1 Effects of Scaffolding on Tier 1 Literacy Instruction by Brittney Phillips A proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM INSTRUCTION & DESIGN WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah August 18th, 2025 Approved David Byrd Marilyn Taft, Ed.D. David Byrd (Aug 27, 2025 17:12:19 MDT) David Byrd, Ph.D. Jessie Nixon, Ph.D. 2 Abstract​ This study examined the relationship between scaffolding frequency in Tier 1 literacy instruction and student reading growth, using data from nine upper-elementary classrooms in two Utah schools. Drawing on Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and sociocultural theory, the research used classroom observations to track scaffolding techniques and compared those frequencies to student growth outcomes as measured by the Acadience Pathways of Progress assessment. There was a strong positive correlation (r=0.72), with scaffolding frequency explaining 53% of the variance in student growth. These findings suggest that intentional scaffolding within Tier 1 instruction plays a significant role in supporting literacy development. While the small sample size limits generalizability, the study offers valuable insight into instructional practices that can foster equitable student outcomes and guide future professional development efforts. 3 Table of Contents The Nature of the Problem ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 4 Literature Review ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 5 Introduction ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 5 The Foundation of Literacy Instruction ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 6 The Role of Scaffolding in Tier 1 Instruction ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 6 Measuring Student Growth in Literacy ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 7 Connecting Scaffolding to Student Outcomes​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 10 Theoretical Framework for the Study​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 11 Summary and Implications for the Study​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 12 Purpose of the Study ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 12 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 12 Research Design ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 13 Study Population​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 13 Sampling and Recruitment​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 14 Data Collection​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 15 Procedure​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 16 Variables​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 18 Data Analysis ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 18 Ethical Considerations​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 19 Methods ​ ​ ​ Results​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 20 Discussion ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 24 Conclusion ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 26 Reference ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 28 Appendix A​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 31​ ​ ​ 4 Effects of Scaffolding in Tier 1 Literacy Instruction The Nature of the Problem Literacy is foundational to academic success, impacting students’ ability to thrive across all subjects (Moats & Tolman, 2000). Despite this, literacy rates in the U.S. remain low, with substantial disparities across different demographic groups (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). To improve literacy rates in Utah, the Utah State Board of Education has set a goal for 70% of third-grade students to read on grade level by July 2027 and is working to provide resources and support to districts and communities to help achieve the goal (Utah State Board of Education, n.d). Additionally, the State Board set a growth goal for the 2024-25 school year of 60% of students in K-6th grade to score typical, above typical, or well above typical, as measured by Acadience Pathways of Progress (Utah State Board of Education, 2024). Davis School District, in partnership with the state of Utah, has prioritized improving early literacy instruction to address these issues. The district set its own ambitious goals for the 2024-25 school year of 72% of K-6 students to achieve typical or above-typical growth, as measured by the Acadience Pathways of Progress, to help them meet the goals and expectations of the state. Specific proficiency targets have been established for grade-level bands (Davis School District, 2024). The district promotes structured literacy to achieve these objectives, emphasizing evidence-based practices that support all learners. Structured literacy is an approach to reading instruction that is explicit, systematic, cumulative, diagnostic, and responsive. It emphasizes teaching the structure of language - phonology, orthography, morphology, syntax, and semantics - to help students develop strong decoding and language comprehension skills (Moats & Tolman, 2000). This commitment includes fostering equity in literacy instruction across the communities it serves. Davis School District uses the Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS), which implements three tiers of instruction. Tier 1 is the core instruction provided to all students in the 5 general education classroom. Ideally, it includes high-quality, evidence-based teaching that meets the needs of 80% of students. Tier 2 offers targeted small-group instruction for students not making adequate progress in Tier 1. These interventions focus on student needs and are held frequently, ideally helping 5-15% of students. Tier 3 is intensive, individualized intervention, which should be delivered to students with the most significant needs and often involves specialists or special education services (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). This study focuses on scaffolding in Tier 1 literacy instruction, exploring its potential role in supporting the district’s growth goals and ensuring equity. Focusing on Tier 1 instruction is essential as it is the foundation for all students, including those who need additional support. Research shows that strong Tier 1 practices are crucial for providing high-quality instruction that significantly impacts student achievement (Hattie, 2009) and reduces the need for more intensive interventions by addressing most learning needs early (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Prioritizing quality Tier 1 instruction allows educators to address learning gaps before they become significant, reducing the need for more intensive interventions later (Allington, 2013; Hattie, 2009). Thus, improving Tier 1 instruction is vital for achieving equity in education and fostering long-term academic success for all students. To explore how scaffolding in Tier 1 instruction can contribute to student outcomes, the following literature review examines the existing research on scaffolding practices and student outcomes. Literature Review Introduction ​ Literacy is critical to long-term academic and social success, providing students access to essential knowledge and opportunities. However, despite advancements in research and instruction, literacy achievement remains a challenge in the U.S., with significant disparities between different demographic groups (National Center for Education Statistics, 2023). These challenges often contribute to misidentifying reading disabilities and increasing reliance on intensive interventions (Anderson, 2019; Scanlon et al., 2007). To address these issues, 6 educators must focus on optimizing Tier 1 literacy instruction by implementing evidence-based practices that support all students’ learning (Archer & Hughes, 2011). This literature review explores the relationship between scaffolding in Tier 1 instruction and its effects on student learning, specifically within the Acadience Reading Pathways of Progress assessment framework. The Foundation of Literacy Instruction ​ Literacy is foundational to learning across all subjects, influencing students’ ability to succeed academically. Research suggests that up to 95% of students can achieve grade-level reading proficiency with high-quality instruction (Moats & Tolman, 2000). However, despite considerable advances in knowledge about how the brain learns to read, literacy achievement in the U.S. remains challenging. Disparities in state and national literacy scores underscore the need for more effective and equitable instructional strategies (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2023). These gaps often result in misidentification of reading disabilities, leading to unnecessary interventions (Anderson, 2019; Scanlon et al., 2007). To address these challenges, providing targeted, evidence-based support within Tier 1 instruction is critical to ensure all learners develop foundational literacy skills (Paige, 2018). The Role of Scaffolding in Tier 1 Instruction ​ Scaffolding is crucial in Tier 1 instruction, where differentiated strategies help all students access and master grade-level content (Wood et al., 1976). Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) theory emphasizes the need for tailored support to help students advance from what they can do independently to achieve with guidance (Vygotsky, 1987). Though Vygotsky did not use the term “scaffolding,” Wood et al. (1976) coined it to describe temporary support gradually withdrawn as students gain competence. Scaffolding uses strategies like feedback, direct instruction, and modeling, which enable teachers to adjust support based on student needs (Palinscar, 1986; Van de Pol et al., 2010). However, balancing 7 support and challenge is key—too much support may hinder engagement, while too little may make tasks too difficult (Taylor, 2020; Vygotsky, 1987; Wood et al., 1976). John Hattie (2009) emphasized the critical role of scaffolding in supporting student learning in his meta-analysis, Visible Learning. He stated, “Expert scaffolding is essential for cognitive development as students move from spectator to performer after repeated modeling by adults” (p. 388). While scaffolding is not always listed as a standalone influence with its own effect size, in Hattie’s work, it is embedded in high-impact practices, such as feedback with an effect size of 0.70 and teacher clarity with an effect size of 0.84. Effect sizes are statistical measures that indicate the strength of an educational strategy’s impact on student achievement, with 0.40 representing the average expected growth from a year of schooling. Research indicates that scaffolding is often mistakenly associated with Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions rather than universal Tier 1 instruction (Glogger-Frey et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2012). This misunderstanding can lead to missed opportunities to meet diverse student needs in core instruction, potentially increasing reliance on more intensive interventions. Measuring Student Growth in Literacy Formative Assessments ​ Ongoing formative assessments are integral to effective literacy instruction, providing continuous feedback on student progress. These assessments are used to monitor learning in real-time and inform instructional adjustments. By gathering data throughout the learning process, formative assessments allow educators to identify students' strengths and areas for growth, facilitating targeted interventions and personalized instruction (Black & Wiliam, 1998). In literacy, this approach helps ensure that students receive the appropriate support to meet their evolving needs, ultimately fostering improved reading comprehension and overall academic success (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Acadience Reading Assessment 8 The Acadience Reading assessment is a cornerstone for monitoring and supporting literacy development in Utah. State law mandates that students scoring below or well-below benchmark on Acadience must receive targeted intervention and ongoing progress monitoring (Utah State Board of Education, n.d). ​ Acadience Reading evaluates key literacy components, including phonemic awareness, the alphabetic principle, reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. The assessment generates actionable data that teachers use to adjust instruction and target specific student needs. Beyond classroom instruction, this data informs state reporting and funding decisions, highlighting its pivotal role in shaping educational outcomes (Acadience Learning, 2020; Utah State Board of Education, 2024). ​ Acadience is a standardized reading assessment. Its strengths lie in its ability to provide quick, reliable data that helps educators track individual student progress in critical reading skills. The assessment is efficient, easy to administer, and offers clear benchmarks for assessing student performance, making it a valuable tool for instructional decision-making. Acadience Reading is a formative assessment because it provides frequent, real-time feedback that informs ongoing instruction. By identifying students’ strengths and areas for improvement, the assessment enables teachers to make timely instructional adjustments, ensuring that Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction is responsive to student needs and promote continuous literacy growth. Pathways of Progress Framework ​ Acadience measures student proficiency - whether or not students meet grade level expectations and standards. In addition to proficiency, Acadience includes a unique growth feature called Pathways of Progress. Unlike traditional metrics that categorize students as simply “meeting” or “not meeting” grade-level expectations, Pathways of Progress assesses how much progress a student has made relative to their starting point. This personalized approach ensures that growth is supported across all ability levels, providing a more comprehensive view of literacy development (Acadience Learning, 2020). 9 The Pathways of Progress framework sorts students into five growth categories: well below typical, below typical, typical, above typical, and well above typical. These categories help educators evaluate whether students are making adequate progress and adjust their teaching strategies or interventions as needed. Utah has proficiency goals - 70% of third-grade students reading on grade level by July 2027 (Utah State Board of Education, n.d) and growth goals. Utah’s Growth Goal for the 2024-25 school year aligned with the Pathways of Progress framework, aiming for 60% of students in grades K-6 to achieve typical or better progress on their Pathways of Progress assessment (Utah State Board of Education, 2024). By emphasizing growth alongside proficiency, Pathways of Progress supports an equitable and individualized approach to literacy instruction (Acadience Learning, 2020). ​ Measuring growth is essential because it captures the learning journey, not just the endpoint. While proficiency shows whether a student has met a benchmark, it does not reflect how far a student has come. Pathways of Progress provides a more equitable lens by considering individual starting points. For example, a 5th-grade student who starts the year reading at a 2nd-grade level may progress to a 4th-grade level by the end of the year with effective instruction and support. That represents two years of growth - an impressive gain that reflects strong teaching and meaningful learning. However, if we only looked at proficiency, this student would still be labeled as “not meeting benchmark,” overlooking the significant progress made. By including Pathways of Progress, this student would be categorized as making “well above typical” growth, helping educators recognize that the proficiency gap is closing and that the instruction is effectively meeting their needs. ​ This growth-centered approach is especially valuable for multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and others needing more time or support. Educators can recognize and be responsible for improvements at all levels by focusing on growth and making inclusive and data-driven instructional decisions. This shifts the focus from labeling students to identifying how 10 instruction can accelerate progress, which is aligned with research emphasizing the need for assessment systems that account for diverse learning trajectories and promote equity (Castro et al., 2011). ​ Pathways of Progress fits squarely within the framework of progress monitoring, which involves the frequent and systematic data collection to assess student growth over time. This process helps educators determine whether students are making adequate progress toward academic goals and provides essential data for making tailored adjustments to instruction. By focusing on individual growth rather than static benchmarks, Pathways of Progress allows teachers to track changes in student performance relative to their starting point, ensuring instruction meets evolving needs and guiding timely interventions (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). For these reasons, this thesis study uses Pathways of Progress to measure instructional effectiveness. Connecting Scaffolding to Student Outcomes ​ Research has consistently shown that scaffolding positively impacts student outcomes, particularly in literacy. Studies such as Palinscar and Brown’s (1984) work on reciprocal teaching, a scaffolding technique, found that scaffolding strategies enhance students’ reading comprehension and engagement. Similarly, Wood et al. (1976) demonstrated that scaffolding facilitates cognitive development, allowing students to complete tasks they could not complete independently. This support helps bridge gaps in learning and promote independence over time. Van de Pol et al. (2010) expanded on these ideas, identifying six types of scaffolding- feedback, prompts, modeling, explaining, questioning, and providing cognitive structures- which foster improved student understanding and academic performance. ​ While the benefits of scaffolding are well-documented, there is a gap in research examining the frequency of scaffolding and its connection to reliable assessments, such as Acadience Pathways of Progress. Examining this gap is critical to understanding how consistent and intentional use of scaffolding affects student growth over time, as measured by 11 standardized assessments like Acadience. Studies have shown that scaffolding must be adapted to meet individual students’ needs (Glooger-Frey et al., 2018). However, there is limited exploration of how this translates to measurable academic progress on standardized assessments. Further research is needed to understand how scaffolding frequency correlates with growth, particularly in states like Utah, where the Pathways of Progress framework is integral to tracking literacy development. Theoretical Framework for the Study The theoretical frameworks that guide this study are rooted in Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which emphasize the importance of social interaction and scaffolding in learning. Vygotsky (1987) introduced the concept of the ZPD to explain the gap between what learners can accomplish independently and what they can achieve with guidance. This framework underpins the idea that effective learning occurs when teachers provide appropriate scaffolding, enabling students to perform tasks beyond their reach without support. This concept is fundamental to understanding how scaffolding can support student literacy development, as it focuses on the dynamic relationship between the learner, the task, and the support provided by a more knowledgeable other, such as a teacher. Building on Vygotsky’s ideas, Wood et al. (1976) coined the term “scaffolding” to describe teachers' temporary support, gradually withdrawing as students gain competence. This concept is central to the study of literacy instruction because it focuses on the role of teachers in supporting students to achieve academic success. Through structured dialogue and guided interaction, teachers use scaffolding to promote critical thinking and reading comprehension skills. This study builds on these theoretical foundations by examining how the frequency of scaffolding influences student literacy growth, specifically in the context of Utah’s standardized assessments like the Pathways of Progress. This research provides insight into effective 12 instructional strategies that foster literacy achievement by exploring the dynamic interplay between teacher support and student growth. Summary and Implications for the Study The literature review highlights the importance of scaffolding in Tier 1 literacy instruction, emphasizing its role in supporting students’ academic growth, particularly in reading. Research shows that scaffolding improves student outcomes when effectively implemented by providing targeted support that aligns with learners' needs (Vygotsky, 1987; Wood et al., 1976). However, gaps remain in understanding the frequency of scaffolding and how these factors influence student growth, particularly in relation to standardized assessments like Utah’s Acadience Pathways of Progress (Acadience Learning, 2020). The Pathways of Progress framework, which measures individual growth over time, offers a unique opportunity to explore these relationships. This study filled this gap by examining the correlation between scaffolding frequency and student outcomes as measured by the Pathways of Progress framework. Drawing from Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and formative assessment practices (Black & Wiliam, 1998), this research explored how scaffolding practices in Tier 1 literacy instruction influence student growth in alignment with Utah’s literacy initiatives. Purpose of the Study This study investigated the relationship between scaffolding frequency in Tier 1 language arts instruction and student outcomes as measured by the Acadience Pathways of Progress assessment. While scaffolding has been identified as a key practice for improving student learning, gaps remain in understanding how the frequency and quality of scaffolding impact growth, especially in relation to standardized assessments. To address this, the study posed the question: What correlation exists between the frequency of scaffolding in language arts lessons and student growth as measured by Acadience Pathways of Progress? Methods 13 Research Design ​ This quantitative study examined the correlation between the frequency of scaffolding strategies used during Tier 1 literacy instruction and student reading growth, as measured by Pathways of Progress on the Acadience Reading Assessment. No professional development on scaffolding was provided during the study period; instead, the study goal was to observe current variations in scaffolding practices across classrooms and explore how those differences related to student growth outcomes. This focus aligns directly with the district’s and state’s emphasis on improving Tier 1 instruction as the foundational level of literacy support for all students, addressing the need for equity and high-quality instruction outlined in the Nature of the Problem section. ​ Quantitative research was well-suited to this study because it provided a structured framework for collecting and analyzing numerical data, enabling a precise examination of the relationship between scaffolding strategies and student reading growth. ​ The study used a correlation design to explore the association between scaffolding attempts and students’ reading growth scores. This approach reflects the literature review’s identification of a gap in research connecting scaffolding frequency with standardized growth metrics like Pathways of Progress. Study Population ​ The teacher participants were recruited from two schools within the district where I work as a literacy coach. For this study, I focused on recruiting 3rd to 5th -grade teachers who taught Tier 1 literacy instruction daily. Only teachers using the district-approved structured literacy program were included to minimize the variables of teaching different instructional programs. ​ To maintain confidentiality, I refrained from explicitly naming these institutions in the study report, instead referring to them as School A and School B. The two schools are located within a five-mile radius of each other and serve similar demographics of students. Both schools are in suburban, middle-class communities, with families primarily residing in single-family 14 homes. Each school serves approximately 500 students and has 2-3 teachers per grade. When making class lists, administrators at both schools split students with IEPs and/or 504s as evenly as possible across general education classrooms. Both schools have a low population of English language learners. Additionally, both schools emphasize instructional coaching and are actively working to become more data-driven, particularly in using Acadience benchmark and progress monitoring, with regularly scheduled data meetings with administration and the literacy coaches. ​ Nine teachers participated in the study, with teaching experiences ranging from 2 to 15 years. Eight of the participants were female, and one was male. The group included three 3rd-grade teachers, three 4th-grade teachers, and three 5th-grade teachers. Class sizes ranged from 22 to 29 students. All classes were general education settings that included a variety of learners, including students with IEPs and 504s. Sampling and Recruitment ​ Twenty-three teachers across both schools met the criteria for participation: teaching in grades 3-5, providing daily language arts instruction, and using the district-approved structured literacy curriculum. ​ To begin the recruitment process, I first approached the principals of both schools. They permitted me to work with their teachers and encouraged staff to participate. In return, the principals requested that I share the study’s findings to help inform their future professional development plans. ​ Following principal approval, I sent an informational email to eligible teachers and briefly presented the study during faculty meetings at each school. Nine teachers volunteered to participate- six from School A and three from School B. ​ Given the limited control over the participant pool, I used convenience sampling. While this approach may not fully represent the broader population of teachers, it allowed for meaningful data collection to explore potential correlations between scaffolding and student 15 outcomes in a Tier 1 setting. These initial findings may help inform future, larger-scale research. Data Collection Instruments 1.​ Scaffolding Observation Tool: For this study, I created and used a Scaffolding Observation Tool, which can be found in Appendix A, based on Van de Pol et al.’s (2010) comprehensive review of instructional scaffolding, which identifies six distinct techniques: feedback, prompts, modeling, explaining, questioning, and providing cognitive structures. Using these categories, I developed an observational form to quantify the frequency of each technique’s use. This tool enabled precise monitoring and recording of the frequencies of scaffolding techniques employed by teachers in the classroom. This tool is explicitly grounded in Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and sociocultural theory, which emphasize the importance of tailored support that helps students progress from what they can do independently to what they can achieve with guidance (Vygotsky, 1987). It operationalizes the Wood et. al (1976) concept of scaffolding as gradual withdrawal of teacher support, making these theoretical principles measurable in the classroom context. Thus, the tool aligns with the literature review’s emphasis on capturing a detailed and varied view of scaffolding strategies grounded in established educational theory. 2.​ Measuring Academic Performance: I used Pathways of Progress data from the Acadience Reading Assessment at the end of the 2024-25 school year to measure instructional effectiveness. Pathways of Progress categorizes student growth into five levels - ranging from well below typical to well above typical - based on how much progress students make relative to peers with similar starting points. This study focused on the percentage of students in 16 each class who demonstrated typical or better growth, which reflects meaningful progress, even for students not yet at grade-level proficiency. Using norm-referenced comparison, Pathways’ primary purpose in this study was to capture individual growth over time. The Acadience Reading Assessment follows standardized administration procedures and aligns with grade-level literacy standards. It is required in Utah for grades K-3 and recommended for grades 4-6. With permission from the District Assessment Department, I analyzed end-of-year Pathways data and compared it to the observed frequency of scaffolding strategies used during Tier 1 literacy instruction. Procedure 1.​ Scheduled Observations:​ I scheduled three 30-minute observations in each teacher’s classroom during regular Tier 1 literacy instruction between February and May of 2025. This timeframe was chosen intentionally to fall after the Middle of the Year (MOY) benchmark window and before the End of the Year (EOY) benchmark window, allowing the observed instruction to influence students’ EOY Pathways of Progress scores. The observations were scheduled during the first 30 minutes of the literacy block, when most whole-group instruction typically occurs. During this time, teachers establish the day’s learning targets, introduce new spelling or morphology patterns needed to decode unfamiliar words, present key vocabulary or background knowledge, and begin reading the text with students to help build a mental framework before students continue reading with more independence. 2.​ Conducted Observations:​ During each observation, I used a scaffolding observation form (see Appendix A) to 17 document the frequency of scaffolding strategies employed by the teacher. The form tracked six scaffolding techniques identified by Van de Pol et al. (2010): feedback, hints, instructing, explaining, modeling, and questioning. As I observed scaffolding strategies, I marked a tally in the appropriate category and included a brief note describing what the teacher had done. At the end of each observation, I totaled the tallies for each scaffolding strategy and divided the total by 30 to calculate the average number of scaffolding moves per minute. After completing all three observations for each teacher, I averaged the per-minute rates across the three sessions to determine an overall scaffolding rate for each teacher. 3.​ Collected Pathways of Progress Data:​ The End-of-Year (EOY) 2025 Acadience testing window was open from April 28 to May 19. All student assessments were administered by school staff according to standardized procedures during that timeframe. After completing the classroom observations, I collected EOY Pathways of Progress data for all students in each participating class including those with IEPs, 504 plans, and other support services. For each class, I recorded the percentage of students who scored in the “typical”, “above typical”, or “well above typical” growth categories. These whole-class percentages were used to evaluate instructional effectiveness by showing how many students made meaningful growth, allowing for exploration of possible correlations between scaffolding frequency and student growth outcomes. 4.​ Analyzed Data:​ I compared each teacher’s average scaffolding rate (calculated from the three observations) with the percentage of students who scored typical or above on the Pathways of Progress measure. I analyzed overall scaffolding rates rather than individual strategy types to focus on the cumulative effect of scaffolding during instruction, rather than isolating the impact of any one technique. The goal was to 18 examine whether there was a correlation between the frequency of scaffolding strategies and student growth outcomes. I used Microsoft Excel’s statistical tools to conduct correlation and regression analyses. 5.​ Ensured Confidentiality:​ To protect participant confidentiality, I did not include the real names of schools or teachers in the study. Instead, pseudonyms School A and School B were used. All teacher and student data were anonymized, and all research procedures adhered to ethical guidelines for conducting educational research. Variables This study investigated the relationship between the frequency of scaffolding and student reading growth within a Tier 1 instructional setting. The independent variable was the overall frequency of scaffolding strategies used by teachers, measured by tallying observed scaffolding moves during three 30-minute classroom observations and calculating an average rate per minute. The dependent variable was student reading growth, as measured by the percentage of students in each class who score “typical,” “above typical,” or “well above typical” on the EOY Pathways of Progress metric from the Acadience Reading Assessment. ​ This study focused exclusively on the relationship between scaffolding frequency and student outcomes measured by Pathways of Progress. It did not account for other potential influencing variables such as prior achievement or student demographics. Data Analysis ​ In order to compare the standardized test scores with the frequency of scaffolding usage in a Tier 1 setting, I employed a correlational analysis to examine the relationship between these variables. Specifically, I used Pearson’s correlation coefficient, which measures the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two variables (Pearson, 1896). This coefficient ranges from -1 to 1, where values closer to 1 or -1 indicate a stronger relationship, and values near 0 19 indicate little to no linear correlation. Typically, correlations around 0.1 are considered weak, 0.3 moderate, and above 0.5 strong (Cohen, 1988). ​ Additionally, I conducted a regression analysis to assess how well scaffolding frequency predicts standardized test scores. Regression analysis allows us to understand the extent to which changes in scaffolding usage relate to changes in test scores, while controlling for other relevant variables as needed. This method provides insight into whether scaffolding frequency can serve as a significant predictor of student outcomes. I used Microsoft Excel to run these tests. I input the two data sets in separate columns to perform Pearson's correlation in Excel and used the function =CORREL(array1, array2). For the regression analysis, I utilized Excel’s Data Analysis Toolpak by selecting “Regression,” setting the dependent variable (standardized test scores) and the independent variable (scaffolding frequency), then reviewing the output for regression coefficients and significance levels. ​ Both correlation and regression analyses provided valuable insights into the relationship between scaffolding usage and standardized test scores, helping to understand the impact of scaffolding on student outcomes in a Tier 1 setting. Ethical Considerations ​ Several ethical considerations were addressed during this study, which involved analyzing standardized test scores and classroom scaffolding practices. First, informed consent was obtained from all participating teachers. This process involved clearly explaining the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits to ensure participants fully understood what participation entailed and could make informed decisions, with the option to withdraw from the study at any time. ​ The district assessment team granted permission to access and use the Acadience Pathways of Progress data for this research, which ensured compliance with district policies regarding student data privacy. The data collection window used aggregated class percentages 20 without disaggregating individual student data, accessed through a tool called Power BI that Davis School District uses for data security. ​ Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained by de-identifying all data and using codes instead of names to protect personal information. Data was securely stored, and access was restricted to the researcher to further safeguard privacy. ​ Finally, Weber State IRB permission approved the study to ensure it met all ethical standards for research involving human subjects. Results ​ The first step in this study was to observe each of the nine participating teachers three times to determine their average use of scaffolding strategies. Table 1 displays the number of observable scaffolding moves during each classroom visit and the average scaffolding rate calculated for each teacher across all observations. Table 1 Scaffold Per Visit & Average Scaffolds ​ Looking at the average number of scaffolds, all teachers used some scaffolds during instruction. However, the amount varied, with Teacher 7 averaging the fewest scaffolds at 8.33 – meaning just over eight scaffolds in a 30-minute period. In contrast, Teacher C had the highest average with 22.67 scaffolds within the same time frame. The overall average across all nine 21 teachers was approximately 15.67 scaffolds per 30 minutes. Most teachers clustered between 9 and 20 scaffolds, with Teacher C and Teacher I on the higher end and Teachers F and H on the lower end, indicating some variability in scaffolding across classrooms. Next, I analyzed the Pathways of Progress data to determine the percentage of students in each class who demonstrated “typical,” “above typical,” or “well above typical” growth, as indicators of instructional effectiveness. Table 2 shows the detailed breakdown of growth categories by class, while Table 3 summarizes the percentage of students in each class who scored typical or above. Table 2 Pathways of Progress Breakdown Table 3 Pathways of Progress - Number of Students with Typical or Above Total Percentage of Students with Typical or Above Progress 22 ​ The percentage of students making typical or better growth varied across classrooms. Teacher E had the highest rate at 77.27%, followed closely by Teacher G at 72%. On the lower end, Teacher H’s classroom showed the smallest percentage of students meeting growth expectations at 34.62%. Most other teachers ranged between approximately 63% and 69%, indicating variations in student growth outcomes across classrooms. Finally, I examined the relationship between teachers’ average scaffolding rates and the percentage of students achieving typical or above growth. Table 4 represents the raw data for this comparison. Table 4 Correlation Data 23 I used Microsoft Excel to calculate Pearson’s correlation coefficient, applying the formula shown in Figure 1 to compare the data sets in Table 4. The analysis revealed a correlation of 0.72, which Cohen (1988) classifies as a moderately strong correlation, indicating that higher scaffolding frequency is associated with greater student growth. Figure 1 Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient A linear regression analysis was also conducted to assess how well scaffolding frequency predicts student growth, which is shown in Figure 2. This analysis models the relationship between the two variables by fitting the best straight line through the data, enabling the predictions of one variable based on the other and indicating the strength and direction of their connection. Using the data from Table 4, I ran the linear regression in Excel and found the equation y = 0.0162x + 0.3709, with an R² value of 0.534. The slope, 0.0162, indicates that for every additional scaffold a teacher uses, the percentage of students demonstrating typical or better growth is expected to increase by about 1.6% on average. The intercept, 0.3709, represents the expected growth rate of approximately 37% if no scaffolds were used. The R2 value of 0.534 means that approximately 53% of the variation in student growth rates can be explained by the frequency of scaffolding provided by teachers. This reflects a moderately strong relationship and, consistent with the correlation results, suggests that scaffolding is an important factor in supporting student progress. Figure 2 Linear Regression Analysis of Average Scaffolds Correlation 24 Discussion ​ The results of this study reinforce the critical role scaffolding plays within Tier 1 literacy instruction, aligning with previous research that highlights scaffolding as a key strategy to differentiate instruction and support diverse learners (e.g., Wood et al., 1976; Vygotsky, 1978). This finding also supports the theoretical foundation of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (1987), which emphasizes how targeted support enables learners to progress beyond independent capabilities. The data show that while all nine teachers incorporated scaffolding during their literacy lessons, the average number of scaffolds per 30-minute session varied significantly, ranging from as few as 8.33 to as many as 22.67. ​ Correspondingly, there was notable variation in student growth outcomes, with the percentage of students reaching typical or above growth ranging from 34.63% to 77.27%. This range is meaningful in light of Utah’s 2024-25 statewide goal for 60% of students in each class to achieve typical or better growth on Pathways of Progress assessment (Utah State Board of Education, 2024), and the district’s 2024-25 goal of 72% in all grade levels (Davis School 25 District, 2024). Students in five classrooms met the state goal, and students in two classrooms met the district goal, while the students in four classrooms fell below the state goal and students in seven fell below the district goal. For example, Teacher E had one of the highest average scaffolding rates (18.67) and the highest percentage of students meeting growth expectations (77.27%). In contrast, Teacher H showed one of the lowest scaffolding averages (9) and the lowest growth percentage (34.63%). This variation reflects the concerns raised by Glogger-Frey et al. (2018) and Jones et al. (2012) about the inconsistent use of scaffolding in Tier 1 instruction, which may contribute to uneven student outcomes and missed opportunities for early intervention. ​ These findings suggest that higher scaffolding frequency may improve student outcomes by providing more consistent, tailored instructional support. Increased scaffolding helps students engage with challenging content and develop literacy skills more effectively, supporting the goal of responsive, differentiated Tier 1 instruction. Notably, the correlation between scaffolding frequency and student growth was r=0.72, indicating a strong and statistically significant positive relationship. A linear regression analysis further supports this connection, with the equation y=0.0162x+0.3709 and R² = 0.534, meaning that differences in scaffolding frequency could explain over half of the variance in student growth outcomes. This quantitative evidence aligns with Palinscar and Brown’s (1984) findings on reciprocal teaching as a scaffolding strategy that enhances reading comprehension and engagement, and it extends the theoretical framework established by Wood et al. (1976), demonstrating the measurable impact of scaffolding frequency on standardized assessments like Acadience Pathways of Progress. ​ These results are especially significant given the foundational role Tier 1 instruction plays in multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS). As the first and most critical layer of instruction, Tier 1 must be strong enough to meet the needs of the majority of students. When Tier 1 instruction is effective, fewer students require intervention at Tiers 2 and 3, making it both a preventative and equitable approach to literacy development (Allington, 2013; Hattie, 2009). The 26 strong correlation found in this study suggests that scaffolding may be one of the key levers for strengthening Tier 1 instruction. For teachers, embedding frequent and intentional scaffolds into daily literacy lessons is not just a best practice - it may be a decisive factor in helping more students meet growth expectations. This aligns with Fuch’s and Fuc’s (2006) emphasis on high-quality core instruction as a means to minimize the need for intensive support, reinforcing scaffolding’s role as a critical component of effective Tier 1 teaching. Conclusion ​ This study explored the relationship between the frequency of scaffolding in Tier 1 literacy instruction and student reading growth as measured by the Acadience Pathways of Progress assessment. The findings revealed a strong positive correlation (r=0.72) between scaffolding frequency and the percentage of students achieving typical or above growth. This indicates that teachers who used more scaffolds generally supported greater student progress. Linear regression analysis further supported this relationship, showing that additional scaffolds provided during a 30-minute literacy lesson were associated with an average increase of 1.6% in students meeting growth expectations, and over half of the variability in student growth was possibly explained by differences in scaffolding frequency, showing its significance as an instructional lever. ​ The high correlation highlights how intentional, frequent scaffolding – through strategies like providing specific feedback, offering cues and prompting, modeling skills and thinking process, offering clear explanations, asking probing questions, and providing cognitive structures (Van de Pol et al., 2010) – directly supports student literacy development and promotes equitable outcomes. ​ While the study’s small sample size and uncontrolled variables limit generalizability, the results provide compelling evidence that Tier 1 can be strengthened through consistent, responsive scaffolding. This aligns with theoretical frameworks such as Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development and prior research emphasizing scaffolding as a tool for differentiating 27 instruction and supporting diverse learners (Palinscar & Brown, 1984: Wood et al., 1976;). By embedding frequent and deliberate scaffolds into daily literacy lessons, teachers may enhance student growth, reinforcing scaffolding’s role as a critical practice for effective and equitable literacy instruction. Next Steps As districts and schools continue to invest in Tier 1 improvement, this research supports a focus on practical, observable strategies that promote growth from all learners. Professional development efforts should prioritize scaffolding as a core instructional strategy, equipping teachers with practical tools and techniques to implement it consistently. Instructional coaches and school leaders can support this work by modeling scaffolding, providing feedback, and using scaffolding frequency as a lens for classroom observation. These approaches align with the MTSS framework’s emphasis on strengthening core instruction to reduce the need for intensive interventions (Allington, 2013; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006;). Ultimately, improving Tier 1 instruction through strategies like scaffolding has the potential to elevate outcomes for all learners and reduce the need for more intensive interventions. Future studies with larger, more diverse samples could expand on these findings and further refine our understanding of how best to support student literacy development in general education settings. 28 References Acadience Learning. (2020). Acadience reading assessment manual. Acadience Learning. https://acadiencelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/AcadienceReading _Assessment_Manual.pdf Allington, R. L. (2013). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs. Pearson Education. Anderson, K. L. (2019). Explicit instruction for word solving: Scaffolding developing readers' use of code-based and meaning-based strategies. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 63(2). 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2018.1542585 Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. D. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. Guilford Press. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 Castro, D. C., Espinosa, L. M., & Paez, M. M. (2011). Defining and measuring quality in early childhood education programs for dual language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(4), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.06.003 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. Davis School District. (2024). 2024 district literacy goals and action steps. Retrieved from https://core-docs.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/ 4672/dsd/4245651/2024DISTRICTLITERACYGOALSANDACTIONSTEPS.pdf Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Progress monitoring and RTI: How is research used to shape educational practices? Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669060400030501 29 Glogger-Frey, I., Ampatziadis, Y., Ohst, A., & Renkl, A. (2018). Future teachers’ knowledge about learning strategies: Misconcepts and knowledge-in-pieces. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28, 41–55. https://doi.org.10.1016/j.tsc.2018.02.001 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 Jones, S., Cassidy, D. J., & McLoughlin, C. (2012). The role of scaffolding in language development: A review of the literature. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.004 Moats, L. C., & Tolman, C. A. (2000). LETRS Volume 1. Voyage Sopris Learning. National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Students with disabilities. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/students-with-disabilities Paige, D.D. (2018). Reading recovery won’t fix poor core tier-one reading instruction. Reading Pscyhology, 49(5), 492-497, https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1080/02702711.2018.1465554 Palincsar, A. S. (1986). Teaching reading and writing with reciprocal teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 86(5), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1086/461454 Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1 Pearson, K. (1896). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. III. regression, heredity, and panmixia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 187, 253–318. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1896.0007 30 Scanlon, D. M., Gelzheiser, L. M., Vellution, F. R., Schatschneider, C., & Sweeney, J. M. (2007). Reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional Development for classroom teachers versus direct interventions for children. Learning and Individual Difference, 18(3), 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1016;j.lindif.2008.05.002 Taylor, L.A. (2021). Scaffolding literacy learning through talk: Stance as a Pedagogical Tool. International Literacy Association, 74(4), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1958 Utah State Board of Education. (n.d.). Early learning program technical manual. Utah State Board of Education. https://www.schools.utah.gov/board/utah/_strategies_/EarlyLearningProgr amTechnicalManual.pdf Utah State Board of Education. (2024, November). Early learning program technical manual. https://www.schools.utah.gov/board/utah/_strategies_/EarlyLearningProgramTechnic alManual.pdf Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271-296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x 31 Appendix A Appendix A: Scaffolding Observation Form Date: Teacher: Grade Level: Duration of Observation: For each observed scaffolding technique, mark a tally in the frequency column and note the time stamp. Mark each time it is used. Include brief notes to provide additional context. Scaffolding Technique Description Feeding Back Providing feedback on the student’s understanding or performance to guide improvement. Examples: Specific praise, specific corrections Prompting Offering cues or questions to help students think through the next step or recall information. Examples: sentence starters, guiding questions, gestures, songs Modeling Demonstrating a skill or thinking process for students. Examples: Think-alouds, explicit modeling of steps or task Explaining Offering direction instruction or clarification to ensure students understand a concept or task. Examples: Defining terms, break down instructions into steps Frequency Notes/Examples 32 Questionin g Asking open-ended or targeted questions to encourage deeper thinking and active engagement. Examples: Questions that probe student reasoning Cognitive Structuring Helping students organize their thoughts by providing frameworks or strategies for approaching a task Examples: Graphic organizers, outlining steps Brittney Phillips Final Thesis Cover Sheet Final Audit Report 2025-08-28 Created: 2025-08-27 By: Ellynn Raynor (ellynnraynor@weber.edu) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA_R9bO-Ru86Jqfza9OGglkdrbM0b_tqoH "Brittney Phillips Final Thesis Cover Sheet" History Document created by Ellynn Raynor (ellynnraynor@weber.edu) 2025-08-27 - 5:48:42 PM GMT- IP address: 137.190.72.149 Document emailed to Jessie Nixon (jessienixon1@weber.edu) for signature 2025-08-27 - 5:50:32 PM GMT Email viewed by Jessie Nixon (jessienixon1@weber.edu) 2025-08-27 - 6:07:01 PM GMT- IP address: 66.102.6.229 Document e-signed by Jessie Nixon (jessienixon1@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2025-08-27 - 8:55:59 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 71.195.197.41 Document emailed to David Byrd (davidbyrd@weber.edu) for signature 2025-08-27 - 8:56:01 PM GMT Email viewed by David Byrd (davidbyrd@weber.edu) 2025-08-27 - 11:11:43 PM GMT- IP address: 66.102.6.228 Document e-signed by David Byrd (davidbyrd@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2025-08-27 - 11:12:19 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 24.11.98.185 Document emailed to Marilyn Taft (marilyntaft@weber.edu) for signature 2025-08-27 - 11:12:21 PM GMT Email viewed by Marilyn Taft (marilyntaft@weber.edu) 2025-08-28 - 0:59:25 AM GMT- IP address: 66.249.84.196 Document e-signed by Marilyn Taft (marilyntaft@weber.edu) Signature Date: 2025-08-28 - 0:59:45 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 136.38.97.170 Agreement completed. 2025-08-28 - 0:59:45 AM GMT