Saturday, May 29, 2010

Publishing Leadership Project


















http://issuu.com/isabellarose/docs/research-based_reading_strategy

I am having trouble with iWeb, Mobile Me yet again! I haven't lost my work this time, I just can't access it to submit any more work. I have contacted Apple, waiting on a response. Anyway, I am backing up and publishing here just in case.

The above link will open a book version of this page.

Publishing Leadership Project

Develop and Implement a Strategy to Assist Struggling Readers

to Comprehend the Main Idea in a Reading Selection: A

Synthesis of the Research

Patricia Marcino

Full Sail University

One of the problems facing struggling readers is that the students do not have adequate background knowledge, which hinders them from grasping the main idea of the text they are reading. In essence, when students read stories about things in respect for which they lack knowledge, they will not be able to grasp the main idea, unless they have some background information on the main theme of the story. Although there are abundant resources available on the problems relating to struggling readers, there has not been enough past research conducted focusing on the reading ability of students of Title 1 schools and their grasp of the main idea. There are studies concentrating on the problems of students with disabilities and learning disabilities, and those specifically targeting low socioeconomic students and reading comprehension.

Reading comprehension is a multifaceted process ranging from simple recall of sight words to mastery of plays and the ability to analyze text implications. Factors such as IQ,

home environment, instructional methods, motivation and brain synthesis all play a role in

comprehension.

FCAT Statistics

According to research utilizing a five-year study of the Florida Comprehension Assessment Test (FCAT), students in grades 3-5 from the Title 1 population typically score less on the Main Idea section of the test. The average attainment is 57%, which is well below the acceptable passing percentage of 65% which when correlated to a grade, would be a “D.” Over the five-year period, third graders’ average attainment was 53%, fourth grade 56%, and fifth grade was 56%. In order to change this trend, students must be exposed to a strategy that will aid them in understanding the main idea.



The following chart depicts the FCAT Reading Comprehension attainment for the school in which this study was conducted.

FCAT Reading Summary- Patterson Elementary School







Reading Ability and Text Comprehension

Kinder and Bursuck (1991) report that many textbooks are poorly written, thereby

not clarifying the relationship between concepts, ideas and sentences. They fail to use precise language or text structure to relate content to main idea.

Dickson, Simmons and Kameenui (2009) also note that academic texts often are not well written or constructed and that textbooks, in particular, do not necessarily follow the conventions for a well-presented text. For example, the main idea of a paragraph may be stated late in the paragraph or be missing all together. Dickson et al. (1995a, 1995b) note that, in this case, students will likely need to invent a main idea if necessary. Further, students need to experience teacher modeling, explicit teaching, and practice in order to successfully identify the structures and features of increasingly complex texts in the different content areas.

According to Rothman (2003), the nature of the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and student achievement has been debated for decades. Rothman (2003) cites the works of Coleman (1966) and Jencks, et al. (1973) for many influential arguments in this connection pertaining to the context of United States of America. There are other studies conducted in the Australian setting, which focus on the influence of socioeconomic status on student achievement (Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, 1976; Karmel, 1973). Rothman (2003) argues that there are no clear evidences to prove the influence of SES on student achievement, as there are a number of theoretical frameworks developed to explain the relationship. The views of Rothman (2003) are more in alignment with the proposed theories of the current research, which postulates the low socioeconomic students are lacking in an academic home environment. Additionally, their neighborhood environment has a profound effect on these students academic achievements.

The research by Rothman (2003) covered the period from 1980 to 2003 to assess the influence of SES on student performance in Australia. Studies were conducted on the reading abilities of students by removing them from low socioeconomic influences and placing in middle to high middle class environments. Determination of the influence of SES on the academic development and achievement of the students shifted to a new economic environment was the central focus of the study. Lower test scores were recorded and reported for low socioeconomic class students than for middle and upper middle class students. The study also found that parental occupation and environment had a definite impact on students academic achievements.

Importance of Background Knowledge

Burns, Roe & Smith (2001) state the product of the reading act is the communication of thoughts and emotions by the writer to the reader, resulting in the readers own understanding of ideas that the writer has put into print. Communication results from the readers construction of meaning through integrating his or her prior knowledge with the information presented in text.

Research on enriching background knowledge has demonstrated that activating such knowledge increases comprehension. Graves and his associates (1980,1983) developed previews for short stories that had as one component the building of prior knowledge important to understanding the selection. Data indicated that reading the previews before reading the stories increased the students learning from stories by a significant and impressive amount. Stevens (1982) conducted a study to determine whether or not direct teaching of background knowledge on the topic of instruction would benefit students when reading passages on that topic. The research was conducted with tenth grade high school boys wherein the boys were randomly assigned to one of two conditions, pre-reading instruction related to the reading topic, and non-relevant instruction on another topic. The author concluded that instruction prior to reading on text-related information improves student reading comprehension. Alvarez (1990) used case-based instruction to develop students abilities to assemble and incorporate different knowledge sources in memory. He taught them how to employ thematic organizers and hierarchical concept mapping in their reading.

Lipson (1982) examined twenty-eight third graders, half considered below average and the other half considered average in reading based on standardized achievement tests scores. An intervention, in which types of explicit versus inferential information, was tested to evaluate student acquisition of new information. The reported findings include: (a) prior knowledge was a great factor in reading comprehension for both groups, (b) acquiring new information was higher than correcting old inaccurate information, and (c) all readers resorted to using text to find information, only if prior knowledge was weak.

Teaching students from low socioeconomic background with poorly written textbooks will only lead to the creation of more struggling readers. Richard Vacca, states, Being a good reader is crucial to todays adolescents, who will need to read and write more than adults have at any other time in human history (page 51). One of the objectives of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) Act is to help those students, who are struggling readers. However, there are many avenues to be pursued in this direction. Nell K Duke is of the view that a picture is worth a thousand words when it comes to comprehension. Gardner (1999) states that about 35% of the population are visual learners.

Title 1 Struggling Readers

Following in depth research, Title 1 students participated in a 6-month study to determine the effectiveness of a strategy, which would help them to understand the main idea. Given that the majority of Title 1 students have little to no experience in schema theory, which is relating textto-self, text-to-text and text-to-world, a strategy was developed that would assist students in making connections which is necessary for reading comprehension.

Prior to the application of the strategy, the students were tested on reading comprehension with data collected from three independent formal testing formats, surveys, a series of questions after reading passages and story retelling. These scores were analyzed and the data recorded as follows:

Of the 22 students tested, 7 students scored 75% or higher in the area of main idea in a compilation of the

data.


Implementation of the Strategy-Cycle 1

At the beginning of Cycle One of the strategy, students were introduced to the idea of creating an avatar of him or herself or an imaginary character. The avatars were plain wooden dolls. After deciding on a character, the students painted the avatars.

Painting the avatars proved to be a little more undertaking than was previously thought. Several of the students did not know how to properly dip the brush or mix the paints. Additionally, some students changed their minds two to three times before deciding on a character. Many were not familiar with more than one or

two fairy tales.

t

Students were encouraged to play with the avatars, becoming totally engrossed in the characterization of the avatar.


Next, students were instructed to write a story with their avatar as the main character. Meanwhile, they were to play with the avatar each time they wrote a passage. The idea being

if the student could write about something he/she was familiar with; the student could create background knowledge, which is formidable in reading comprehension.

Making connections is a great informal assessment strategy that is generally used by teachers to help students make connections as they are reading; however, if students have little to no background knowledge to make connections to, then a different strategy must be put in place to assist students in establishing a relationship from themselves to text content.


The only assistance students received, as far as their story creation, was general conventions editing.

Following the initial edit, the students revised and edited their stories according to the rubric.

At the end of Cycle 1, all students were again tested with three formative tests, running records that had been kept since October as well as weekly comprehension tests.

After compilation of the data, of the 22 students participating, 11 students scored 75% or

higher in the area of main idea with a score of 85% or higher on their own story.


Second phase-Cycle Two

Cycle Two proved to be a very interesting undertaking as well. Even though many of the students had been exposed to computers by way of testing, gaming and research for library topics, they had not been instructed in the art of movie making. This phase was truly a literacy transformation. Not only did the students script their stories for a movie, they narrated the movie, selected music and animation. It was a great learning experience for all of them. The joy expressed in the students faces was a sight to behold. These struggling readers had not only written a story but also produced a movie from their stories and recorded a DVD, which was shared with friends and family.

Results of the Study

Not only was this a successful strategy to assist these struggling readers to understand the main idea, but it was also a confidence booster. Students had mastered a technique to bridge the gap from being a struggling reader to proficiently reading and comprehending text.

Students were able to establish a knowledge base, from which to make a connection to a story and understand the main idea. Additionally, students saw their story come to life by way of creating a digital story.

At the end of Cycle Two, Post- testing was administered under the same premise as at the beginning of the project. Results were outstanding.

Post compilation of identical instrumentation produced 18 out of 22 students scored 75% or higher in reading comprehension; main idea. The data yielded 100% on main idea when tested on the stories the students had written.



Based on formative data from three sources, summative data which was on-going weekly and a compilation of academic grades, overall there has been an average of an 18% increase in students understanding main idea from an unfamiliar reading selection. If the students self-created story for background knowledge is considered, then the rate is even higher at a 43% increase!

Conclusion:

The data speaks for itself. It has been conclusively proven that a strategy, which allows students to create stories they can relate to by forming their own background knowledge effectively, impacts understanding of the main idea in unfamiliar stories for which they have no background knowledge. The students were able to analyze the main characters involvement in the reading selections and or ascertain what facts were being presented that describe the main idea; thereby, substantiating what research has revealed; background knowledge is essential to understanding the main idea.

References

Alvarez, M. (1990). Knowledge activation and schema construction. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Boston, MA

April 16-20, 1990.

Bay District Schools: AYP data charts

Burns, P., Roe, B., & Smith, S. (2002). Teaching reading in today’s elementary schools.

New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin Company

Coleman, J., (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office.

Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995a). Text organization and its

relation to reading comprehension: A synthesis of the research. Technical Report No.

17. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon, National Center to Improve the Tools of

Educators. Retrieved March 1, 2010 from:

http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech17.html

Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1995b). Text organization: Curricular

and instructional implications for diverse learners. Technical Report No. 18. Eugene,

OR: University of Oregon, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators.

Retrieved March 1, 2010, from

http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech18.html

Florida Department of Education: FCAT data charts

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York, NY: Basic.

Graves, M., et al. (1983). Effects of previewing difficult short stores on low ability

junior high school students’ comprehension recall and attitudes. Reading Research

Quarterly 18 (3) Spring 183, 262-76. EJ 279 344

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., &

Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and

schooling in America. New York: Basic.

Kameenui, E., Simmons, D. (2009). What reading research tells us about children

with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (The Lea series on special

education and disability). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates.

Karmel, P. (chair) (1985) Quality of education in Australia. Report of the Review

Committee. Canberra: AGPS.

Kinder, D., & Bursuck, W. (1991). The search for a unified social studies curriculum:

Does history repeat itself? Journal of Learning Disabilities. 24, 270-275.

Lipson, M. (1982). Learning new information from text: the role of prior knowledge

and reading ability. Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 243-261.

Rothman, S. (2003). The changing influence of socioeconomic status on student

achievement: recent evidence from Australia: Australian Council for

Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia.

Stevens, K. (1982). Can we improve reading by teaching background information?

Journal of Reading, January 326-329.

Vacca, R. (1998). Content area reading: literacy and learning across the curriculum.

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Action Research video-Cycle 2

Cycle 2 is nearly completed. I am waiting for FCAT data as well as end of the year test results from FAIR, Harcourt and Think Link. In the meantime, please enjoy one of the student videos.


Time Line

While I am updating my AR website, I am trying to keep all of my data here as well, just in case I have another crash.

Here is the link to my timeline:

http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/55093

Please follow the link and you will see my time line.

Friday, April 30, 2010

Data Analysis of Cycle 2

Cycle 2 is now complete. However, I cannot post my research data in totality until after I have administered the final end of the year reading comprehension test. I will be doing that last step next week. I do have intermittent data of reading comprehension weekly tests as well as the final Avatar story test data.

I was very pleased with the results of the data for the avatar project as well as all of my students have shown a significant increase in reading comprehension and understanding of main idea. The real test will be when we receive the FCAT results which will be the week of May 19th. Then, I will have a better idea if my strategy has had any real impact on my students.

Action Research Project References

Develop and Implement a Strategy to Assist Struggling Readers

to Comprehend Main Idea in a Reading Selection

Literature Review by Patricia Marcino

References

Alvarez, M. (1990). Knowledge activation and schema construction. Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association: Boston, MA

April 16-20, 1990.

Bates, E. (1999). Language and the infant brain. Journal of Communication Disorders,

32 (July-August), 195-205

Benton, D., & Roberts, G. (1998). Effect of vitamin and mineral supplementation on

intelligence of a sample of school children. Lancet, 1 (8578), 140143.

Bloom, B. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw Hill.

Brantmeir, C. (2003). Does gender make a difference? Passage and comprehension in

second language readers. Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol 15, No.1, 2003.

Brown, N., & Evans, R. (1998). Socioeconomic status and education: Living in a social

world. Psy 324 Advanced Social Psychology.

Burns, P., Row, B., & Smith, S. (2002). Teaching reading in today’s elementary schools.

New York, NY: Houghton-Mifflin Company.

Buzzell, K. (1998). The children of Cyclops: The influence of television viewing on the

developing brain. San Francisco: Association of Waldorf Schools of North America.

Carrell, P., (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading

comprehension. Language Learning, 33, 2, 183-207.

Coleman, J., (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office.

Crnic, K., Lamberty, G. (1994). Reconsidering school readiness: Conceptual and

applied perspective. Early Education and Development, 5 (2), 9-105.

Deutsche, N. (2003). The brain-based learning theory. Retrieved March 29, 2010,

from: http://www.nellemuller.com/Brain-Based_Learning_Theory.htm.

Duncan, G., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1991). Consequences of growing up poor. New York:

Sage.

Fussell, P. (1983). Class: A guide through the American status system. New York:

Touchstone.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York, NY: Basic.

Grasser, A., Golding, J., & Long, D. (1991). Narrative representation and comprehension.

In R.Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading

Research. Vol. 2, pp 171-204. White Plains, NY: Longman

Graves, M., & Cook, C. (1980). Effects of previewing difficult short stories for high

school students. Research on Reading in Secondary Schools, 6, 38-54.

Graves, M., et al. (1983). Effects of previewing difficult short stores on low ability

junior high school students’ comprehension recall and attitudes. Reading Research

Quarterly 18 (3) Spring 183, 262-76. EJ 279 344

Gurney, D., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story of grammar. Effective

literature instruction for high school students with disabilities. Journal of Learning

Disabilities. 23, 335-342, 348.

Hayes, D., Tierney, R. (1982). Developing readers’ knowledge through analogy.

Reading Research Quarterly 17 (2), 1982, 256-80. EJ 257 814.

Ingoldsby, B., Smith, S., & Miller, J. (2004). Exploring family theories. Los Angeles:

Roxbury.

Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., &

Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and

schooling in America. New York: Basic.

Jenson, E. (2008). Brain-based learning: The new paradigm of teaching.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Kameenui, E., Simmons, D. (2009). What reading research tells us about children

with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (The Lea series on special

education and disability). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates.

Karmel, P. (chair) (1985) Quality of education in Australia. Report of the Review

Committee. Canberra: AGPS.

Knapp, M., et al., (1993). Academic challenge for the children of poverty: Study of

academic instruction for disadvantaged students. Findings and conclusions.

Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Kinder, D., & Bursuck, W. (1991). The search for a unified social studies curriculum:

Does history repeat itself? Journal of Learning Disabilities. 24, 270-275.

Krashen, S.(1992). Fundamentals of language education. Chicago, IL: SRA/McGraw Hill.

Mills, C. (1956). The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ming-Yueh, S., & Kuey, H. (2007). Collaborative action research for reading strategy

instructions. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language and Teaching. 4 (1), 108-121.

Centre for Language Studies: National University of Singapore.

National Institutes of Health. (2010). A lesson on PET scans developed for scientists

studying color indicators in the frontal lobe of language development. Retrieved

April 15, 2010 from: http://science.education.nih.gov.

Owens, R. (2009). Cultural socioeconomic and gender differences. Retrieved

March 28, 2010 from online journal-Pearson-Allyn Bacon Prentice-Hall:

http://www.education.com.

Payne, R. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty. Highland, TX: aha! Process,

Incorporated.

Ramey, S., & Ramey, C. (2004). Early learning and school readiness: Can early

intervention make a difference? Merrill Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 50, 4, October, 2004,

pp 471-491.

Ranchler, R. (1993). The transition to school: Why the first few years matter for a

lifetime. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (30), 194-198.

Rothman, S. (2003). The changing influence of socioeconomic status on student

achievement: recent evidence from Australia: Australian Council for

Educational Research, Melbourne, Australia.

Rumelhart, D.. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In Rand J. Spiro,

et al., EDS. Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (33-58). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Salataci, R., & Akyel, A. (2002). Possible effects of strategy instruction on L1 and L2

reading. Reading in a Foreign Language. Vol 14, No. 1

Sennett, R., & Cobb, J. (1993). The hidden injuries of class. London/Boston: Faber &

Faber.

Shaw, M. (1932). A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational

solution of complex problems. American Journal of Psychology, 44, 491-504.

Sylwester, R. (1996). Celebrating Neurons, ASCD. Retrieved February 29, 2010 from

http://members.aol.com/Rss51540/brain2.htm

Society for Neurosciences. (2002). Brain facts: A primer on the brain and nervous system.

Washington, DC: Everbest.

Sousa, D. (2001). How the brain learns 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Tierney, R., & Pearson, P. (1985). Learning to learn from texts: A framework for

improving classroom practice. In H.S. Singer and R.B. Ruddell, Eds. Theoretical

Models and Processing of Reading (860-78). Newark, DE: International Reading

Association, ED 262 389.

University of Alabama at Birmingham. (2010). UAB Magazine. Plasticity. Retrieved

April 23, 2010 from: http://www.uab.edu.uabmagazine.edu.

Viadero, D. (1996). Brain trust. Education Week. September 18, 1996.

Weaver, C., Kintsch, W. (1991). Expository text. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil,

P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2,

pp171-204. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Zastrow, C. (1999). Introduction to social work and social welfare. New York:

Wadsworth Publishing

Zill, N., Collins, M. & Hausken, E. (1995). School readiness and children’s

developmental status. ERIC Digest.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Cycle 2 Progress


Just prior to Spring Break, all students have completed the writing of their avatar stories. Thirteen students have completed Cycle 1 and 2 inasmuch as creating the story, painting the avatar, publishing their story to a DVD and testing on the story. As soon as school resumes on April 12th, the remaining nine students will publish their avatar stories to DVD and take a comprehensive test on the story that they created. The picture to the left is one of my students who is creating a digital story from her written story.
My goal in the creation of my action research project was to create a strategy that would help students to identify the main idea in a story. The strategy I used was that my students would first create an avatar, then write a story about the avatar. I tested each student on their own story for comprehension, fluency and main idea. The thirteen students who have completed all phases of the Cycles, passed each section of the assessment, thereby demonstrating to me they understood main idea.
In further assessments of main idea, these thirteen students have all succeeded in identifying main idea. Next week, I will assess the remaining nine students.
My literature review research demonstrated that there has been very little research conducted in the area of Title 1 students, reading comprehension and specifically targeting main idea. However, some of the research which targeted struggling readers overall, was of benefit to my study.
The information in each of the courses I have completed at Full Sail University has contributed to the validity of my research. My course this month, Learning Management Systems and Organizations has enlightened me in the arena of e-learning. Students do respond better to digital stories. I have set up a few e-learning sites for my students to access for the remainder of the school year. Already, I am seeing improvement in reading comprehension and fluency.
Some of the games I have scheduled my students to play as a part of their core studies has enriched their vocabulary and math skills. I would say that the skill building that is embedded into the games is subliminal. Students do not realize that they are building skills.
One reason students have all agreed upon in their interviews about digital stories is that they are fun and interesting. A student stated that the digital stories seem to be alive whereas the stories in their textbooks are difficult to follow.
Those of us who are visual learners would probably agree that watching the movie is more entertaining than reading the book. It may be a toss up for some, however, whether one would retain more information from viewing the movie or reading the book. In either case, my strategy seems to be working.
After the final DVD's have been created, I will pull together all the data from Cycle 2 and compare it to Cycle 1.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

Update on Cycle 2

I am in awe of the talent of my students. I wish I could share all of their videos with you to view. We are coming along right on schedule to complete Cycle 2 in mid-April. Were it not for Spring Break, we could complete it next week.

My students have created their videos (digital stories) themselves. I gave them instructions once, assisted two of my students with the first two videos and they have become editors and producers themselves. They are helping their classmates to finish their stories on time.

We do not have the capabilities to burn CD's at school, so I will burn all of them next week, hopefully. The students have worked hard and been very creative in their stories.

Hopefully, next post, I will be able to share a little something with you.

All of my students have learning gains in reading comprehension since the assessment prior to FCAT. I am anxiously waiting for the FCAT results.