningham, Patricia M. (1997) Month-by-Month Reading and Writing for Kindergarten Systematic, Multilevel Instruction. Greensboro: Carson-Dellosa.

Lloyd, S. and Wernham, S. (1998). The Phonics Handbook 3rd Ed. United Kingdom: Jolly Learning Ltd. 1998.

Lloyd, S. and Wernham, S. (Undated). Using Jolly Phonics. Video. United Kingdom: Jolly Learning Ltd.

Mayer, Mercer.(1985). Just Me and My Puppy. Racine: Western Publishing.

McNiff, Jean, Lomax, Pamela and Whitehead, Jack. (1996). You and Your Action Research Project. New York: Routlege McNiff, Jean. Action Research for Professional Development. On-line, 2002. Retrieved Jan 19, 2002. Available http://www.jeanmcniff.com/booklet1.html

Ontario Ministry of Education. The Kindergarten Program. Toronto, 1998. Spalding, Romalda Bishop and Walter T. Spalding, The Writing Road to Reading. New York: Quill, 1986.

Sutton, Ruth, The Learning School. Salford: RS Publications, 1997.

Willows, Dr. Dale. The Balanced and Flexible Literacy Diet. Toronto: OISE, 2002.

Wren, Sebastian. "What does a Balanced Literacy approach Mean?" In 2001 Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.(On-line). Retrieved Jan. 19, 2002. Available http://www.sedl.org/reading/topics/balanced.html (1/19/02)