Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, now in its fifth year of implementation, offers classroom teachers an efficient structure for teaching reading, writing, listening and communicating at the kindergarten and first grade level.    It gives teachers tools to make effective learning fun for the gifted as well as average and at-risk children.  Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers has also been successfully used with at risk children in higher grade levels through early intervention programs. 

Each year enhancements have been added to strengthen the program as an effective core reading curriculum. Initially released as Jack and Jilly Readers, Dr. Cupp Readers® was expanded to include journal writing in 2003.  In 2004, a more extensive readiness piece was added to serve children not yet ready to start Book 1 when entering kindergarten. 

Successfully implemented in urban, suburban and rural environments, Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers offers explicit, systematic instruction, paced to skill mastery. The sixty-book program addresses the key elements identified by the National Reading Panel as critical in the teaching of reading (see comparative chart below). 

While addressing these components of effective reading instruction, it also provides lessons in spelling, character education, writing and motivation as well as a parent-involvement-in-learning module. 

The National Reading Panel, the National Research Council, the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) and the National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) all advocate systematic, explicit instruction in beginning reading.  Systematic methods teach skills and concepts in a planned, organized and logically progressive sequence.  Multiple practice activities when purposefully integrated help students master and retain new skills.  Explicit instruction combines a clearly stated purpose and explanation with teacher modeling.  Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers incorporates all these elements into its sequence of instruction, allowing for individual learning styles and abilities. 

The core instruction in Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers centers around sixty stories containing both decodable and sight word text.  Each 16-page booklet contains Ten Minute Phonics® lessons plus stories and activities to reinforce sight words, self-correction, self-confidence, vocabulary, and fluency. 

Strengths:

• A comprehensive teacher’s manual which provides simple explanations and integrated strategies for regular (often daily) assessment at each level.  It also contains beneficial recommendations from a 16-year veteran of the classroom.

• Games and fun activities which feed motivation in each lesson (Hop N Pop sight word practice continues to be a favorite among students). 
  
   
• Sight words in Dr. Cupp Readers® are introduced four at a time.  Practice with these words occurs in both text and in isolation (sight word lists).  They are also repeated in subsequent lessons and the sight word list expands with four new words added in each lesson. This aids children in beginning to read successfully right away. 
  
   
• At least eighty-five to ninety-five percent (85-95%) of the text contains words already introduced in previous les­sons.  This not only allows the stories to become more complex in terms of vocabulary, compre­hension and interest, but also greatly increases the chances a child will succeed and begin a real reading experience within the first few lessons. 
  
   
• The remaining five to fifteen percent (5-10%) of the text are newly introduced decodable words children see when they begin the booklet.
  
   
• Clear labels identify “tricky words” that do not follow phonics rules and these words are explicitly taught.
  
   
• Each student moves to the next level only when they have mastered the key ingredients of a particular book.  Instilling confidence and skills early in the process avoids the “layering” of reading difficulties that occur when a curriculum moves too fast for student abilities.

• Within small group instruction, individual participation and small group acti­vities create chances for more intensive teaching.  This is especially important for struggling “at-risk," readers who may move at a slower pace and be “left behind” with more conventional curriculum. 

• Unlike many comprehensive beginning-reading curricula, Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers allows flexibility and simplicity in individualizing instruction without introducing different materials.  Built into each booklet is convenient space for notations and single student test results.  Exceptional students who progress more quickly have extensions such as the “After Dr. Cupp Readers®” reading list to move them into real literature or higher level activities.

• Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers targets comprehension, a critical area not addressed explicitly by many beginning reading series, and treats it as an integral part of the learning-to-read process.  Daily response to questions (both verbal and written) builds understanding and increase oral language abilities.  In the first grade component (Booklets 31-60) precise oral language lessons move comprehension to a more advanced level with open-ended, thought-provoking inquiries rather than simple regurgitation of facts.

This research is descriptive in nature and combines elements of both qualitative and quantitative study.  Student populations involved in this research include kindergarten and first grade classes with both gifted and special needs children, English Language Learners, and Early Intervention Program (EIP) classes serving children up to 9 years of age.  The majority of students are from public schools in Georgia, although a Tennessee school also participated.  The percentage of students on free and reduced lunch (often used as an indicator of risk) at these schools ranged from 8% to 83% with the average being 42%.

The limited approach of this study is to evaluate test scores from a variety of sources to summarize and evaluate the effectiveness of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers in teaching kindergarten and first graders to read.  That was determined by a review of results from criterion-based, diagnotistic, norm-referenced and informal assessments including Lexia, BLT (Basic Literacy Test), GKAP (the Georgia Kindergarten Assessment), GCRCT (the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test), IRI’s (informal reading inventories), STAR (a Renaissance Learning tool) and DIBELS (Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy Skills) for over 3,000 students.  These scores represent students from schools using Dr. Cupp’s materials primarily as their curriculum for K-1 reading.  Observations and insights from individual teachers and administrators using the program in their schools are also included. 

In the course of the 2004-2005 school year, Independent Literacy Consulting (the researcher for this report) also tracked progress of over 6,000 students using the Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers curriculum on a monthly basis through the PayDay Update Program.  Details on each child’s and each class’s progress were recorded monthly and distributed to the schools to include in their on-going assessment of students and instruction.  This program also gave schools the opportunity to request on-site staff development directly from the creator of the program, Dr. Cindy Cupp, to enhance effectiveness.  Forty-five schools participated, many of who implemented a three-group rotation method for small group instruction, focusing on 15-20-minute increments of time.  This allowed for more individualized instruction for students with similar needs. 

The following chart shows average progress in number of sight words mastered among students followed in the study:

                             Beginning Average Number                Ending Average Number

Grade Level        of Sight Words Mastered (9/04)        of Sight Words Mastered (5/05)

The PayDay Update Program tracked not only those schools using Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers as an integral part of their reading curriculum in K and 1^st grade but also those using these materials as a supplementary part of reading instruction. Although the improvement of students certainly points out the positive role Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers may play in the latter schools, it is not stand-alone evidence of the material’s effectiveness.  To reach that conclusion, we evaluated a subgroup of schools.

 

In the evaluation of over 6,000 students being taught with Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers:

Ø      Twenty-one percent (21%) of kindergarteners finished Book 30 of the Readers (ended the year knowing all 116 kindergarten sight words).

Ø      On the first grade level, nearly 46% finished their 60^th booklet in Dr. Cupp Readers®, reaching a reading level of 2.1 and knowing over 270 sight words.  In many cases, those students were ready to move forward into guided reading and more advanced curriculum before leaving first grade.

Ø      Among the over 3,000 students assessed, 98.87% made progress in their reading abilities.

Ø      The introduction of the new Readiness Booklets and additional staff development from Dr. Cindy Cupp in March of 2005 brought marked results among the most at-risk kindergarten students in a suburban Atlanta, GA school system.  After introduction of these additional components, the number of children identified as most at risk (by informal teacher assessments and correlation to Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers) was cut in half from 6% to 3%. 

As has historically been the case, independent test scores from a variety of sources reflect the effectiveness of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers as an early reading curriculum.

Among reporting schools using Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers most often assessed students with DIBELS (The Dynamic Indicator of Basic Early Literacy), STAR (from Renaissance Learning) and DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment).  Several schools also provided documentation of results from BLT (Basic Literacy Test) and Lexia assessments for evaluating student progress. 

KINDERGARTEN:

 

Results from DIBELS testing of 701 kindergarteners learning with Dr. Cupp Readers® show the following outcomes:

                                                              DIBELS

 

                                                                                Average           Average         Average

                                                      Beginning             Ending       Improvement

                                                         Score                Score

* K = Kindergarten

When reviewing the 590 kindergarten students whose schools tested in DIBELS three times during the year, 65% of them began with at-risk levels of letter naming fluency.  By the end of the school year, that was reduced to 11%.  Similar reductions were observed in phonemic segmentation and nonsense word fluency, which were tested at mid-year and year end (28% reduced to 12% and 20 reduced to 8%, respectively).

DRA

The results reported by six suburban schools (representing 333 students) who tested all their kindergarten students at year end using the DRA showed that 88% of students met benchmark.  98% of students were at benchmark or within one point of same (only 6 of the 40 students who did not make benchmark were lower than a score of 3).

FIRST GRADE:

 

The following pages provide a summary of average first grade outcomes:

DIBELS

 Average               Average

                                                                        Beginning                Ending              Average

                                        Score                  Score            Improvment

*Established level
+Average at “low risk” level

The 375 students assessed with DIBELS represent gifted, average and at-risk and learning disabled students in a variety of classrooms including inclusion groups.  At the end of a full year of first grade instruction with Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, 79% of them scored at the “established” level for phonemic segmentation which correlated closely to their results in oral reading fluency. At the beginning of their first grade school year, that same group’s initial testing showed only 44% meeting the “established” benchmark.  Less than 1% (including EIP students) scored in the “deficient” level at the end of first grade. 

When a group of Early Intervention Program (EIP) students are viewed individually, evidence suggests that Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers is effective with them as a target group.  A Title I school in rural Georgia with a free and reduced lunch percentage of 72% saw 63% of their second grade EIP program meet or exceed benchmark for regular second grade students on the DIBELS assessment (that is, they scored 90 points or higher).  

STAR/BLT
                                                                                       Average

                                  Average                     Average                         Improvement

                                Fall  Score                 Spring Scores                  Fall to Spring

Although widespread statistics are meaningful in examining overall effectiveness, observing the impact in a smaller subgroup (in this case students performing at grade level at the beginning of the testing versus students performing below expectations at that same time) reveals more details.  Of the 391 first grade students assessed with STAR, 42.46% began at less than a 1.0 level, indicating a significant number of at-risk students.  In contrast, at the end of the school year’s teaching from Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, that percentage been reduced to 26.60%.   When examining the 166 students that initially did not meet grade level, 39 students moved to grade level and above and 127 of them (76%) improved more than one grade level.  Of special note is the fact that, of the seven students who began with a STAR score of zero (indicating that they were unable to test successfully even at a 0.1 level at the beginning of first grade), six of them completed the school year with a score of 2.0 or higher.  The remaining two improved 1.5 and 1.6 grade levels, reaching a level within six months of the target second grade reading level.  Only 2% of the 391 students tested made no progress. 

Results from a group of second grade EIP students attending a school with 71% of students on free and reduced lunch showed an average improvement from 1.29 STAR grade equivalency to 2.5.  Seven of these eleven students improved more than a grade level during the year. 

DRA

First grade DRA test scores were less frequently provided in the study.  However, among 87 students at two suburban schools with an average 23% free and reduced lunch, 76% of students met the first grade benchmark by the middle of the school year (no end of year DRA assessment was conducted).  Of the remaining 24%, 16% of those were only one point below benchmark at mid-year and less than 1% were expected to fall short of benchmark by year’s end.

Georgia CRCT

The Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test is a yardstick to evaluate how well students are learning the Quality Core Curriculum established by the Georgia Department of Education.  In an overview of nearly 300 students’ scores among schools using

Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, 90% of students met or exceeded standards.  Nearly half that number fell into the “exceeds standards” category.

 

Connections to scientifically based reading research are important considerations when evaluating a core reading and writing curriculum.  Details of research connections have been documented extensively in previous years’ reports and are available upon request from Cupp Publishing, Inc. or the independent researcher, Cathy Puett Miller (via email at cathypmiller@comcast.net).  Most recent conclusions from scientifically based reading research continue to support the approach of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers in all five dimensions identified by the National Reading Panel.  A few are referenced here for your information:

PHONEMIC AWARENESS: 

Linnea Ehri and Simone Nunes of the Graduate Center of the City University of New York published a 2001 article for Reading Research Quarterly entitled “Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read:  Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis”.  In this article, the researchers confirm the proven advantage of incorporating letter instruction into phonemic awareness instruction.  Dr. Cupp’s Alphamotion Cards simultaneously teach children letters and sounds.  The article also points out that, when children were taught in small groups rather than individually or in classrooms, the impact was more significant.  Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers lends itself well to instruction in smaller groups where individualized attention can be directed as needed with similarly-skilled students.

PHONICS:

Elfrieda. H. Hiebert in her 1999 article for The Reading Teacher, “Text matters in learning to read”, advocates use of text that offers “practice with high-frequency words, along with opportunities to apply decoding skills and use meaning-based cues”.  Each of Dr. Cupp’s Readers® provides this balance through the use of controlled vocabulary texts, sight word practice (and inclusion of those same sight words in stories), practice sessions for decoding both isolated words and words in context, and the Dr. Detective segment which focuses on comprehension and test-taking.  The Beat the Tiger activity adds practice and incentive in self-correction and fluency.

The comprehensive design of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers is build on the concept that phonics is only a part of teaching children to read.  Researchers such as Patricia and James Cunningham (creators of the Four Block framework) advocate that balanced method as well, recommending no more than one quarter of language arts time be devoted to phonics instruction.  In each lesson of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, a consistent but limited timeframe is designated for phonics instruction through Ten Minute Phonics®.  Although many students follow the phonics instruction included in each booklet, with the separate Ten Minute Phonics Toolbox, students can easily learn and practice at different levels.  If they are still working on sight word and activity sheets in Book 25, for instance, but have mastered the phonics component for that segment, they can move ahead.

FLUENCY:

The controlled vocabulary and duplication of words in each Dr. Cupp Reader® story permit students to practice a variation of repeated reading whenever they read aloud or silently.  Research such as that from Stephen Stahl, et al, in 2000 found that this type of reading produces statistically significant improvement in reading speed, word recognition and oral reading expression. 

VOCABULARY:

Cunningham and Stanovich (1997) reported, in their  study, that vocabulary as assessed in grade 1 predicts more than 30 percent of grade 11 reading comprehension.   They further report that “the bulk of vocabulary growth during a child’s life occurs indirectly through language exposure rather than through direct teaching. The only opportunities to acquire new words occur when an individual is exposed to a word in written or oral language and that is outside his current vocabulary”.  Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers gives ample opportunities to build student reading and listening vocabulary, especially in the Oral Language Lessons from Books 31-60 (the 1^st grade curriculum).  The “language exposure” suggested in Cunningham and Stanovich’s study is implemented in group discussions, where important vocabulary/concepts such as responsibility (character trait) and summarizing (a comprehension skill) are talked about repeatedly.  These terms are related to both the text being read and to the student’s background knowledge, reinforcing learning.

COMPREHENSION:

Barbara M. Taylor, researcher from the University of Minnesota, and her colleague from University of California at Burkley, Dr. P. David Pearson, highlighted research conducted for the Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement in 2004 in an article entitled “Research on Learning to Read—at School, at Home and in the Community”. Their findings support consistent use of higher-level questions as a method positively related to students' growth in reading fluency and comprehension in grade 1.  A variety of those type questions appear in the Oral Language Lessons from Books 31-60 of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers.

Importance of Small Group Instruction

Vaughn and other researchers recently conducted a meta-analysis of the extent to which variation in effect sizes for reading outcomes for students with disabilities was associated with grouping format for reading instruction.  Small groups were found to yield the highest effect sizes. This finding is bolstered by the results of a meta-analysis conducted by Lou and others in 1996 of small-group instruction for students without disabilities, which yielded significantly high effect sizes for small-group instruction.  The findings from this meta-analysis reveal that students in small groups in the classroom learned significantly more than students who were not instructed in small groups.

Finally, most researchers today advocate a balanced approach to literacy, a term originally introduced in the 1990’s by Dr. Michael Pressley, a researcher from Michigan State University.  Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers mirrors Dr. Pressley‘s definition (“deliberate and planful, delivered by a teacher who can stick to his or her plan, covering the entire scope and sequence expected in primary grade literacy instruction, while responding to needs of individual children”) through its thorough teacher’s manuals, specific scope and sequence, and adaptability for needs of individual children.  

The design of Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers allows teachers to plan quickly and simply, based on what their students need to know.  Guidance for less experienced teachers includes fill-in-the-blank charts and tables for lesson planning.  Once a teacher learns to teach Book 1, they are equipped to teach the entire series.  Its design also guides teachers to differentiate instruction and move students at different paces in each skill area when necessary.  The result is that each student receives the instruction and support they need to become a successful reader. 

Perhaps the most suitable way to close out this summary is to allow the words of teachers and administrators surveyed as part of the qualitative study to speak:

I have taught reading for over a decade, using a variety of  “the newest,”  “the glitziest” and “the best” reading series that the big companies could devise.  In all of those years, I have never encountered a stronger or more effective program than the Dr. Cupp Readers™. One LD student who was repeating kindergarten because he had “failed” with a mainstream program, brought me a yellow rose last fall. “Thank you for making me not stupid anymore,” he told me.  That success would not have been possible without this program.  On the other end of the scale, my higher performing students could easily read Level 2 Accelerated Reader books and take the tests independently.  Best of all, all my students are unbelievably enthusiastic about reading with Jack and Jilly.

“I use it because it works,” says one teacher, “and I don’t have to reinvent the wheel every year to know that my students will learn to read and love to read.”

Among six first grade classes in a school with 50% of students on free and reduced lunch, 83.33% met or exceeded GCRCT standards with only 16.67% below recommended levels. According to their administrator, “the small group instruction Dr. Cupp recommends provided students with opportuni­ties to be more focused and receive instruction without disruption or di­gression.  This led to better performance at all levels.”  She also indicated that the limited timeframe prompted teachers to “deliver intensive, explicit instruction”.

 

“This has been a GREAT experience for me and my students.  They thoroughly enjoyed this program and have learned more than I ever imagined
a kindergarten child could learn.”

“We used three group rotation in kindergarten and in first grade classes for small group instruction. This arrangement kept all students focused and on task for the entire period set aside for reading instruction. As a result, our teachers saw a lot of gain from all of our students (even those who initially spoke no English).”

And from a teacher in a school in northwest Georgia (58% free/reduced lunch):  “My class has achieved 100% literacy this year -- a feat that has never happened before no matter what I tried.   I always had at least one child struggling that just couldn't seem to "get it.  This year I had 5 Hispanic children. Two started the year with little or no English speaking skills. The other 3 were still very limited. All 5 are now reading successfully and reading fluently!

 

Cunningham, A. E., and Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.

Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Schuster, B., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2

Hiebert, E.H. (19999). Text matters in learning to read.  The Reading Teacher, 52, 552-566.

Kuhn, M. & Stahl, S (2000), Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices (Reports No. 2-0008). Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & D’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423-458.

Pressley, M. (2003) Balanced Literacy Instruction in the United States, online article for Michigan State University’s Literacy Achievement Research Center (http://www.msularc.org/TorontoHandbook.pdf)

Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. Elementary School Journal, 104, 328.

Vaughn, S., Marie Tejero Hughes, Sally Watson Moody, and Batya Elbaum. (2001). Instructional Grouping for Reading for Students with LD: Implications for Practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, January 2001, Vol 36, No. 3. (pp.131-137

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & D’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423-458.

This research summary has been prepared by Cathy Puett Miller, Independent Literacy Consultant, August 2005.

Cathy Puett Miller, Independent Literacy Consultant

770-365-4733 or 256-883-7005     

CathyPMiller@comcast.net

@2005 Cindy Cupp and Associates.  All rights reserved.  Schools and school districts are able to make single copies of this document for the purpose of grant applications and documentation.  Any other duplication of a part or the whole of this report is prohibited without written permission from Cindy Cupp and Associates.

For additional information about the Dr. Cupp Readers® and Journal Writers, The Readiness Program, or Ten Minute Phonics® see www.cindycupp.com

Cindy Cupp and Associates, Inc.
Savannah, Georgia  31406
Office phone   912  691-2434
Fax           912  691-1449
cindycupp@mindspring.com